The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers - by David Kirtley

1745GMT
Had a nice long weekend, hiking, swimming, photographing, etc.

CO'N man shows us a Niño, a Pause, and another Niño, with warming comparable to that of the early 20th century, and no tell tale sign of human interference with climate.

BBQ asserts the hockey stick is an American invention, and since MBH are American citizens there is some superficial truth to the assertion. And were it not for the CRU email leaks historians of science might have been none the wiser, but the emails tell a different story, of a English mother and an American baby, born as British as the 13 colonies. How British (and European) is the hockey stick? Let us count the ways.

1) Thatcher set up the CRU for the purpose of assessing the danger of global warming. The EU lavishly funded the CRU with the apparently assigned mission of identifying evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
2) The CRU adopted dendrochronology as the best hope for such identification when models failed to reproduce natural variation .
3) P D Jones of CRU collaborated with Bradley in 1993 to smooth the LIA out of the graphs. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley1993b.pdf
4) Briffa established himself as the go to guy to get tree ring studies published.
5) Briffa and others asserted the utility of dendrochronology for climate reconstruction by insisting that tree ring density could be used not only as precipitation proxy but also as temperature proxy, by first identifying volcanic eruptions.
6) Briffa encouraged dendrochronologists to publish temperature reconstructions whether or not the data warranted them, as we see with Graybill and Funkhauser.
http://www.di2.nu/foia/0842992948.txt
7) The CRU covertly campaigned to oust editors and discredit journals that published criticism of the warming dogma as espoused by the CRU. They are more activists than scientists: http://www.di2.nu/foia/1057941657.txt
8) MBH could be confident of publication even when their novel statistics rewrote climatic history, eliminating the most pronounced natural variation, the LIA. They knew they were offering precisely what the EU and CRU were looking for.
9) CRU man Phil Jones was eager to collaborate with Mann in subsequent publications.

So Briffa, Jones and colleagues set the stage for the blooming of junk science and MBH were glad to comply. Of course not all the CRU were happy with such a cheap and easy proof of doom when some of them were still sticking to legitimate observation, but none had the guts to publicly denounce the schtick. The few who dissented from within quickly found their place among the compliant silent minority.

But the hockey stick is a tiny piece of the climate fraud: SLR, super storms, extinctions are fraudulent scares in their near entirety. And the conspiracies invented: all the skeptics are funded by big oil--all 3% of the whole. Back when the alarmists were harping on cooling, realists like Singer were worried about warming. When the CRU jumped the observation gun they spoke out, and were labeled deniers, funded by Exxon et al. We're talking about the biggest scientific fraud the world has ever seen, and there's not a competent scientist on the planet who buys into the world of warming doom. If there were there would exist some consensus of workable solutions, like ramping up nuclear energy. That a quack like Oreskes can so easily shout down a fellow quack like Hansen who at least gets his solutions right, shows how insanely corrupt the science really is. Shut down the reactors and tax the hell our of 'em, while Asia ignores the nonsense.
--AGF

1) Thatcher set up the CRU for the purpose of assessing the danger of global warming. The EU lavishly funded the CRU with the apparently assigned mission of identifying evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Complete bollocks from start to finish. CRU set up in 1971 - *not* by Thatcher - who only became PM in 1979. As for funding, Wiki sez:

Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[6] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[5] Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions.[7]

Why bother proceeding? Especially when one lot of rubbish is followed by this:

But the hockey stick is a tiny piece of the climate fraud [...] We’re talking about the biggest scientific fraud the world has ever seen, and there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who buys into the world of warming doom.

Pure tinfoil. If you want a serious discussion, ditch the conspiracy lunacy. There isn't a competent climate scientist on the planet who *doesn't* recognise that the physics is correct and AGW is real, is us and is potentially extremely dangerous.

Climate change denial: We’re talking about the biggest anti-scientific fraud the world has ever seen, and there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who doubts that the world is warming.

You were close, AGF, only needed a slight amount of editing to get something worth publishing.

BS: "...and there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who doubts that the world is warming..."

Including me.

1971? My memory failed me. So it began in the days of the cool scare as promoted by its first boss, H Lamb. AS for EU funding, see:
https://books.google.com/books?id=if4jI20wxOUC&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=eu…
"Most of the CRU's funding for climate research comes from external grants and research contracts, with the European Commission as the largest source" (p.303).

Here's Briffa sending out feelers on applying for a 17 million Euro EU grant. Did he get it? Most likely.

Lavishly funded? The emails brag continually of weekly trips to this place and that, for the purposes of...you tell me.

Does lavish funding from the EU or claims of such constitute conspiracy ideation? You tell me, but you seem to think so. And I point out over and over how the conspiracies originate in the believer camp: BIG OIL, EXXON, BIG COAL funds the "deniers." And it's all BS, but it all goes over your head, while you zoom in on the comparatively irrelevant details.

The initial forcing is real, the feedbacks are unknown, as is the danger. Global cooling remains a more credible threat. But if you were right, we should do something about it, like ramp up nuclear power, which is pretty much out of the question under the quacks in charge. And the Chinese open a coal plant every week or two. You're all complete idiots.
--AGF

1310GMT
Here's that €17M EU grant consideration: http://web.archive.org/web/20130203110833/http://di2.nu/foia/1092433030…
--AGF

1971? My memory failed me.

You were flat-out wrong and what you wrote was bollocks, AGF.

Does lavish funding from the EU or claims of such constitute conspiracy ideation? You tell me, but you seem to think so.

No, AGF you think that, not me. You think that:

But the hockey stick is a tiny piece of the climate fraud […] We’re talking about the biggest scientific fraud the world has ever seen

You are a conspiracy theorist and as a consequence, clearly a crank. And when confronted over your crankery, you can't even get your own tinfoil hat on straight. It's pitiful.

The initial forcing is real, the feedbacks are unknown, as is the danger.

Argument from assertion and basically wrong anyway. We've already established from palaeoclimate behaviour that the feedbacks net positive and ECS to a radiative forcing change of ~3.7W/m^2 is about 3C.

No one disagrees that agf is in denial of reality.

1720GMT

BBD, denial conspiracy theorist par excellence, doesn't want anyone claiming conspiracy besides him. You say conspiracy? You're a crank. I say it? That's OK; I'm always right:

"BBD says:
December 11, 2013 at 10:14 am
This is what I mean when I say that the denial industry has constructed a false narrative for contrarians to karaoke. Misdirection, false equivalence and dogmatism are central to it all and it needs to be shut out of public discourse because it is a fundamental distortion of the truth. If more were publicly known about the contrarian spin machine, its outputs would be less tolerated by the public and (more) policy makers. Perhaps it’s not the science that needs better communication, but the dishonest tactics of the misinformation industry. IMO, people do not realise what is going on behind the scenes and that is the greatest ‘communication’ problem of the lot."
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/communicating-unc…

So maybe BBQ thinks the world is in trouble, but even that remains in doubt. If there were the tiniest shred of sincerity in his advocacy of climate doom he would come out and denounce Oreskes as a fraud for calling Hansen a denier for advocating nuclear energy. BBQ can't do that because he is a fraud. He has no real interest in solving the CO2 problem.

Prove me wrong, BBQ. --AGF

Good comment, that. I must have been on form on 09/12/2013. But why have you brought this up? There is a wealth of evidence that the denial industry is at core funded by vested interest. If you are in a mood to be educated in public, we can review it together here.

he would come out and denounce Oreskes as a fraud for calling Hansen a denier for advocating nuclear energy. BBQ can’t do that because he is a fraud. He has no real interest in solving the CO2 problem.

Prove me wrong, BBQ.

It's BBD. Can't you even get the simplest things right?

I said above somewhere that you were muddling this up horribly (in your usual way). Hansen and Oreskes agree on the science and disagree on energy policy. As is their perfect right. I've already said that I suspect that Hansen has a deeper understanding than Oreskes of the engineering and technology challenges that need to be overcome in order to transition to a renewables-only world. Why you keep going on about this is mystifying. Presumably you just haven't got anything else.

1840GMT

BBQ: "There is a wealth of evidence that the denial industry is at core funded by vested interest. If you are in a mood to be educated in public, we can review it together here."

Total conspiratorial rubbish. The alarmist camp is out funded a thousand to one over the skeptics. Fire away. But first note that you evaded the meat of the matter. Solutions are what count, not ideologies. Most skeptics are in favor of Hansen's solution, only for different reasons. Oreskes' ignorance is dangerous if the globe is really threatened, but you are incapable of coherence--of tackling solutions rather than rationale for solutions.

To make it easier for you, if CO2 is dangerous as you claim, the likes of Oreskes must be marginalized; the skeptics are ultimately on your side. You're just not smart enough to figure that out. Or you're a fraud.
--AGF

a great f/wit:

Most skeptics are in favor of Hansen’s solution

They're not actually. They favour the cheapest solution with zero Carbon pricing which for the time being usually means fossil fuels.

AGW

Brulle (2013) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations.

The 'alarmist camp' exists only in your mind. There are the misinformers (see Brulle) the misinformed (see mirror) and the rest of us. And there's no equivalence between peddling misinformation for vested interest and promoting the public understanding of science.

1450GMT
BBQ: "The ‘alarmist camp’ exists only in your mind."

That reminds me of Ahmadinejad denying the existence of gays in Iran: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/09/24/16472/ahmadinejad-denies-e…

David Viner's prediction 16 years ago of no more snow in 20 years apparently stemmed from an honest conviction shared by most his colleagues, who warned of the demise of the Scottish ski industry. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/20/children-snow/
Now record snow storms are explained as a product of global warming. But there was nothing honest about former IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri's prediction of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035, and its insertion into the IPCC report of 2007. He called Jairam Ramesh's expert survey "voodoo science":
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/himalayan-glaci…
The IPCC eventually retracted the report and the lying sleaze bag Pachauri retained his post. He was just doing what he was supposed to do. You can' t always get away with it.

I could give one or two examples per day indefinitely, but this long history of false alarms--of alarmist pseudoscience--the existence of which the denier BBQ denies--is of course the main factor behind public skepticism. Nobody needs corporate funding of conservative think tanks to instill doubt in the minds of people whose memories can span a week or two.

But if such magnanimous funding as BBQ imagines did exist, one could only ask, where is it going? The first thing I would do is start a TV channel debunking climate hysteria, but I can't find so much as a billboard or bumper sticker in my back yard. Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the WSJ are profit making outfits, quite capable of getting by without help from donors. Brulle's paper is wishful nonsense, equating supposedly conservative funding to promotion of skepticism. Of his figure 2 the only group I recognize as being devoted to climate is the Heartland Institute. And I might mention that the overlap between Oreskes' conspiracy theory and BBQ/Brulle's conspiracy is just about zilch.

Where the overlap is is between socialists and social engineering and climate doom on the one hand, and capitalists and conservatives and economic realists on the other. A sucker is born every second now and no Darwinian mechanism has evolved to weed them out.
--AGF

agf:

there was nothing honest about former IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri’s prediction of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035

The only thing that is dishonest is the claim that the IPCC was dishonestly claiming that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The 2035 typo originated from this statement:

The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350.

I could give one or two examples per day indefinitely

of your dishonest claims.

But we already knew that.

1815GMT
CO'N man can't even parrot the alarmist apology right. The supposed typo he refers to would have been made in 1999 according to his source, by the author of a magazine article. The IPCC accepted the magazine article precisely because of the enhanced alarm the eight year old typo introduced.

We know moreover that Pachauri condemned the expert report of Jairam Ramesh as I indicated above, calling it "voodoo science," because it attempted to set the lying record straight. CO'N man's BS is typical white washing of the truth just as was done with the CRU email probe. You can't believe anything an alarmist tells you, especially when one says there is no such thing as an alarmist camp.
--AGF

But if such magnanimous funding as BBQ imagines did exist, one could only ask, where is it going?

So-called 'think tanks' that peddle right wing ideology on a wide range of topics.

Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the WSJ are profit making outfits, quite capable of getting by without help from donors.

The right wing media just megaphones the misinformation generated and disseminated by the 'think tanks' - who are paid by vested interest to generate and spread misinformation.

Of his [Brulle's] figure 2 the only group I recognize as being devoted to climate is the Heartland Institute.

Shows what you don't know. See first link, above.

0120hours4June2016GMT
Every dooms day cult has been absolutely certain it had a monopoly on truth and that the rest of the world wandered in benighted ignorance, and BBQ is no different. He knows he's right, and anyone who differs from him is a heretic, a denier of truth, a corrupt propagandist and a shill for Big Oil. He has science on his side and science is infallible. He is blind to the most remote possibility that he could be wrong in any significant part of his world view. And he thinks those who doubt any part of his dogma are evil and dishonest.

Well I've tried to inject a little reality into his world view by pointing out the dichotomy of the debate: we have a supposedly infallible climate science of doom, and we have a host of proposed solutions to address the supposedly infallible science of doom. BBQ is in the minority of climate fanatics in supporting nuclear energy, but he would be among the majority of skeptics with such support. But his blind dogmatism will not allow him to recognize his dilemma. The credo is paramount; the discipline is worthless.

The current CO2 crisis is largely a result of the the antinuclear campaign of the 70s. If the US and UK had followed France's lead, the CO2 output of the West would have been cut in half, maybe more. Environmentalists helped create the problem and environmentalists are the last to solve it. Most skeptics favor nuclear energy.

Now I don't know what these evil think tanks have to say about it, and I bet BBQ doesn't have a clue either, but my guess is any responsible conservative or libertarian tank would be low on ethanol and wind and high on nuclear. The skeptics are the only ones with solutions to the doom even if they are too smart to believe in it. BBQ would rather roast than admit it.
--AGF

Complete and utter bollocks from start to finish, AGW. Does not merit a serious response.

1430GMT

Initiate: I believe.

BBQ: You're saved.

Initiate: That's all?

BBQ: Yup.

We like our religion easy. --AGF

the alarmist apology right: The IPCC accepted the magazine article precisely because of the enhanced alarm

As if an apology would say it was included precisely because of the enhanced alarm.

I'll leave agf to continue with his daily dishonest claims.

agf:

The current CO2 crisis is largely a result of the the antinuclear campaign of the 70s.

But there is no CO2 crisis according to climate science denialists like agf. You can't keep your shit straight.

AGW

BBQ is in the minority of climate fanatics in supporting nuclear energy, but he would be among the majority of skeptics with such support. But his blind dogmatism will not allow him to recognize his dilemma. The credo is paramount; the discipline is worthless.

Okay - this much I will respond to.

All plausible estimates suggest that the best we might manage with intensive nuclear build-out is ~30% of world electricity demand by mid-century. So 'sceptics' who claim that nuclear will - alone - solve the decarbonisation problem are (as ever) badly misinformed.

The problem is so big and the timescale for action so limited that it's going to take all available low-carbon technologies (with a heavy emphasis on solar and wind) to have even a hope of averting high-risk warming.

I'll add that I keep seeing deniers trying to start food fights over nuclear. It's boring.

1740GMT
Socialist U S presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has promised to decommission all nuclear power plants as his contribution to the problem of global warming. Germany has shut down eight of its seventeen nuclear plants with plans to shut down the others and replace them with lignite coal burners, just because of Fukushima. Of course in those regions where Haupt Deutsch is spoken the reactors are especially vulnerable to tsunamis.

Meanwhile, with the rising cost of electricity due to massive investment in expensive renewables, UK retirees can't afford to heat their homes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050961/Thousands-dying-afford-…
This piece of news no doubt originated in an American think tank funded by Exxon et al.

Here's the latest anti-alarmist complaint, ostensibly motivated by the potential loss of Australian tourism but in reality fomented by the fossil fuel industry somewhere, since there is no such thing as an "alarmist camp," let alone a legitimate anti-alarmist camp, as BBQ assures us:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2…

This video most likely did not originate in the propagandizing innards of Exxon--a dead consumer is not very profitable: https://youtu.be/bXEddCLW3SM

One of the better examples of global climate alarm is the case of Jorge Montt Glacier, which made news around the world when its melt rate of half a mile a year was caught on time lapse photography: http://www.thejournal.ie/researchers-release-images-detailing-glaciers-…
"The Journal ie" was one of the few news outlets that included the real reason for the rapid retreat, the peculiar bathymetry of the fjord.

Wikipedia's entry on the Jorge Montt glacier made no mention of this until I updated it a few months ago. And while it mentioned Rivera's paper it provided no link to it until I did. And it never told about the the evidence for a MWP forest being covered by the advance of the LIA until I inserted Rivera's quote.

No news outlet in the world did--only a couple of climate skeptic blogs, Paul Homewood's and Pierre Gosselin's. Yet BBQ would have you believe that my reporting it here was dependent on a Big Oil funded skeptical echo chamber.

In the real world climate skepticism is fomented by critical thinkers who do their homework. --AGF

This piece of news no doubt originated in an American think tank funded by Exxon et al

No, it comes from a 'think tank' in the UK called the GWPF which refuses to reveal the sources of its funding. And it's wrong. The price of natural gas accounted for the increase in UK energy prices leading up to 2011. Not the few per cent of the bill made up of 'green taxes'.

So the butcher's bill goes to the FF industry.

Can't be bothered with the rest of your comment as you did not respond to #550.

2030GMT
Why did the chicken cross the street? To get to the other side. Why are UK energy prices rising? The price of natural gas has gone up. Who pays for all those idle windmills? Certainly not the power consumer.

I linked to the "Daily Mail," which used Professor John Hills' study, commissioned by Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne.

The GWPF reproduced part of this article: http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-energy-prices-rising-much/
...by Lewis Page in "The Register," which is based in part on this report: http://www.npower.com/idc/groups/wcms_content/@wcms/@corp/documents/bus…
...written by Big Oil itself. No doubt Big Oil paid GWPF millions to reproduce a little of The Register's article. But did Big Oil pay Lewis Page a hefty sum for picking up on their release? Who knows? But the alarmist camp is far better funded and connected than the skeptics, and is probably paying out millions right and left to its puppets in the press.

But does cold weather kill more people than warm weather? You'd better believe it, notwithstanding all the alarmist propaganda you hear. Even WHO will tell you so. But there's no alarmist camp; only alarmist skeptics. And there's no GW conspiracy; only a conspiracy of Big Oil and skeptics. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
--AGF

PS. Comment #550 is your typical rubbish. 76% of France's electricity is from nuclear. UK: 21%, to be cut in half within a decade. The US is about the same, and will be cut to zero if Bernie Sanders has his way. What might have been.

by definition a myth is something that never happened, LONG BEFORE the 70's in the 50's yes the 50's long before articles written in 70's, we were taught in " junior high" 2 things-- "not by news media", -1. a massive glacier would come down middle of US into Texas, I just hoped it would not reach Houston 2. when world reached 7 billion would have mas starvation and wars would be about nations getting food. NEITHER HAPPENED but REAL SCIENTISTS predicted BOTH and the stories were NOT A MYTH!!!

Also did you know the office of Climate Scientist, which John Holdren in Obama Admin. , now holds was created by Pres. Nixon over scientists, including CIA that a coming ice age could create massive disasters for the world. GOSH, without the myth of an ice age, as YOU SAY , what job would Holdren have ??

Greg, you were not alive when this was taught,

By definition a 1970s myth is something that never happened in the 1970s.

I think you missed the "1970s" part Jim.

"NEITHER HAPPENED but REAL SCIENTISTS predicted BOTH and the stories were NOT A MYTH!!!"

No, those stories are myths, apocrypha, lies.

Oh, maybe you can find one or two crackpots calling for the end of the world, but of no greater import or standing or believed better than the same crackpot with a sign on their chest ranting on a street corner.

Chris O'Neill: "By definition a 1970s myth is something that never happened in the 1970s. I think you missed the “1970s” part Jim."

Well sheeeeit, the myth was even studied, and a link to that study has been provided (above). Hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmists love to insist "I remember when it was global cooling!" even though they do *NOT* remember any such claims made by scientists--- their cult leaders stated it happened, therefore the cult followers "remember" it did. That behavior has also been extensively studied: people remember that which never happened when they are told it happened by "authority." Note how well that behavior is described in the novel 1984.

70s ice age: the facts that refute the claim.

The paper that created the myth: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global…

The global cooling mole:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-coolin…

Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Utter nonsense.

See e.g. SCIENCE DENIER WEB SITE DELETED AS PER BLOG POLICY

Sorry folks but the "settled science" in the 1970s actually WAS that there was another ice age on the way caused by, you guessed, those nasty human beings.

[NOTE: David, no linking to sites such as that on this blog. -gtl]

There was a 'beware the coming ice age' cover on Time (or Science or some other major magazine) in the late 70's. I know because I remember it. We had it in our house. It was talked about on the nightly news as well.

Whether this writer thinks this Time cover existed or not; whether or not there was serious consideration of a coming ice age or not; I was an adult in the early 70s and I bought this issue of Time. The "coming ice age" article was in the magazine. Additionally the concern went on for years. Modern day "scientists" would rather spread fear and stupidity based on "computer models" than telling the truth. First, climate change is always happening; it's called weather. Second, any work on a computer still centers on "garbage on, garbage out" fact. Third, many sources of global warming/climate change have been proven to be falsified.

additionally, Stephen Hawking, the smartest human being in the world, says that maybe in 1,000 years the earth might be uninhabitable!

"I was an adult in the early 70s and I bought this issue of Time.

Good. Were you then, or are you now, adult enough to realize that Time was not a science journal?

"First, climate change is always happening; it’s called weather.
Apparently you aren't as on top of things as you would have us believe.

"Third, many sources of global warming/climate change have been proven to be falsified."
Well let's see: aside from the odd wording, "many" is not all, and despite your correct but perfectly irrelevant comment about computers, nothing has contradicted the data that warming is proceeding and is enhanced by human activity.

The “coming ice age” article was in the magazine. Additionally the concern went on for years.

The extent to which the "coming ice age" claims and the concerns went on for years is due solely to their being promoted by non-scientific media -- for the purposes of drawing people's attention and making money.

And it obviously drew your attention. Which provides the explanation for your next claim...

Modern day “scientists” would rather spread fear and stupidity

Modern day scientists, and non-modern day scientists would rather perform research to find out the facts and truths about the world (via physics, chemistry, planetary science, etc.) Most of them spend no time with, and aren't interested in, spreading anything in the media. They prefer to report their work in scientific journals. Which most people (such as yourself, by what you've demonstrated) find too dry and boring to bother to read.

The media corporations, by contrast, live & die by drawing viewers & readers, in order to sell advertising and subscriptions. And, as they are well aware, nothing sells like controversy. And where there is instead consensus and certainty, they must do what they must do to generate false controversies -- in order to sell & survive. They're good at this: You bought it, obviously. (In more ways than one!)

So, your claim about "spread fear and stupidity" applies to the media, such as Time, Newsweek, etc., and not to "scientists".

climate change is always happening; it’s called weather.

We'll forgive you for your ignorance here. "Climate" is the long-term trends of "weather" in a region of interest. "Weather" change is always happening, yes. And as it does, the "climate" typically stays the same -- it's supposed to: An unchanging "climate" gives us a predictable range of weather patterns, including predictable swings in temperature. When "climate" changes, it indicates something is upsetting the normal weather patterns, such as a trend of increasing temperatures. This is abnormal, and requires an abnormal cause -- such as dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

You might read up on this; it's really interesting and you'll likely learn something useful.

any work on a computer still centers on “garbage on, garbage out” fact.

And this is why you should be happy to know that a great deal of effort is made by a very large number of scientists in many fields, in many countries, to collect a variety of data -- which is good for cross-checking -- and this data is carefully vetted and properly prepared to ensure that no "garbage" goes into their models.

You'll also be relieved to know that the different groups of scientists that study climate carefully check the published work of other climate scientists -- with an eye toward catching any of these mistakes that you're obviously worried about. (Yes, scientists compete with each other in a sort of rivalry, and catching mistakes and shortcomings is a big thing for them.)

And yes, mistakes and insufficiencies have been caught and addressed from time to time over the years. This is how science works: As more data is gathered, and more experiments are conducted, and better instruments are developed, one group of scientists helps improve the results of other scientists. This helps to allay fears and slow the spread of stupidity. (Take note!)

So, with climate science, the correct phrase is "garbage removed, good data in, and trustworthy results out". Otherwise, "you're going to get caught by your peers". And no scientist wants to be caught publishing something that is not substantiated.

many sources of global warming/climate change have been proven to be falsified.

Very few, actually. Many sources of self-serving denial of global warming/climate change have been proven to be false. These sources of denialist tropes are inherently stupid (because they are self-defeating and self-destructive), and intented to spread fear and doubt towards the scientists who are your best hope for avoiding the very unpleasant consequences due to what humankind is doing to change our global climate through generating so many greenhouse gases.

So now you know! Now go tell everyone you meet...

well constructed and succinct statement Brainstorms #571. With your permission I'd like to copy/paste to FB etc?
Also would like to challenge Deborah to seek out and communicate with a climatologist or ecologist or biologist ... personal interaction would go a long way to dispel the notion of some conspiracy or self enrichment scheme as their motivation.

Curtis, be my guest. "Truth is free. Falsehoods come at a price." -- a high price, in this case.

As Deborah will learn -- if she bothers to put aside her self-serving claims (that will only soothe her fears for a short period), failing to acknowledge & deal with AGW will unleash a whole host of very unpleasant and very irreversible damage to her world, her lifestyle, and her life.

She needs to learn that the scientists are not the "bad guys" here -- it's the media, corporations, and denier websites, all of whom seek to use and abuse her for their purposes of short-term self-enrichment.

It's the scientists who have the ability to light the way to the best path out of our predicament. If only the politicians and public can summon enough smarts to follow...

"any work on a computer still centers on “garbage on, garbage out” fact."

Which begs the question of whether the climate models that the IPCC cite have garbage in.

It's a truism that denialist models have garbage in, and proven that it produced garbage out, however, those same ones proclaiming models bad and GIGO do not care that the models showing AGW wrong, falsified or overblown have shown garbage results, they still point to these results as if valid.

Evidently the accuracy of a model is not their complaint...

Although I have this nagging feeling Deborah Gayou did a drive-by, maybe she can explain why she is so dismissive of climate science but so apparently reverent of Stephen Hawking, who *frikkin'ly referred to AGW as one of the important reasons the earth would become uninhabitable in the next 1000 years* !!!

"Who pays for all those idle windmills? "

Well, for a start, nobody pays for idle windmills, unlike spinning reserve fossil fuel generators. Idle windmills have already been paid for when put up, before they can become idle. They pay back when they are not idle. Usually at times of peak demand and power cost, reducing the cost of energy production at the expense of the slower reacting coal and nuclear power producers.

Who pays for the gas price increases? Customers. Who pays for nuclear accidents? Taxpayers.

Who AVOIDS taxes by offshoring? Big multinationals, like the ones running the nuclear power stations and large energy providers.

If the problem were the cost increases, is it. the problem is that it "feels" like environmentalism, and you hate those hippies, so they cannot, ever, be right.

Ken Fabian (June 2013): It’s a shame that the US Academy of Science’s 1975 report “Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action” is yet to make it into digital format and made available online.

FWIW, I found an ISBN on another blog. I entered it in Amazon and came up with this. It's the 1980 version, but may be similar enough to be worth buying (prices start at $0.98.)

And there's also eBay...

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Climatic-Change-Program-Action/dp/…

Deborah Gayou (#569): additionally, Stephen Hawking, the smartest human being in the world, says that maybe in 1,000 years the earth might be uninhabitable!

Huh? I thought Marilyn vos Savant was the smartest human being in the world. /s

Sorry to pop your bubble but I lived in the 1980's and distinctly remember sitting in my office reading the Houston Chronicle or the Houston Post (no longer around) talking about "scientists may have to build huge underwater structures designed to keep our oceans from freezing over". Trying to call foul on what so many of us remember reading about and then saying we are wrong isn't fair. I'm all for protecting the environment but unless the scientific community can come clean - it doesn't lead me or anyone who DOES remember this discrepancy to trust what is being said NOW about what needs to be done ref: the environment. Please STOP calling our claim wrong because I would take a lie detector or be hypnotized or whatever to prove it. Seriously!

The foul rubbish is pretending what you selectively remembered as "they were all telling us a new ice age was coming!" was total bollocks, EVEN AFTER REPEATED CORRECTIONS.

"Sorry to pop your bubble but I lived in the 1980’s and distinctly remember ..."

Do you remember reading the scientific journals and noting what the scientists said? No? Then why should your remembrance be worth anything more than "I remember some newspapers telling me..."?

Do you remember in 1959 Disney putting out a short educational movie on global warming caused by human actions?

If you don't, then you know that your remembrance is unreliable. If you do, then why did you not mention that?

"Whether this writer thinks this Time cover existed or not"

Since this writer put the cover in the topic discussion, I think we can conclude the answer to this one fairly easily.

"whether or not there was serious consideration of a coming ice age or not;"

There was serious discussion about the nuclear tests causing a firestorm igniting the earth's atmosphere. It wasn't considered likely, but there WAS the discussion. You need more than "this thing was discussed" to make a claim on what it means.

"The “coming ice age” article was in the magazine. "

But if the magazine was not there, it can't have been, so your earlier fake balance was already known to be speicous.

"Additionally the concern went on for years."

How do you know? This would require that Time come up with the discussion for several years. Did it? If not, you have no evidence, except "gut feeling". Which is no evidence at all.

"Modern day “scientists” would rather spread fear and stupidity based on “computer models” than telling the truth. "

If there's something to fear, then spreading fear is telling the truth. If the computer models are valid, then using them is telling the truth. The only ones spreading stupidity are the idiots you listen to and parrot the words of here, with zero skepticism for them.

Overall, that claim is begging the question that computer models are lies, that telling people that bad things will happen is lying and educating people about the science and results is spreading stupidity, and that these only happen with 97% of the science community, and every national scientific institution, but none of the places you get your "information" from.

That's a lot of begging.

"...Scientists can’t be trusted, that they...say/claim/predict whatever to get their (bills paid), and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming"- Spot ON.
The rest of us who are not paid to try and prove warming and alarming views know that most predictions from those who are paid to 'prove' only one side and ridicule any critique are not worth any consideration. The warmer's hysteria and mouth foaming screams at any dissent will fade as fast as the ice age theories did until the next 'paid for' fashionable subject pops up. Sorry, we do not trust anything you 'warmers' say. We are neither sheep nor fools. We did not trust Mr Hubert Lamb (University of East Anglia) either in 1974 when he said "Global temperatures since 1945 constitute, we believe, the longest unbroken trend downwards in hundreds of years" . Fortune magazine February 1974.

Sorry, we do not trust anything you ‘warmers’ say.

If the tinfoil fits...

Why is it that the "warmer conspiracy" alarmist are always saying/claiming/predicting whatever to prevent their energy bills from rising, and they try to get the media to fall for it all the time? They were wrong about a medieval warming period and a global warming hiatus, they are wrong now about denying global warming.
The rest of us who are not trying to evade paying the true cost of our energy by asserting no AGW and spreading alarming anti-science views know that most predictions from those who are paid to ‘prove’ only one side and ridicule any expertise are not worth any consideration. The anti-science hysteria and mouth foaming screams over any data or studies will fade as fast as their desperate ice age theories did until the next ‘paid for’ fashionable denial scheme pops up. Sorry, we do not trust anything you ‘conspiracy alarmists’ say. We are neither sheep nor fools. We pay attention to what science shows us, we realize that scientists are not "on the take", and while we are not any more happy about the threatening situation humanity has put us in, we also don't childishly and self-servingly stick our fingers in our ears and scream "Nya, nya, nya, it isn't true, we don't believe it!"

Spot ON.

Thank you very much for your responses. They help prove the original point that this whole subject is full of hubris and childish sulking by so many towards anyone who may, may just have a differing opinion and are not swayed by your pretentious and rude condescension any longer. What a shame as one is sure any further responses by you foaming (now hysterical) warmers will just be as rude and dismissive as most of the other attempts at engaging. There is no debate on here, you clearly are not capable of any open minded critique, just your insistence that you are right and the rest of the world is just dumb. Go on, spew your hate and fill out your next funding forms which the suckers will pay for. No one is listening any more. As you will only understand, we are now (as you point out) have our fingers in our ears going 'la la la la'.
By the way well done - "The rest of us who are not trying to evade paying the true cost of our energy" and "alarming anti-science views", hilarious, just hilarious. You are card - don't bust a blood vessel being angry and hateful now that people are not taking you seriously anymore. You should just join your other Liberal anarchist friends who burn and smash other people's property to stop any dissent. That will cheer you up.

"One side says "Nyah nyah nyah,". Now where have you heard that before?

So CAL is also Auntie Hubris?

Sad!

And how much hubris does it take to manufacture a fake name that starts with "Mr Non Pretentious"???

And how pretentious to then leap off into his ad hom and baseless accusation!

"Now where have you heard that before?"

There's no moral comparison between deniers denying evidence and mocking those evidence-denying deniers.

(And it's fun to watch the willfully ignorant sputter whilst avoiding ANY substance in their replies.)

@ Mr Non

anyone who may, may just have a differing opinion

Your 'opinion' is scientifically weightless. It means nothing and nobody cares exactly how you got it wrong. So you get lumped in with all the other nutters and pub bores and tweedy Tory windbags. You put yourself in that set, so you can deal with it. If you don't like being dismissed as an arse, stop acting like one. A first step would be to stop denying the scientific evidence based on your utterly uninformed 'opinion'. What arrogance; what hubris.

Who on earth do you think you are?

And as for you, jailbird - you are trash.

Wow, you lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here. You cannot consider any other view can you?. Reid Bryson? nope he was a crackpot too I hear you scream. It is your way or you spit venom eh?. Thank goodness this echo chamber is not taken seriously out of this box. Come on BBD et al, vomit more hate, spite and tantrums...yeah that will change minds.

@Auntie Hubris, who is very lacking on here:
Thank you very much for your responselessness. You help prove the original point that anyone attacking those who study this whole AGW subject is full of hubris -- the childish sulking by so many towards anyone who may be involved in conducting and reporting on climate science. You think you may just have a differing opinion but we are not swayed by your pretentious and rude condescension any longer. What a shame as one is sure any further responses by you foaming (now hysterical) warmist alalmists will just be as rude and dismissive as most of the other attempts at engaging. There is no debate on here, you clearly are not capable of any open minded critique, just your insistence that you are right and the rest of the world is just dumb. Go on, spew your hate and fill out your next blog response hoping the suckers will pay for it. No one is listening any more. As you will never understand, you now (as pointed out) have your fingers in your ears going ‘la la la la’.
By the way thanks for 'well done – “The rest of us who are not trying to evade paying the true cost of our energy” and “alarming anti-science views”, hilarious, just hilarious'. You are card-carrying anti-science – don’t bust a blood vessel being angry and hateful now that people are not taking you seriously anymore. You should just join your other Libertarian anarchist friends who burn and smash other people’s lives, reputations, property to stop any reporting on what science teaches us. That will cheer you up.

Hi Brainstorms, you keep proving the original point. You cannot help yourself. Just keep digging. It has been a blast and one can almost see the steam coming out of your ears. Wonderful, such fun.

You cannot consider any other view can you?.

By 'other view' you mean alt-science, wrong-o nonsense. Nobody has to 'consider' that. Be serious.

"You are card-carrying anti-science" - Priceless. All bow to the great one.

"Wow, you lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here" Spot on. No one is going to be persuaded by such behavior. All of you, just grow up.

You cannot consider any other view can you?.

We can. We have. We have found ample reason to reject it.

Ask a paedophile if three year old girls are gagging for it and whether this is all right.

Either you agree with him and you're a scumbucket, or You cannot consider any other view can you? and a fool.

As discussed earlier Mr Hubert Lamb (University of East Anglia) a well respected scientist did sat that “Global temperatures since 1945 constitute, we believe, the longest unbroken trend downwards in hundreds of years” in February 1974. Plus Reid Bryson, known as the “father of climatology' also said that many say "It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof" Many take their work into account for example before they conclude anything.

Global Warming? by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.[1]
The Built-in Nonsense Detector:
Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone's opinion about
"Global Warming". A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about "Global Warming".
Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually
meaning "Global Warming" or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained
to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.
Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?
I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are
enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order
to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the
possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense
detector.
Some Common Fallacies
1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally
thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one
way or the other for at least a million years.
2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to
carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of
causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot
attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100
times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes
in carbon dioxide.
4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other
"greenhouse gasses". Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the
present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination.
There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%,
and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a
doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well
done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact.
Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who
are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about
climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.
So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that
warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors,
such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my
knowledge this data was never used.
We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too
important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific
problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for
suggesting that people could possibly change the climate! [2]
[1] Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center
for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
[2] Bryson, R. A. and W. M. Wendland, 1968: "Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution," in Proceedings of
AAAS Annual Meeting, Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Singer, ed.), pp. 130-138, Dallas, Texas,
December 26-31, 1968. Also as "Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution," S. Fred Singer (ed.), 1970; The
Changing Global Environment, pp. 139-147, 1975.

Corey, I wonder if he thinks property is theft, or is just unable to consider any other view...

"Ask a paedophile (Peadophile do you mean?) if three year old girls are gagging for it and whether this is all right." Now you have passed into extra weird and creepy. Better get the moderator and you some some spelling lessons.

So which is it? Scumbag or intolerant asshole, bs? Why so scared to answer the question?

poor snowflake. so hard having to stick to your guns when you don't want to, eh?

1. How does one discount 37 years of satellite photographs of shrinking polar ice?
2. How does one discount gravimetric satellite measurement of diminishing Greenland and Antrarctic ice?
3. How does one discount one's training in physics and chemistry that clearly shows that carbon dioxide interacts with infrared photons?
4. How does one discount the poleward migration of species to follow their preferred climate?
5. How does one discount rising sea levels?

You and I might not easily be able to discount all these things, but the FUD squadrons of flying denialist monkeys can, because most of them have no training in science, and they are easily susceptible to peer and economic pressure.

These are the people who confuse science with socialism, especially if that science highlights something that might potentially offend the economic sensitivities of their "leaders".

Finding a credentialled scientist who discounts these things is essentially impossible. Even those few members of the scientific community who go against the grain pretty much universally accept that the globe is warming and that at least some of that warming comes from fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Curiously enough, the scientists who see no problem in a warming planet are typically those bank rolled by fossil fuel funded think tanks. And religious nuts.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that scientific observations and conclusions are being jammed by the fossil fuel industry and its wealthy collaberators, who finally managed to have grabbed publically what they have been grabbing privately for years.

As I remember it the realization that ice ages were found to correlate with orital precession was a big deal in the 70's. And air pollution that was largely unchecked at the time was a concern. But the projected time for a full ice age based on orbital precession was millennia away.

Well, the current regime certainly seems to be declaring war on climatology and on any use of science to benefit humanity. Anti-vax, anti-psychology, anti-education. Anti-compassion. Pro tribalism.

Said best earlier. “You lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here” Spot on. No one is going to be persuaded by such behavior. All of you, just grow up". That includes you Wow. You just keeping digging an even bigger hole with your nasty hate.
However, life is too short and I wish you all the best.

"pretty much universally accept that the globe is warming". That most of us do agree on. As it has in the past and then cooled. The whole debate is on who is causing it, Nature or humans? At least you argument seems reasoned and not just foaming at the mouth hatred as provided by others towards anyone still needing to be convinced.

Lots of charges of "foaming at the mouth" from the usual ignorant trash, but a curious inability to pursue the relevant attribution studies. I'd point Duhvinia to SkS's article and citations, for example - but why bother?

Well, we know who's causing it: probably more than 100% of the warming since 1750.

(I'll ease-up on the "trash" talk, but the empty concern trolling deserves nothing but curt dismissal.)

Davinia, if a group of people come into your house while you're gone and slowly, ever so slowly strangle your children, with a certainly that your children will slowly, agonizingly, die as a consequence, don't you think you'd feel at least a twinge of hatred towards those persons who are killing your children?

Or are you the type who would instead count up the amount of money you're going to save by no longer having to support children any longer?

Which type are you? You & BS seem to be the second type.

P.S. to Davinia & BS: Stop trying to kill MY children.

We know from Milankovitch orbital cycles that ice ages are pretty well explained. We also know that, without some other interferring factor, we would now be entering the slow cooling that would ultimately lead to a full glaciation. But instead, we are on a steep temperature rise. We know this from tell tale chemicals, isotope levels, and dust in layers of ancient ice. We have carefully studied the level of solar radiation hitting the Earth and it is not rising. The data is quite robust. Carbon dioxide from humans burning fossil fuel is warming the surface of the planet. The only question at this point is what do we do about it.

The current Murkan regime is planning on doing nothing . That is their strategy. Let dead Hayak and the free market forces settle everything, while banning even the discussion of this potential environmental disaster.Oh, and trash climatologists for discovering this event, call them socialists, and do everything possible to make them look like self centered crooks and fools. Wow. Happy STEM day everyone.

So, even though there is abundant useful clean energy hitting the Earth each day , attempts to capture it are attacked by people who, coincidentally, are heavily invested in the fossil fuel status quo. Those nascent, cleaner, job- creating energy sources being born, just kill them. That is how some people interpret free market economics. Ignore the valuable scientific knowledge that society has invested billions of dollars discovering over the last century, and let the mysterious market eight ball take the place of science and scientists. Yeah. Llike that will work out well.

What a pathologicall ignorant way to deal with the world. Oh Well. Nature and Nature's God will take care of everything. Be assured. Nature bats last, and never, ever misses.

It didn't take the global warming denial trolls long to come out after this https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/828027310821347328

Mr Non Prentious Anti Hubris @589 complained

There is no debate on here . .

If you want a serious discussion about the pros and cons of whether or not AGW is taking place, you are several decades too late. It was hashed out from the 1960s to the 1990s. What you are seeing now is blustering by people who feel they will lose too much if serious action ever takes place, backed up by those who don't know an absorption band from a brass band but feel that they none-the-less have an important contribution to make.

The tone on here is really toxic. Just like the atmosphere perhaps. Too much hate. No listening and no attempt to persuade anyone. Small minded and childish behavior achieves nothing. Perhaps you won't listen to reason, you will just go on right fighting, being defensive and never mature. Good luck with that.

Davinia

The whole debate is on who is causing it, Nature or humans?

That is a false claim. Others have tried that gambit and been thoroughly debunked.

If you wish to take a high moral tone, you mustn't peddle misinformation. People might think you are being hypocritical.

Wow, great demonstration of false equivalence and the equivocation fallacy, Wandering.

Not forgetting the blank assertions!

"The tone on here is really toxic. Just like the atmosphere perhaps. Too much hate. No listening and no attempt to persuade anyone. Small minded and childish behavior achieves nothing. Perhaps you won’t listen to reason, you will just go on right fighting, being defensive and never mature. Good luck with that."

SPOT ON

Global Warming = FAKE NEWS

Now sit back and watch the bicarb react with lemon juice.

“You lot really are angry, hateful and hysterical here...No one is going to be persuaded by such behavior. All of you, just grow up”.

From what I have read in these posts, that is so true.

And a blend of science denial and blatant trolling elevates you to the moral high ground how, Herman?

Grow up and do some reading.

You would rather we offer handjobs to "persuade" "those who still need to be convinced"?

Horses to water.

Herman, how long have you been following climate? I've been following the arctic since before there was an internet. In that time do you know how many people I've met that care enough to study the data and change their preconceptions? One.

One.

Now, do you think it's an efficient use of my time to try and "persuade" science deniers? I don't. No, it has become pretty obvious to me that most people either don't care, aren't smart enough, or have cognitive biases so strong that nothing I do, say, or show them is going to have much if any effect.

By the end of this summer arctic sea ice will have likely lost 80% of the volume that it used to have.

80% of the sea ice volume will have been lost and there's no reason to think it will stop there. It will just continue to fall even lower.

Now if you, or my neighbor, or some nutter on WUWT doesn't understand the implications and the danger this puts us in why should I care about your feelings? It's not like anything so banal as facts are going to change your mind. So rather than persuade I have chosen The Onion strategy. Just make fun of the idiots. It can't be any less productive than a serious attempt to persuade and it's much more fun.

Besides, it's also performing a public service. Idiots like yourself have a right to know that they're idiots.

Oh, no, it's not merely false equivalence now, it's full on tone argument!

"Just make fun of the idiots"

"Idiots like yourself have a right to know that they’re idiots"

"offer handjobs to “persuade”

I see that the original comments were right.

Foul people like you are not worth any thoughts.

You are not changing any minds or making any reasonable case, you are just showing how crude and disgusting you really are deep down.

Open minded, inclusive, tolerant, diverse and progressive many of you would describe yourselves. Plenty of evidence of that on here ........(shudder).

Enjoy your crude and hateful echo chamber....

Oh poor Herman, his prejudices have been verified. LOL

Crude and *hateful* -- because obviously calling a dolt an idiot is pretty damn hateful. Or is that truthful?

Herman, most of us have been around the block more than once or twice. We know a concern troll when we see one. And you my friend look like a duck, walk like a duck, and even squawk like a duck. Far be it from me to disregard all evidence and call you a frog.

But hey, thank you for playing and most assuredly thank you for your concerns.

Still waiting for Herman to explain how science denial and trolling give him the moral high ground.

Troll-ishly, he blanked my question.

Herman: "You shall court us with praises and promises of prosperity."

Whores to culture.

As was once said about you warmers on many other sites you have trolled your way through
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" Mark Twain

It has been fun seeing you all foam at the mouth with your disgusting rants but time is short and you crackpots need to move your pizza boxes out of the way and find the door.

As Herman rightly said "Enjoy your crude and hateful echo chamber"

I suspect that at least some of the recent Denialati here are sock puppets - they're all posting similarly-styled screeds about the same topic.

(Perhaps some of the snowflakes are distancing themselves from the trash fire at Judith's.)

Open minded, inclusive, tolerant, diverse and progressive many of you would describe yourselves.

"You round a corner, finger wrapped around the trigger like a child clinging to a safety blanket. A nazi appears. You try to fire, but a mysterious force prevents you. Nazi magic? No, something much more sinister. You hear a voice: 'Is iit really OK to deny fascism a platform?' 'Oh no,' you whisper. Then you die."

Wolfenstein Parody Thoughtfully Examines The Ethics Of Violence Against Nazis

Did you someone mention trash fire at Judith's???

I could throw a log in that burn barrel :)

It should be captioned: Someone forgot to tell the arctic to wait for Karl to bust the pause.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pP-4tAZ6VzU/WJniupgC2PI/AAAAAAAAATE/Nk1tqyUa…

I debated in college in 1984. The broad topic was disposal of hazardous waste - including carbon dioxide. There were a substantial number of cited experts on the possibility of a "new ice age". I don't have my records from the time but the debates were quite active.

"There were a substantial number of cited experts on the possibility of a “new ice age”. I don’t have my records from the time but the debates were quite active."

So another assertion without documentation. Funny how that happens.

And a lot of necroing threads by deniers too.

Oh boy, more pseudo scientists saying we are destroying the planet! Wheeee, ain't we got fun? The earth is over 4 billion years old. We, mankind, are around 10,000 or so years old. We have NO impact on the earth. Plain and simple, we DON'T! So, go to work, pay your bills and don't pollute. Pollution is the culprit and always has been. Remember Iron Eyes Cody (Who really WASN'T an Native American) shedding that single tear because someone threw a bag of fast food garbage at his feet? We've come a long way since then and why? Because, we cleaned up POLLUTION. We ain't done a dam-ned thing about climate change because WE CAN'T and the sooner you Liberal Chicken Little's realize that, the quicker we can move on to more serious things. Like we have fallen so far in education against the rest of the world while we cry and huff and puff about the weather. Sheeeeesh sheeple, WAKE UP!

Okay, Barry... Carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Ergo, by your argument, we need to reduce CO2 emissions and make a stab at extracting it from the atmosphere for sequestration.

Because "pollution is the culprit" and CO2 is the pollution. Always has been.

Glad you got that right!

Ah, baz, so because you used hyperbolic language to describe the results of AGW, that means AGW doesn't exist.

Wow.

Ever bother to think before you type?

"We have NO impact on the earth. "

Tell that to the Dodo. Or the Mastodon. Or carrier pigeons or Bison. Tell it to Rhinos (especially the white), whales and all the other species we've either wiped out or put on the edge.

If you, barry, are so meaningless and powerless, do everyone else a favour and go kill yourself and open up a space for someone who can do something. Anything. We'll then see how that goes.

Barry, the Supreme Court of the USA has declared CO2 a pollutant. You loose.

Barry, I'm going to shit in your dinner. It's not a pollutant, it's what excrete, you know, so it won't pollute what you eat.

Bon appetit!!

Brainstorms, if that is REALLY your nick. More like Brainfarts. lol It does NOT change the fact you were wrong. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant. ... But the Court decided that greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA capacious definition of “air pollutant”, and the EPA has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. It was a split ruling, with five judges voting in favor and four dissenting.Apr 3, 2007

Barry, what is your argument? The Supreme Court ruled CO2 a pollutant. The EPA then declared it a pollutant.

Obviously it is harmful to humans - it's why we get rid of it when we exhale.

Barry, you're being a Denier Lemming.

"Oh how the Lemmings march unto their own destruction"

You are the lemming, baz.

"CO2 is what we EXHALE. "

There's a reason why we exhale it rather than keep it in, baz. You also excrete shit, but if I were to dump a thousand tons of it in your house, you'd be pissed off at the pollution.

"Marco, the SCOTUS also ruled gays had a RIGHT to get married. "

They do.

" CO2 is NOT a pollutant. "

You're wrong. It IS a pollutant.

"THAT is mans contribution to Global Warming."

You're a nutbar.

Don't be too hard on the new conservative buffoon b55. He's apparently excited that he's learned how to type multi-syllable words.

I'm sure his next project will be an attempt to understand what they mean.

could it be since there is so little of it (CO2) actually IN our atmosphere, and that’s even counting fossil fuel, that it is not a detrimental amount to contributing to GW?

We'll instead add a tiny amount of cyanide, botulinum toxin, and ricin to your dinner, Barry. No worries for you.

After all, there'll be so little of it, it couldn't be detrimental to your health, according to you.

After all, it's just common sense.

Yes, the 'there's so little of it' meme is rather dumb. Of course arguing radiative transfer and physics would be pointless because even Dr Woy Spencer would just laugh at him.

Basically all that leaves them with is .... well, nothing really. Which is why Barry55 can't reaally muster an argument. We all know reality has a known liberal bias.

The only question left is: Is Barry55 ignorant, stupid, insane, or just plain evil? I'm guessing ignorant, but then I haven't seen his posts before.

Climate science denial is so tightly correlated with conservativeness and stupidity that it is not even funny. Except it is funny.

What is so funny is, there IS Climate Change. It's called weather and has been happening since GOD Created everything. Now, we, as human beings have been given stewardship over the earth. As long as it lasts anyway because let's face it, no one wants to live in a pig pen, no matter how many flat out LIES you Liberals tell on Conservatives. Take a second and consider what Conservative means. I know its hard but if you stay up all night it will dawn on you. lol

Since WE, as mankind has fallen, the earth is also liable to corruption. It's called sin and has corrupted everything, even the earth. And, we as humans have to share in the blame. Ok, chew on that for awhile. But I bet you will choke on it.

b55, if you are unable to be bothered to even look at the definitions of climate and weather, and learn that they are not the same, why do you expect to be taken seriously?

The barfgabble about your interpretation of religious stories is completely out of place in a discussion of science.

"Gays have no more of a constitutional right to get married than heterosexuals do"

Yup. And both have the same right to get married, dumbass.

"Again, there is SO little CO2 in the atmosphere that it is negligible."

Again, you're wrong and retarded.

"IF CO2 was so toxic, mankind, or any kind actually, would have never survived"

So toxic as what? It's a pollutant. Watch Apollo 13 to see whether it's possible to be toxic, retard. It is. But it doesn't have to be at toxic levels to be a pollutant.

Again, you're wrong and retarded.

"if CO2 was poison, "

And if you were not a retard, you'd not have said that. But you are a retard.

"since GOD Created everything. "

No, he didn't. I told him not to. He's a wuss.

"It’s called sin and has corrupted everything,"

That sort of explain s why you're a retard, baz.

Chris O Neil. YOU are full of s hit and you think its called intelligence. lol

Wow

The CONSTITUTION has NO provisions for marriage, you stupid a ss twit.

Now we are getting down to brass tacks. You are a stupid ass atheist AND a stupid ass Liberal. Not much difference really. You are a fool. You think man came from a mudhole looking like a frog. Your kind is thankfully being regulated to the back burner. I KNEW you were a retard as soon as I saw your stupid posts. lol

It must be nice to know that, even though you stopped learning about the subjects in high school, you still understand more about the climate and biology than all the world's major scientific organizations as well as 99% of climatologists and biologists. How do you do it?

Of course, it would be more impressive if you could give any evidence to support your beliefs.

Barry has the faith.

Indeed, Barry has "da faith". Crank magnetism, denying AGW and evolution. Maybe Barry is an anti-vaccine crank, too?

"The CONSTITUTION has NO provisions for marriage, you stupid a ss twit. "

I never said it did you assclown. When you get to school ask your teacher nicely to explain what the constitution is about. You are a retard, but teachers have to deal with retards and have training.

"even though you stopped learning about the subjects in high school,"

High school? This moronic retard was no-schooled. Doesn't even know what the constitution is about!

Richard, you say it must be nice for me to know more about the climate and biology than all the world's major scientific organizations as well as 99% of all climatologists and biologists. Well, first of all, how did you arrive at that 99% number? Because that is flat out false. There is no major consensus of scientists that believe in climate change like you Liberals would have everyone believe. And. it doesn't take a world-renowned biologist to tell me he is full of s hit when he says we evolved from some sort of common ancestor with the apes. You Liberal Loons can drink all the kool aid you want. You can stay in your self-imposed little square box for the rest of your life for all I care. I put no limits on myself. I am a being created by God Almighty. He created my soul and YOU can't put that in your little box. lol

Marco, of course, I deny evolution. It is a hoax cooked up by little anti-Christs like yourself who deem themselves perfect and they never sin because to then, there IS no sin.

I have said there is a small, negligible amount of GW due to man but not nearly as much as you Liberal Loons say.

But, you being an atheist explains that.

[...]

Marco, of course, I deny evolution. It is a hoax cooked up by little anti-Christs like yourself who deem themselves perfect and they never sin because to then, there IS no sin.

Ahhh. Yet another authoritarian Christian science denier.

There are just so many of them about. Teh stupid with added self-righteousness. A horrible spectacle.

Most christian denominations accept the scientific evidence of evolution, but Barry, well...Barry is such a religious zealot that anything that doesn't suit his tiny brain he *must* deny.

"I don’t know what the constitution is about?"

Correct. You're 100% clueless about it, retard. Got a problem with reading?

"There is NO provision for marriage anywhere in the constitution."

Yup. And that claim is why everyone knows you're 100% absolutely bloody clueless about what the constitution is, moron.

"It was YOU who said that gays and heterosexuals have the same right to get married"

Yup. You're still completely clueless about this, aren't you, dumbass.

"WHY did the SCOTUS have to rule that gay marriage was a RIGHT?"

Because retards like yourself wanted them to have no right to marriage, yet have the right to marriage yourself. Still incapable of seeing the problem,aren't you.

You’re just flat out stupid. But, you being an godbotherer explains that.

" Because that is flat out false"

We know. He was being ironic. You know nothing about the weather or climate compared to any 100% of the climate scientists. Even the dumb denier ones.

"There is no major consensus of scientists that believe in climate change"

Yes there is, retard. And its well over 97%, too. But you're even dumber about the climate than the 1% who still deny AGW.

"I put no limits on myself."

Unlimited stupidity.

"There is NO provision for marriage anywhere in the constitution"

You seem to think that the only rights the Constitution protects are the ones listed. That means you have no effing understanding of what the Constitution says. (Or you're simply lying because you're a bigot trying to find excuses to hide behind.)

Marco says most Christian denominations accept the "scientific" evidence of evolution. lol It is NOT scientific and there is no evidence. Constantine was just another Catholic that wanted to keep one foot on the earth and the other in heaven. There is NO Biblical doctrine that accepts evolution so your 'Most" Christian denominations are wrong.

"It is the MACR-evolution that idiots like YOU propose that has NO proof and cannot be duplicated. "

And you have no idea what microevolution is, either, retard. Macroevolution is what you get after millions of years of microevolution.

And where's your proof and recreation of the genesis of a universe, dumbass?

And give three examples...

Barry, religious zealots like you will always reject science when you believe it violates your ideology. I understand your fear of evolution: it makes god even less relevant than you deep down already know it is. AGW is a similar problem: recognizing humans, including you yourself, wrecking the environment would mean your god is less powerful than humans. You must reject science to maintain your beliefs. I feel some sympathy for you, I know others who struggled with the same problem. If you are lucky you will realize you are being stupid, but experience tells me you will just increase your rhetoric.

Wow. lol No, micro-evolution is a process that allows species to adapt to a certain environment. They don't need to MACRO-evolve into another species to do so. What fun you Libtards are.

Wow

I don't have to recreate anything. It is YOU pseudo-scientists that pontificate about how necessary it is to be able to recreate any given theory in a laboratory setting before yo can call it acceptable science. lol Still haven't been able to recreate man in a lab setting, have you? lol

Barry writes: "pontificate about how necessary it is to be able to recreate any given theory in a laboratory setting before yo can call it acceptable science"

Where do you dig this crap up from? You don't know the difference between climate and weather, you don't know how evolution works, and know you have some weird theory of science. Do they teach this garbage in pseudo-skeptic school?

I'm moving my answer to the question: Ignorant, stupid, insane, or just plain evil? To 'stupid' at this point. Ignorance would be more charitable than Barry55's posts here warrant.

"CLIMATE is a SYNONYM for WEATHER"
Where did you drag this from? Why do you think encyclopedias show climate maps but weather maps are shown in newspapers?

BTW regarding my earlier comment - I am retired now but in my entire career as a scientist I never heard a fellow scientist question the theory of evolution nor, in the last 30 years, the fact of climate change. You really need to go back to school instead of putting on a public display of your ignorance.

"No, micro-evolution is a process that allows species to adapt to a certain environment. "

No it is not.

"Wow

I don’t have to recreate anything."

WRONG!

You need to prove creation happened and god exists.

Without that you cannot be right.

"I know exactly how you idiots SAY evolution works"

No you don't retard.

"You’re just flat out wrong. "

No we aren't moron.

"I looked up stupid,"

In a mirror.

"So, guess what Sherlock? CLIMATE is a SYNONYM for WEATHER."

No it isn't.

" It means the SAME THING. "

No it doesn't.

"It is YOU pseudo-scientists that pontificate about how necessary it is to be able to recreate any given theory in a laboratory setting"

Uh, no, retard, it was you.

#679: “It is the MACR-evolution that idiots like YOU propose that has NO proof and cannot be duplicated. ”

Barry, thank you for mentioning penicillin. Its discovery was one of serendipity. But evolution theory predicted what would happen: many bacteria have now developed resistance to penicillin.

Wow. If I have to duplicate creation, then YOU display one species morphing into another. Can't do it? I didn't think so you intellectual midget. If evolution were true, which it is NOT, then that ever elusive lower life form would STILL be morphing into humans. lol What an inbred idiot you really are.

Marco, we STILL have penicillin, right? It hasn't morphed into anything. So what that some bacteria have developed an immunity to it. Aren't they still the SAME bacteria only with built up resistance to penicillin? Did the penicillin-resistant bacteria morph into a DIFFERENT sort of bacteria? If a rabbit developed thicker fur to be able to live in a colder climate, did it stop being a rabbit? lol

"Richard, weather IS a synonym for climate."

No it is not. I didn't just look it up, I read and comprehended it.

"Wow. If I have to duplicate creation,"

Yes, you do. Because you're the one who insists it must be duplicated in a lab to be real. So hop to it.

"Marco, we STILL have penicillin, right? It hasn’t morphed into anything."

We don't have smallpox any more. Your point is completely meaningless because understanding is beyond your abilities.

"Aren’t they still the SAME bacteria only with built up resistance to penicillin?"

Yes, they mutated to adapt to the changed environment. That's evolution.

Ask him to explain why human embryos have tails. And gills.

He doesn't even know his problem is defining what kinds there are. Ken Ham videos never bothered explaining them.

Richard, weather IS a synonym for climate.

No it isn't.

Brachiation capability and opposable thumb in humans.

My, but you are a nutter, Barry.

Wow. Tell me this you intellectual midget. Can you have a climate WITHOUT the weather? lol My God, you people are so frickin' stupid. I am glad I found this place. I haven't laughed this much since I first learned that some people actually think we are animals.

As soon as you replicate one species morphing into another, in plain sight and without the billions of years you cowardly pseudo-scientists require, I will replicate creation. LOL LOL LOL LOL

Yes, there is still smallpox, just not as prevalent. Idiot.

Mutated? Are you sure? Aren't they still the same bacteria? Dumbass

BBD

Opposable thumbs in HUMANS. Not apes or any animal. lol

Are you referring to the debunked Haeckel drawings? lol Those little folds of flesh YOU call gills are nothing but the undeveloped glands and ear structures.

Bollocks.

And redundant evidence that all creationists are soon reduced to lying. Much like climate change deniers.

"Ask me yourself. "

Kinda pointless, though, since you're just a retard who hasn't a clue what they're on about.

Which includes what gills are too, we have just discovered!

"Aren’t they still the SAME bacteria only with built up resistance to penicillin? Did the penicillin-resistant bacteria morph into a DIFFERENT sort of bacteria? "

No, Barry, they are no longer the same bacteria. They have indeed become *different* bacteria. They may have a new enzyme, for example.

And yes, we still have penicillin, mainly because it is the best one to start with, since you might be lucky it still works. You preferentially don't go to the others (unless you know you have a penicillin-resistant strain), because you then increase the chances you create a strain that is resistant for that other antibiotic. You might have heard of MRSA: penicillin-resistant and methicillin-resistant. Guess what: there are now several substrains of that MRSA (generally referred to as community-, healthcare-, and livestock-associated), of which the CA-substrain is more susceptible to some other antibiotics (but not the beta-lactams) than the HA-substrain.

All a matter of evolution.

"Can you have a climate WITHOUT the weather? "

Tell me you feculant retard, why ask that? You insist they are the same thing, therefore that question is meaningless. "Can you have weather without weather"?????

It seems you "know" that they're not the same but shouting out that knowledge to prattle on brainlessly.

Opposable thumbs in HUMANS. Not apes or any animal. lol

* Bornean Orangutan - opposable thumbs on all four hands. The interdigital grip gives them the ability to pick fruit.
* Gorillas - opposable on all four hands.
* Chimpanzees have opposable thumbs on all four hands.
* Lesser Apes have opposable thumbs on all four hands.
* Old World Monkeys, with some exceptions, such as the genera, Piliocolobus and Colobus.
* Cebids (New World primates of Central and South America) - some have opposable thumbs

Brachiating shoulders - for swinging through the trees.

Evolution - you have to lie to make it go away (TM)

Weather isn't climate.

Weather is short term and highly variable; climate is long term average of weather. The terms are not synonymous except to ignorant clowns.

"Opposable thumbs in HUMANS. "

Monkeys too. And, yes, apes. Meanwhile we have the shitty eyes apes do, not the far better formed eyes of the octopus.

Hell, we have eyes with fluid in them that means even the best developed eye falls far short of what fish eyes do, because they don't have to deal with the refraction changes from air to the fluid in their eyes, because they live in water.

Your incompetence and lack of knowledge seem boundless, fuckwit!

Smallpox is caused by a virus, Barry. And the virus today is genetically different from that a few centuries ago. It still does the same nasty stuff, though, dependent on which strain.

Wow! You are still hung up on that gill thing that has been debunked. Haeckel, who Hitler doted on, made up those hoax drawings that evidently you evolutionists still take as the truth. lol Hitler was a proponent of evolution too, that is why he didn't care to slaughter millions of what HE called, sub-humans. You're not worth a good morning shit. lol

So, I made a mistake with the opposable thumb thing. Big deal. You evolutionists are making my head spin. lol

Speaking of opposable thumbs. Wonder why those apes can't build a decent house to live in? They should also be able to use a hammer. lol lol lol lol

Wot an idiot.

Wow! You are still hung up on that gill thing that has been debunked

You've already been called out for lying about this. Stop it. It was bollocks the first time around.

Evolution - you have to lie to make it go away (TM)

Haeckel's Drawings-Debunked

http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/Haeckels.Embryos.htm

Climate is long term average of weather? That is what I have been saying, you incompetent idiot.

And they are not synonymic you illiterate prat.

And, BBD, just because you link to a huckster doesn't make evolution true. lol

Haeckel’s Drawings-Debunked

Nope, you've been had, right down to the dates. Sad.

Stop bullshitting and RTFR.

And, BBD, just because you link to a huckster doesn’t make evolution true. lol

The only huckster here is the one peddling creationism and denying evolutionary science, Barry.

Well, the dictionary makes YOU a liar.

Synonyms for climate

Synonyms for climate
noun weather of region

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/climate

If I were you, before I would call someone illiterate I would learn how to use a thesaurus.

You can call it creationism if you want. I am only saying God created all things, even you witless evolutionists.

'Weather' and weather of a region are not synonyms, Barry.

Weather and climate are not synonyms either.

Nice try. No cigar. Bad idea.

You can call it creationism if you want. I am only saying God created all things, even you witless evolutionists.

You are a creationist and now you are denying that too.

More lies.

"That is what I have been saying,"

No you haven't you throwback to the troglodytes. You said they were the same. You made a big deal about how you knew what the word "Synonym" means.

Apparently you were lying then, too!

"Speaking of opposable thumbs. "

Yes, you were wrong there too. Somehow this escapes you.

"doesn’t make evolution true"

It wouldn't. But evolution is true.

"Haeckel’s Drawings-Debunked"

Aaawwww. So retardie here hasn't kept up with even Ken Ham videos!!!!

Hey, moron, along with computers, we advanced biology too!

"I have NOT lied and it HAS been debunked. "

And a twofer on the lies there, with a self-referential lie included!

"I am only saying God created all things"

Ah, so you've repeated this and god turned up with the people in lab coats and created a new kind, yes?

Oh, no, he didn't. That claim was another total bullshit lie.

"Well, the dictionary makes YOU a liar.

Synonyms for climate

Synonyms for climate
noun weather of region"

Heh. You just made yourself a liar there, moron!

"You can call it creationism if you want. I am only saying God created all things,"

Well yes, that is why the term creationism exists. You could also phrase it as

"You can call it intelligent design if you want. I am only saying God created all things,"

since creationism = intelligent design

No dean, you have it all wrong. Intelligent Design does not necessarily refer to the God of the Bible. To them, ANY kind of intelligence will do. I am saying there IS no intelligence if you leave out God. God Almighty did create all thing and He did use intelligence to do it. Or you could call it Wisdom. Solomon did. But it was His intelligence. Not just any random thought.

https://evolution-institute.org/article/was-hitler-a-darwinian/
In fact, die Buecherei gad banned books related to Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel notably founded a Monist society).

Like the good religious zealot he is, Barry tries to discredit something by association, and doesn't care about the facts.

Barry, my clinate statistics say today should be below 10 C, and rainy. My weather today says 13 C and sunny. Weather and climate are not the same.

"Intelligent Design does not necessarily refer to the God of the Bible."

Are you so intellectually challenged that you actually believe that? ID was created simply to get creationism into schools. The backers are all creationists who are as ignorant and dishonest as you are.

Climate and weather ARE the same.

No, they aren't.

Now, answer this as truthfully as you can. If the weather were to be taken away, would you have a climate?

No, but that doesn't make them synonymous any more than 'wave' and 'water' are synonyms.

You are going to lose this so if I were you, I'd just move on.

I even gave a link to a thesaurus

Which I explained was a false equivalence at #730.

Either you are too stupid to understand this stuff, or you are being dishonest. Could go either way at this point.

BBD

Q:
How are weather and climate alike?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Weather and climate are both terms used to describe temperature, atmospheric conditions and precipitation. The only difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather reflects short-term changes within the atmosphere, while climate is determined by averaging daily and seasonal weather over a long period of time.

https://www.reference.com/science/weather-climate-alike-39e74df6825d583c

dean

ME intellectually challenged? lol Try this. Although you will spin yourself out of it like a good little idiot Liberal.

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

Marco

All I can do is shake my head at your floundering. In other words, your climate stats wouldn't exist without your weather reports. lol

Okay, let's go and see what the scientists at NASA say:

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

Weather is not climate. They are not equivalent nor are they synonymous. You are wrong, as I pointed out upthread.

Debating with an idiot like you can be frustrating in that the idiot refuses to admit is wrong.

Indeed.

Marco

Regarding the impact on Hitler and the Nazis, Richard Weikart, a California State University professor of German history and a fellow of Discovery Institute, has written on this topic authoritatively and at length. However, he also has been abused by the Darwinists who want to whitewash the past. So now comes Yvonne Sherratt’s Hitler’s Philosophers and it, too, takes on the influence of Haeckel. Irrelevant? Let’s just say that the Nazis had many unattractive traits, and that one of them was intolerance of academics who deviated from the party line. That is quite relevant. Mention all this in a debate with a Darwinist and he is likely to get angry. Too bad about that. - See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/from_yale_unive/#sthash.61RRho4A…

https://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/from_yale_unive/

Weather reflects short-term changes within the atmosphere, while climate is determined by averaging daily and seasonal weather over a long period of time.

Therefore they are not synonymous.

Idiot.

BBD

lol EvenNASA accepts that without long periods of WEATHER, the CLIMATE wouldn't exist. lol How stupid can you be? Don't you understand that one can't exist without the other precisely because they are relatively THE SAME THING? lol

m55, I'm sorry you are stupid. The dishonest part you seem to have honed on your own.

Intelligent design was invented when it became clear creationists were not going to be able to get their particular line of garbage introduced to science classes in public schools. The clowns behind the movement scrubbed "god" from their books and replaced it with "designer" or "intelligent designer". The rest of the crap was unchanged. The goal was to pretend to put a veneer of science on the creation claptrap to trick people into believing there was some validity to it.

The losers you reference are simply upset that some of their colleagues gave up on the foot stomping and repeating 'god did it" in order to try the little end run.

At the end of the day there is no difference at all between the two: both are interpretations of age-old myths made by a small group of "christians", nothing more.

Continue spouting your fact free lines of bullshit. I'm done with you - your aura of ignorance is disgusting.

dean dean dean, just how illiterate ARE you? If you had looked, the site I got those references from was Discovery Science, the Intelligent Design gang. You can twist and pitch your little hissy fits all you want, you are still wrong. Another quote fro Discovery Science.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

lol EvenNASA accepts that without long periods of WEATHER, the CLIMATE wouldn’t exist.

That doesn't make them the same thing. Therefore they are not (as you argued), synonymous.

How stupid can you be?

I'm not the problem here.

because they are relatively THE SAME THING? lol

Nope, it's like the water and the wave, but I can't understand it for you.

b55, you are truly a fool.

“Intelligent Design does not necessarily refer to the God of the Bible.”

So the god of the bible is a liar or a dumbass?

"Even NASA accepts that without long periods of WEATHER, the CLIMATE wouldn’t exist. "

And even you just said they're not synonym, moron.

"ME intellectually challenged? lol "

By everything, baz.

By everything.

"QUICK ANSWER
Weather and climate are both terms used to describe temperature, atmospheric conditions and precipitation. "

Not seeing "they are synonymous for each other" there, dumbass.

I have posted links saying that weather and climate are synonyms. If you fools want to keep wasting cyberspace bloviating that YOU know more than the thesaurus compilers, be my guest.

"when I asked you if the climate could exist without the weather. "

No, in this real actual world, we did. We pointed out that this doesn't make them synonyms.

"I have posted links saying that weather and climate are synonyms"

None of them have, baz.

barry55: if you knew how to use a thesaurus you would understand that the words following the main entry are not necessarily synonyms, but are words with related meanings. For example, I looked up 'idiot' in a thesaurus and it listed (with many others) 'twit' and 'klutz', which I am sure you will agree have different meanings, both different from 'idiot'.

In your comments you have repeated a limited number of things ad nauseum. How about explaining why you think either evolution or the idea of climate change is silly. Do you have an alternative explanation for pseudogenes or similarities in cytochrome structure (other than 'God did it' which is just an avoidance mechanism); do you think the absorption bands of CO2 are wrong or that all the CO2 humans are producing is just vanishing? Come on, man! Don't be shy but tell us your considered opinion on why you think that the overwhelming majority of people who have studied the subjects are a bunch of idiots or morons (but not always twits or klutzes).

"Locate where it says Synomyms for weather and then lists the SYNONYMS "

And find that you're wrong, baz. And that you are incapable of reading.

Richard Simmons.

Do YOU know how to use a Thesaurus? When it lists weather and THEN says "synonyms" and THEN lists CLIMATE in a list of other words that mean the same as weather, it means that CLIMATE is a synonym for WEATHER. Really, are you that dense?

Evolution IS a silly hoax. You want me to offer any other explanation other than God Almighty created everything. Why is that? Why are you unwilling to accept the possibility that a Being far beyond our comprehension actually created all. I mean, you will swallow a silly notion that we "evolved" from some lower life form. Now YOU tell ME. Which is more plausible? That we sprang from some animal after BILLIONS of years of chaotic events that could just as well not even happened? That we are here just by random events? lol

To me, THAT is fantastical fantasy. That we just HAPPENED. No, I believe that an Almighty loving God created us for HIS pleasure and He loved us enough to even die for us.
YOU choose.

Oh, and He created the climate and weather too. lol

Wow, You are a moron. You have the reading comprehension of a snail. But, that's par for the course for atheists and evolutionists.

God created us. And He chose, in His infinite wisdom, and because He's God after all, so it's HIS choice, to create us (our physical bodies) through the process of evolution.

And as He was considering using evolution, He thought about the far future, when Barry55 would have been born. And God realized that by using evolution, Barry55 would have a conniption and insist that He must do it Barry55's way, "or else".

And so, at the moment of creation, God said, "Let there be evolution... Because I wish to do it this way... And I want to teach that prideful little asshole Barry55, once he's born, that *I* am the Lord Thy God and I will NOT be bound by the puny, feeble, insecure, limited imagination of such a stubborn, proud creature, and so I shall create all men, including Barry55, using evolution. And I will munch popcorn as I enjoy his little conniptions."

And so Evolution began its holy process.. ages passed.. and mankind evolved and was given a soul and cogent mind to understand the science behind how evolution created the physical world.. And Barry55 was born, and as prophesied, learned that evolution had created him. And had his conniption.

And God saw that it was a good conniption. And God was pleased. And so He rested. And ate His popcorn.

You want me to offer any other explanation other than God Almighty created everything. Why is that?

Because a good theory is useful as it enables predictions to be made. Saying "Goddidit" is not useful as anything could happen on a whim. You are really no different than the people who objected to lightning rods being put on high buildings because everyone knows God (Yahweh, Thor or whoever) decides where to send the next lightning strike.

BTW: Do you accept that a twit, an idiot and a klutz are different things? How about an ignoramus, a twerp, a wally and a dingbat? They are all listed together in a thesaurus as synonyms, even though it is obvious to any loon (although possibly not to a bozo) that they are not identical in meaning. (No insult intended to ESL people who might be unfamiliar with the words!)

Barry, you are all over the place, and little makes sense. Yes, Weikart wrote stuff, but as a Discovery Institute member he has taken an ideological side: that of the cdesign proponentsists. Weikart went way overboard when he links a biological theory, proven time and time again, with what happened in Nazi-Germany. Especially since the jew-hatred in Germany is much more directly linked to Martin Luther's vile rhetoric, and also the catholic church's long-term poor relation to jews. Reportedly, jews "killed" Jesus. Which everyone knows is nonsense, but for an Italy-centered religion it makes sense to try and downplay the role of the Romans and to elevate the new ideology.

I have posted links saying that weather and climate are synonyms.

Except that they *don't* say this, which reveals just how weak your grasp of this really is.

One last time. Please read the following carefully:

Is 'baby' a synonym for 'pensioner'?

No. Both are human but the difference is *time*.

Is 'weather' a synonym for 'climate'?

No. The difference between weather and climate is *time*.

You need to learn to think better.

I can *prove* that weather isn't synonymous with climate.

Who, after all, ever says: "what's the climate going to be like tomorrow?" or "I'll pop over later, climate permitting" or "lovely climate we've been having this week" etc.

Nobody, that's who.

Because weather and climate are not synonymous.

This is really and truly over now.

" When it lists weather and THEN says “synonyms” and THEN lists CLIMATE in a list of other words that mean the same as weather,"

Except it doesn't, baz. You still can't read thesaurus. Maybe why you can't imagine anyone else can.

"You have the reading comprehension of a snail. "

Ah, so even you admit it's still far far ahead of yours.

"Climate is what you get after a span of X years or so of weather."

So they're not synonyms, baz.

Civilisation is not a synonym for people, despite civilisation being what you get with a lot of people working together for many years.

"Can’t have a climate without the weather thereby proving the are the same thing."

No, that proves they're not the same thing, retard.

"No, this is NOT really and truly over because YOU say so. "

No, it;s really and truly over because it's over, retard.

"the WEATHER creates a CLIMATE. It IS the same thing."

Nope, it's not.

Can’t have a climate without the weather thereby proving the are the same thing.

Can't have waves without water, but 'a wave' is not merely water.

Babies and pensioners are both human but they are not the same thing.

I posted all this already, so why are you simply ignoring it?

I posted this proof that you are wrong too, so why are you ignoring it?

It wipes out your nonsense, that's why. And you are being dishonest about it.

Who, after all, ever says: “what’s the climate going to be like tomorrow?” or “I’ll pop over later, climate permitting” or “lovely climate we’ve been having this week” etc.

Nobody, that’s who.

Because weather and climate are not synonymous.

Repeat: this is really and truly over now.

"Weather" is the high-frequency noise imposed on the long-term "climate" signal.

It's not possible for them to be the same thing.

It was the conservative Jews who had Jesus killed.

The New Testament is very clear on that fact.

BBD

I'm not ignoring it. It's just that you are WRONG! lol Nowa wave is not water? lol Well, if it's a radio wave it isn't but guess what? If it's a water wave, ITS WATER!! How ignorant are you? And like I said, it's NOT really and truly over just because YOU say so. That's like you saying your taking your ball and going home because nobody wants to play by your rules.

Well, baz is random. As well as a retard.

There was no jesus. It was a fictional character, like Merlin or Arthur Pendragon.

They can't actually be killed.

" Nowa wave is not water?"

Yup.

Look at the waves on a large vat of milk disturbed. there's waves in the atmosphere. Totally not water.

If you accept His liberal teachings and principles, that is.

The Conservatives of his day killed him because he was teaching liberalism. They had him tortured and executed to "teach potential liberals a lesson" and shut down any further such "saving mankind from the scourge of carnal conservatism".

Glad YOU agree with me.

An atheist is a fool in search of a reason to live. It stands to reason, does it not? If Wow just "happened" then he has no real purpose in life other than to reproduce more fools.

"An atheist is a fool in search of a reason to live."

Nope.

You, meanwhile, are a fool looking for a clue.

"I can’t take a retard seriously."

Well, it explains the moronic shit you post.Not even you are taking it seriously.

I’m not ignoring it. It’s just that you are WRONG!

“What’s the climate going to be like tomorrow?”

“I’ll cut the lawn this afternoon, climate permitting.”

“Lovely climate we’ve been having this week.”

"Haven't been able to take the dog for a walk for two days because the climate's been awful."

Fuckwit.

All your examples prove my point: you are wrong.

That's as may be, but the problem is your being too insane to admit it even though it is literally proved in front of you.

I have wasted enough time on you I think.

"No, Jesus was NOT a Liberal."

He's a very naughty boy,. BRIAN!!!!

He's a fiction, baz. But he was DEFINITELY a liberal, progressive even.

"What has been the long-term weather in Argentina?"

It hasn't had long term weather.

"What is the long-term weather forecast for the upper midwest?"

That would be the several weather events over the next few weeks, baz.

More proof that weather and climate aren't the same thing.

The difference being we're right and you're not, baz.

" It is the LIBERALS that are running amok in the streets and creating violence. Completely opposite of what Christ taught, don’t you think?"

Yeah, 'coz Jesus would never have started a riot in a temple in protest against animal sacrifices, would he....?

Pharisee#1
Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BCE – 10 CE)

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
— Shabbath folio:31a, Babylonian Talmud

Pharisee#2
Attributed to Jesus circa 32CE
Do unto others what you would want them to do unto you.
Luke 6:31

Or physically beating moneychangers for being consumed with "corporate business" rather than focusing on the important bits...

"Now YOU tell ME. Which is more plausible? That we sprang from some animal after BILLIONS of years of chaotic events that could just as well not even happened? That we are here just by random events? lol"

Ego. Ignorance. Irrational belief. Lack of imagination.

"Hitler was an evolutionist"

Hitler was an ID-proponent and religious zealot just like you. Some quotes:
1. "The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator"
2. "Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise"
3. "It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will"

Oh, and thank you for confirming to me that christians are indeed the original source of the rampant jew-hatred that ultimately led to the holocaust.

Oh, and thank you for confirming to me that christians are indeed the original source of the rampant jew-hatred that ultimately led to the holocaust.

For sure:

As Christianity spread in Western Europe and penetrated the popular consciousness, using the emotions and imagination even more than thought and dogma in order to gain influence, various story elements began to evolve around the alleged inhumanity and sadism of the Jews. (See Map: Blood Libels.)

[...]

The Nazis used the blood libel in full force for anti-Jewish propaganda. They revived old allegations and instituted reinvestigations and trials in territories under their rule or influence: at Memel in 1936; at Bamberg in 1937 (a revival); and at Velhartice, Bohemia, in 1940. On May 1, 1934, the Nazi daily, Der Stuermer, devoted a special illustrated number to the blood libel, in which German scientists openly served the Nazi aims. The above-mentioned Handwoerterbuch (vol. 7 (1935–36), cols. 727–39) printed an article entitled Ritualmord written by Peuckert, a man who remained active and respected in German science, which is throughout simply an affirmation and propagation of the blood libel, although using some cautious phrasing. The epitome appears in the remarkable enquiry: "In conclusion to this shocking list, there remains only one question: for what purpose did the Jews use the blood?" (col. 734).

“Now YOU tell ME. Which is more plausible?"

Evolution. Because the creation of a magic fairy able to do it all is impossible.

"So many anti-semites here. "

Well, one. You. Probably "mike" and "dick" too.

Hitler most assuredly WAS a Catholic. He used darwinism, badly. Hell, the catholic church LAUDED Hitler as a good christian. Never excommunicated him.

"FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY "

Ah, so From Jesus to Hitler: Christian Ethics, Ethnic Cleansing, and Racism in the Catholic Church would ALSO be a valid book for you, right?

"You Darwinists recoil at the thought of Hitler and the Nazis were evolutionists"

Just like you went apeshit at Hitler being Catholic.

And he wasn't "an evolutionist". There's no such damn term, FFS.

"So many anti-semites here."

So far, the only who came with the blood curse is you...

So many anti-semites here.

Unreal.

Social Darwinism is not the same thing as evolutionary biology. It's a pile of crap invented by political opportunists.

Anyone can figure out how to verify this for themselves, unless they are so idiotic as to think that what comes out of the butts of the discovery institute and uncommon descent are golden tablets and not just a bunch of evidence-free rationalizations and just so stories.

I don't know, looks like something ain't right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M

Spock never lies -

[Link to breitbart deleted because we do not link to science denial sites on this blog -gtl]

"...there really were news articles in the 1970s about scientists predicting a coming ice age"

You concede that the point your entire article was written to debunk is, in fact, true. I agree that it is stupid to cite the wrong stories, and deceptive to create fake covers, it is just as deceptive to call it a "myth."