Denialists scraping the bottom of the barrel

The barrel has been scraped so many times that they've scraped enough of the soil below the barrel to have tunnelled out from Colditz!

Frankly, they're on a trip into Jules Verne territory with all that scraping.

Tim: your headline should be:

Denialists continue to scrape the bottom of the barrel

They have been doing this for years. What has changed is the fact that most people know the facts. True, some continue to deny the facts, but their voice grows fainter.

Best,

D

> Climate Data Analyst

Wha...

On second thought, the title's missing a word. It should've been "Independent Climate Data Analyst".

Wait a minute. On third thought, the word "Analyst" is probably not a good choice. They should've been called "Independent Climate Data Auditors".

Indeed. The usual crap from the Sludge man.

Of course here in southern Ontario (i.e. south-central Canada), we've just had two days of 10-15 C weather and the massive snow we did get early is mostly gone now (our usual late Dec/early Jan melt). I'd better go shout about how this spot of nice weather means global climate change is causing it.

But lest I be too alarmist it is forecast to snow next week and then plunge to -15 C mid January which, then must be touted as a sign of global cooling, because we *never* get snow or cold temperatures near the Great Lakes in January.

Seriously, the denialists never learn. Climate. Weather. Related. Not synonyms.

Man, one of my clients swallows this sort of nonsense like you wouldn't believe. Naturally he's also an ultra-right wing god-nut. Every time it's so much as a cool day he'll launch into how the earth is actually in a cooling trend, believing what he's saying without question, as though he had done research himself instead of just parroting bad thinking he heard someplace.

These kind of people, the true believers, scare the crap outta me. Part of me hopes we don't manage to avert a climate disaster so we can rub their noses in it, but the rest of me has to acknowledge that these tools aren't as trainable as dogs.

"If the roof of Booker's house was leaking and he could not afford repairs, would he then conclude that there was no leak?"

Yes.

Marohasy has a piece by Easterbrook.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/global-warming-is-over-don-eas…

global warming is over. expect an ice age soon(TM).

The funny thing is it doesn't matter.

Take what position you will on AGW, the fact remains that getting off of the carbon habit is a critical long-term economic necessity. The investment involved in kicking the carbon-fuel habit is proportionately less than that our ancestors paid for building transcontinental transportation systems, and like those systems it has all sorts of side-benefits such as domestic jobs and industry.

Sell it however we have to, or our grandchildren will (at best) be living like my great-grandparents.

Remember, some people think the root for "analyst" is "anal."

He also misses the point that heavy snowfall is only marginally related to temperature. Snow is precipitation and to get more precipitation usually requires more heat to suck that water out of the oceans. I've lived in snow country most of my life and I can tell you that the winter days when it is snowing are almost always warmer than the days that it is not. Heavy snowfall in places that usually get snow means nothing. Some of the coldest winters I can remember were dry winters.

If the southern limit of snow country was moving south, he might have a point, but all I can see on the map are the normal variations that occur from year to year.

Of course this leads to a warning for our own Independent Climate Data Auditors. Lack of snow doesn't necessarily mean it's getting warmer; it could just mean it's getting dryer. That aridity itself could be an indicator of change in weather patterns brought on by AWG, but it's dangerous to try to draw conclusions from just one source of data.

When i was 20 the world was coming to a end also ,now that im 50 its still coming to a end .When your are 50 it will still be coming to a end.As a young person 0f the seventys i cant help but laugh ,When your kids are grown what will their dooms day theory be.Gotta go gonna punch it to the floor leave my carbon foot print.

13 John,

Quite correct. Heaviest snowfall tends to happen not too far from zero C, for the simple reason that as air gets colder, its ability to hold moisture drops. IIRC the lower limit is -40C, at which point virtually no moisture can be held. The snow you see in extremely cold areas (-40C and below) fell when it was warmer.

11 Ben,

30 years ago? What was that: fears that the Cold War would become a hot one? Asteroid strike?

Good god, there are two of them. Was anyone at that AGU talk??

Ben's right -- back in the seventies the big fear was that, by the early 21st century, we'd be seeing the effects of "global warming" caused by something called "the greenhouse effect." This crazy theory inspired movies like Soylent Green and led to the banning of CFCs in aerosols. Crazy!

Also, we all wore leisure suits and danced the Hustle! Crazy!

Another obvious problem with ben's argument is that a lot of the big problems from yester-year didn't just disappear. They took a lot of thought/time/effort to overcome, to avoid the bigger impacts.

The cold war wasn't just an illusion. The ozone hole and increasing CFC's wasn't just a fairytale.

I live in Sydney, and over my life, i've watched the quality of water at the beaches and in the harbour improve markedly. But I'm not silly enough to think that it just happened that way without anyone acting to fix the problem, without governments forcing through regulations that probably increased costs for business, and without spending a lot of money. And in hindsight, I bet most sydneysiders are pretty happy with the sacrifices and the result.

Its also very easy to dismiss the problems of the past when you were a child in a privileged first world country and not really in a position to face up to these calamities. Living in cuba, or in afghanistan, or in south-east asia, you might have a different idea of what the cold war meant, and how justified the fears and warnings were.

Living in Bangladesh, you might have a different idea of what global warming means today.

So by all means Ben, feel optimism and don't let the stream of fearful messages get you down. But don't think your dismissal of the emotion means there is no need to act on the problems themselves.

They took a lot of thought/time/effort to overcome, to avoid the bigger impacts.

And an awful lot of energy. And engineering. There is an awful lot of embodied energy in the stuff that props us up. What's going to happen when the cheap energy goes away?

Kinda dark, I know.

Best,

D

And an awful lot of energy. And engineering. There is an awful lot of embodied energy in the stuff that props us up. What's going to happen when the cheap energy goes away?

That depends on how rapidly it goes away...

The cherry-picking barrel just got a lot smaller with as many as 75 high temperature records tied or broken over the weekend in a large area of the Midwest and eastern U.S.

Dano noted:

There is an awful lot of embodied energy in the stuff that props us up. What's going to happen when the cheap energy goes away?

I think a good idea may be had by reference to D. C. Sessions comment:

Sell it however we have to, or our grandchildren will (at best) be living like my great-grandparents.

The only adaptation I would make to DC's observation is to remove the "or" - I have become convinced over the last six months that humanity as a collective entity lacks the social cohesion, the foresight, and the motivation to pull their fingers out in time.

The thing is, that whatever quality of life our descendants have, it will be without recourse to the energy density that Dano referred to. As a consequence our descendants will not have recourse to the easy (re)development opportunities that the privileged West has enjoyed for the last several centuries.

And I say this because even if our future energy needs for current consumption levels can be met, as well as any energy needs for expansion of development and consumption, we are using many geological and biological resources in a non-renewable fashion.

I reckon that it's going to take a profound effort to change that last fact, on top of addressing the fossil fuel dilemma. An effort that our species has shown no species-wide capacity for to date.

Oh, and in spite of some creative denialist accounting, that global warming thingie doesn't seem to be going away...

Happy New Year.

Guys, im not trying to convince you of anything.When this world dies it is because that is its fate.changing to different light bulbs will not stop this.Green house effect of the seventys global warming now there is always going to be some calamity at our door real are not.But if you think Al gore is the man to lead you to salvation you are crazy,i saw a congressman on the news refer to gore as a mesiah what a croc.I do belive in global warming but not in the theory that its man made .Some would have you belive its all caused by AMERICA we at least have pollution standards some countrys do not.

Bernard J:

Economists call this a 'hard landing' or a 'soft landing'. It will be one or the other (my distaste for binary logic notwithstanding).

Nonetheless, it goes without saying that we want a soft landing. Whether we can work together is the key. I happen to be reading An Environmental History of the World right now, and if history repeats itself, your penultimate para is the outcome.

Best,

D

ben,

How reassuring it must be to disbelieve in the radiative properties of di-pole gaseous molecules.

Reassuring, but irrational. You're just one crazy guy, ben.

An' don'cha know,

It be the Magic Negro gonna be our Messiah, now, Massa ben. Al Gore is so last week.

Just to be clear, that ben isn't me ben. And we did get a pile of snow here in Seattle/Vancouver/Victoria, which we only get every few years. Obviously the world is near a new ice age.

I hereby confer upon Ben (with a capital B) the illustrious title of "Independent Climate Data Analyst and Reviewer Laureate".

Al Gore is so last week.

luminous raises a good point (I'm on topic, really):

we need a top 5 demonization thread too - who will be among the top 5 demonized by the standard, tried-and-true tactics used by right in 2009?

Certainly Holdren is in the running as a new replacement for Algoooooore!

Best,

D

Im not that ben, dont get me confused with that ben im the other ben , not that ben you think iam just kiding iam that ben.Iam not a scientist or even close that is for sure.Word of advice if you want to save the world , use language the average american understands .if you goal is to impress each other so be it but if you want a bigger audience you need to speak in a more every day man,ooooopppsss excuse me person language.Proud American proud english speaker proud anti socialist.

Just to be clear, that ben isn't me ben.

It was obvious that either

1. It wasn't the you ben or

2. The you ben had started drinking very heavily

I did have a couple beers the other night, so you never know.

You have two graphs, but both are not comparable, exactly. Snow graph are the anomalies zeroed over the range of the data (1966 to 2008). The temp graph, which covers a larger date range, are the anomalies graphed from a subset (1961 to 1990) of the data range. What would the graph look like if anomalies were zeroed over the data range from 1850 to 2008? hence how valid is any statement that uses the running mean? Like the 12 month running mean in the snow graph shows steeply rising slope from 200 - 2003, despite the temperature increasing during the same period.

http://tinyurl.com/9h838j
I'm excited to learn whether or not fossil fuels will fall out of use in 10 years. Fingers crossed.

Attn: D.C. Sessions
RE: Kicking the Carbon Habit

Before doing this, what replacement fuels would you recommend be prepared for the following: Boats, planes, trains, freight trucks, intercity buses, heavy machinery used in construction, mining, agriculture, forestry, etc., cars and light trucks with spirit and muscle (i.e., V8 engines), all emergency and military vehicles, motorcyles snd ATV's, etc., and Diesel-electric generating systems which are used exstensively thru out the world.

What fuel would you use for the following heavy hitters: lime and cement kilns, smelters, steel mills, foundries, metal casting and fabrication plants, ceramic manufacturing (e.g., glass, bricks, tiles, china, pottery, etc), commercial bakeries, food sterilization, breweries and distilleries, and so forth.

For us folks who live in really cold climates (e.g., Canada, Siberia, Nordic regions, etc) what fuel do you recommend we use for space and hot water heating?

Before doing this, what replacement fuels would you recommend be prepared for the following

Take your pick of solutions. Several of the applications you mention aren't "carbon as fuel" issues but "carbon as chemical component" ones; iron and steel notably. Others are "power distribution" issues.

However, the era of "fossil carbon as an energy source" is ending. We can either find replacements or go back to an economy comparable to the one our ancestors lived in prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Pick one.

I hate to get all logical on Booker...

Well, even his second reason is illogical. IF consensus collapsed, that would not "disprove" AGW either.

It's interesting that denialists always say consensus does not prove AGW, but now we have one saying that non-consensus disproves AGW. Consensus is a strange particle indeed.

But here, I wrote it as an equation:

(Ã÷Ψ)=2¶$(©±â¥)

Forthcoming in Energy and Environment, swimsuit edition.

We can either find replacements or go back to an economy comparable to the one our ancestors lived in prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Shorter denialist reply:

Warmer! AGW kook! You want us to liiiive with bubonic plaaaaaague!

The reply two years ago would replace warmer with 'chicken little'. Or was 'chicken little' three years ago and two years ago was something else...hmmm...

Well, anyway, since we don't know the 'chicken little' answer precisely, we can't take any action on the issue until we're certain, and we'll just go on burning FF like there's no tomorrow.

Best,

D

> Forthcoming in Energy and Environment, swimsuit edition.

Now that's an idea I can use.

Hey,
Has anyone got a link to a list of "scientists" who support creationism? I have a feeling it would be more than 175. I'd like to email it to these bozos with a you can do better caveat.

MP Advanced degree in beerology and alcoholic science.

RE: #34

The only process that use carbon as a chemical component is smelting of mostly iron ore. Coke is oxidized to CO which reduces the iron oxide and is burned to produce heat to drive the reaction. Steel production does not use carbon as chemical component except in small amounts which must be carefully controlled to give the various types of steel with the desired physical properties (e.g., tensile stenght, hardness, etc). In the production of aluminium, carbon electrodes are oxidized to CO2. The carbon for the electrodes can be prepared from fossil fuels or from native graphite

However, you didn't answer any of the questions. For example, what fuel are you going to use for jet planes?

So what caused the much more intense periods of global warming in the times before man could even remotely be considered the culprit?

re: #40

The question is not very well formed, but observe that:

a) Energy is conserved, so that:

change (total heat energy of Earth) = input - output

b) OHC(Ocean Heat Content) is a good approximation, since that's where most of the variable energy is stored.

c) OHC doesn't change very fast, unless input & output are seriously out of balance. Some big volcanoes can reduce temperatures fairly quickly (~1 year). However, given the way the ocean/atmosphere system sloshes around, you can get fairly different surface temperature measurements: surface temperature is *not* conserved.

d) But the whole system has metastable states, and switching between one and another can happen relatively quickly *without* a big change in OHC happening right away.

e) Hence, one has El Ninos (ocean surface gives up more heat to atmosphere, hence 1998) and La Ninas (the reverse) that happen often, but irregularly.

f) On a much bigger scale, we've had Heinrich Events and Dansgaard-Oscher Events, which cause quick changes from one major state to another ... and then go back, after a while. These aren't going on right now - the patterns are very different ... no matter how much certain people want to believe it's all natural.

g) In American football, they teach high school defensive players to "watch the runner's belt-buckle, not his head-fakes". The head goes where the belt-buckle does over the long run, but not in the short run. OHC is the belt-buckle, surface temperature jiggles are (non-purposeful) head-fakes.

Alternatively, one is the main signal, and the other has a lot of noise. See the black line in the first chart of OHC revisions, and the line is rising because output is less than input via added greenhouse gasses.

Harold Pierce Jr. writes:

what fuel are you going to use for jet planes?

How about hydrogen? Or liquefied methane from biomass? Or ethanol or methanol ditto?

So none of you read any of those quotes then? The dispute is that HUMANS cause global warming, why not take your handy little graph back a couple thousand years, the climate has changed since the beginning of time. Do you realize that c02 is the smallest factor in the greenhouse effect? Water vapor does far more to heat the earth, so should we cut back on that too? Do you realize that one volcano erupting puts more crap in the atmosphere than all humans combined, ever have and will? I don't have any problem with trying to cut back on the use of fossil fuels etc. but to think that we as humans have any chance of changing the climate is just foolish. Which of earth's animals was responsible for the ice age? Do you think the Gigantic ball of burning gas that's been getting consistently hotter since we've been keeping track may have at least a little to do with it heating up? After all, it is Earth's ONLY source of heat, and it's filling our oh so fragile atmosphere with killer water vapor as we speak. We need to figure out a way to put that fireball out before we all die from the .0001 degree increase in temp. we might experience in our lifetime,

It seems that this post is on the front page of Digg, so be prepared for more comments like that from bob.

Dear bob, all of your points are addressed [here](http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics).

omg it got cold in the winter see global warming is fake cuse its cold outside> LOL

has anyone noticed that the fluctating tempratures are rather dramatic unlike how its been for say 100s of years? the thing people forget is global warming has an unstabilizing effect on climate not just making it hot but causing oscillations in temprature. some of these deniers are just corp zombies paid for by the same people who stand to make lots of money off of coal and oil.

oh and the volcano people look at our out put it might seem small but add up 10 years and it equals 1 very large eruption. now times that by 10 and you get tambora and it did a number to the climate. when you add 1 to 1 million its still a larger number. keep adding more ones and it gets even bigger. the thing you forget is volcanoes do create alot but its sporadic and short lived we on the other had keep pumping it out faster and faster.

oh and the sun for your "factoring" is in what they call solar minimum and its output is markedly lower than usual. so where is that extra heat coming from? (solar minimum is where sunspot activity is low and since sunspots are orders of magnitude hotter that normal sun surface therefore the suns output is lower) if not the sun then where? is there some gigantic volcano we have missed somewhere darkening the sky and no one sees it? hmmm i wonder.

oh and just so you know the earth itself caused by gravitational tidal forces is filled with superheated rock that sometimes even heats water. so the sun isnt the only sorce of heat.

but i agree we are not the only cause but we are the straw that broke this camels back. every bit we add is more than the equation has been balancing since time began. therefore what ever we do does effect the system. ours is a double whammy we kill the trees that filter the air then we add co2. we have deforested 2/3 of the planet and then added all that trapped carbon right back into the air. this isnt just about oil and coal we removed most of the negative portion of the equation and that normally causes the equation to unbalance.

just my 2cp thanks and happy holidays

oh yes very short lived, in fact there are no underwater volcanos constantly spewing, or deep sea thermal vents,. Those things are just made up to make scientists feel special. I completely agree that it's foolish to think that molten rock and superheated steam would have any effect on ocean temp. The fact that only one of the co2 detectors is on a volcano and the rest are scattered, obviously proves that humans are responsible to the rise in co2 right? I was completely stupid to think the Sun had anything to do with the temperature on Earth. I read the article you suggested and it corrected me, I now see that the fact the Sun is heating is only a coincidence. I also forgot that trees are the only thing that remove c02 from the air. It's funny really, that people out there think that the crops planted in place of those trees actually do the same thing. or that the lawn in my yard also removes c02. I now see that all crops do it spit out poisonous gas that destroys our planet.

Put more energy into a fluid system, like the climate, and it changes. Places that were dry become wet, places that had glaciers, have water parks, even places that had snow will now get more snow, etc. We don't know exactly how things will change, just that they will.
Already some pretty interesting (or in some cases devastating) incidents have occurred. Among others, it looks like the monsoon cycle is changing, which is only bad news for those areas dependent on it. Even the El Nino & El Nina cycles are no longer what I had been taught decades ago.
Whether or not man is to blame is a side issue, the reality is that the climate is changing right now.
This has to be dealt with right now.
Maybe mankind is the cause and we have enough time and resources to limit the impact.
Maybe we have to start moving populations, banking bio-resources, and adjust agricultural zones.
The changing climate will cause a lot of chaos either way, a lot will be bad, but there will also be good results for some areas.
It's those fools who stick their head in the sand and deny the changes that need a reality check.

I've seen substantial quantity of data and analysis that show the climate is changing, global warming is real, and right now.
I've seen lots of accusations that it's mans fault, but I haven't seen any data or analysis to back that up, just a lot of rhetoric.
I'm not interested in political B.S., just straight facts and solution proposals that are backed up by good science. (Astrologers and Politicians need not apply.)
Is it caused by mankind, err, maybe, maybe not. Don't care, just get your freaking head out of your rectum and help us deal with it.

also it's well known that no one stands to make a dollar on the whole green movement. I here Al Gore has lost millions trying to save our poor dainty planet, he's living in a hut somewhere with no electricity or anything, what a brave soldier.... It's not like people will actually go out and buy things just because they're "green". I mean people buy Prius' because they are soo reasonably priced, good looking, and fun to drive. Hell you can get almost half the gas milage of a Volkswagen polo diesel for only 10k more. and everyone knows that mining the ore needed for the batteries has no impact on the earth, and why wouldn't you want to pay over 20k for a car that will last 100,000 miles before having to spend 10k for a new battery. And the old batteries turn into candy and rainbows, so it's happy all around. The companies offering carbon off sets aren't actually charging money, just hugs and goodwill towards your fellow man. I was completely wrong in every way thank you for steering me in the right direction. I'm gonna go out and harass suv drivers, and march around with a sign on a stick. If we all march with signs on sticks and buy battery powered cars we can stop this terrible heat monster once and for all. WHEEEEE
depp=true
notiz=[bob makes more sense this way]

oh typo in the sunspot area meant to say "orders of magnitude more energy" where it said "orders of magnitude hotter"

sorry

np morg you made excellent points, like volcanos can't be responsible for the earths temp. You also made the point that it's not the Sun doing it. Then you so intelligently pointed out that volcanos, oh no I'm sorry, superheated rocks, cause temprature changes... wait a second

ummmmm look at the amount of co2 your grass removes per acre compared to a forest and its like saying you can tow that trailer with pedal powered bike of the same size as your tractor because its the same size. Each type of plant absorbs different amounts at different rates it isn't "its green so its the same."

and bob i wasn't picking on you i was pointing out the earth creates a gigantic amount of energy. and where does it go? and for your information the mid-oceanic ridge is one gigantic volcano spanning the entire planet. and i would guess if magma comes out of there it must touch that water. just because it isn't blowing up like in the movies doesn't mean its not hot.

and to add nice jab about the prius but ummmm i didnt see many people even talking about cars in this thread. i personally dont think we need to live in huts some where. i just believe that to say we are too small to cause that is kinda short sighted. how many fish species are on the verge of collapse just because they taste good? how many parts of the earth were fertile till we moved in and tore the soil a new one. (food out no fertilizer in equals useless soil) yeah we have gotten better at keeping it healthy but how many places are barren and the only thing that changed is we moved in. and before you say it there are areas of china right now that all the topsoil is gone because of deforestation. oh and brazil too but we couldnt have caused that it must have been the sun we are way too small to change anything. (i was being sarcastic just as you did not egging you on but tit for tat)

I remember years ago when you heard the news and dealt with the facts or not. Now with the internet, we just find the news that suits us.

no i believe i said that they aren't the only cause. to say the sun and volcanos are the only things that can heat the earth is just short sighted. if the sun has been growing quieter (less sun spots) and there are few large eruptions where is this extra energy comming from?

i see you like using sarcasm for a second there i thought you were being nice.

you agree that co2 does warm the earth right since volcanos drop alot of it and thats where the volcano thing comes from. so if we dump more in then it must have some effect but how much? dont know myself but but to take a hard line and say none is not very scientific anything added is more and will affect the total system.

wow edit my posts to make them nonsensical. that's one way to make sure only your opinions are heard. This is one professionally run website eh?

Tim doesn't have to edit some people's posts to make them nonsensical!

wow, thanks for that P. Lewis, that's...uh...very... insightful?
depp=true
notiz=[bob makes more sense this way]

One can't help be be mildly amused at the likes of bob, up to a point (about a picometre would be about right). They appear to be so certain of their "facts" ("appear" being the operative word).

bob is obviously making his way to my killfile list, but in passing I would mention that the sun is not the "ONLY" source of heat on Earth.

True, the sun may be the major component by far, and we would be a cold rocky ice "cube" without it, but geothermal heat (arising from Earth's primordial accretion and subsequent and ongoing radioactive decay) is a measurable, but minuscule (~0.1 W/m2), input to Earth's heat budget. Add to that the occasional atmospheric and (sub)terranean interaction with cosmic rays and you'll most likely have sufficient energy to nurture some subterranean lifeforms (Scandinavian troglodyte bobs perhaps?) even without the sun (exobiologists take note -- but you probably do already).

The likes of bob are like a 40 W incandescent light bulb: nearly all heat and little useful light shed. However, therein might lie some usefulness ...

Hypothesis: there are sufficient bobs in the climate blogosphere that Earth could get by without the sun for heat; no need to worry about dwindling fossil fuel resources, just feed a bob a scientific fact and out comes ...

Apologies of sorts to other, sane bobs that might be tarred by my broad brush stroke here. Perhaps (P)Lanks might be a better collective noun for the subspecies irritating troll.

wow, thanks for that P. Lewis, that's...uh...very... insightful?

Yes. It was. Thanks for the thanks! [killfile]

Ah, the denialst mushroom, Psilicyber trolli.

Recognised by the fact that it bobs up from out of the dark and tries to feed us bullshit.

Don't bother picking them - they are vaguely nauseating and quite distasteful. Whacking them with a stick can be fun, but after a while they just pop up again.

Now, if someone could map the mycelia and apply an appropriate fungicide, that would be très cool!

You're right, I never even mentioned anything like volcanos or thermal vents, And I forgot about those COSMIC rays that obviously come from all the people on earth, as for being on your killfile list, well I'm on far more serious lists. My only point is that dismissing all natural means of heating in connection with global warming, is like saying it was the one single final straw that broke the camels back, and it had nothing to do with the 10 bails of straw already there.
depp=true
notiz=[bob makes more sense this way]

and, no worries I don't plan on returning, so feel free to go on preaching to the world how humans are so evil and wrong. How dare us think we have any right to any of the resources on this planet. I say we should all just go back to the planet we came from and leave this poor sick planet alone, who's with me? DEATH TO ALL HUMANS woooohooooo
depp=true
notiz=[bob makes more sense this way]

I'm still yet to be convinced global warming is a bad thing, and not much will change my mind.

I just read there is unusual seismic activity in Yellowstone lately. Perhaps that is a precursor to a huge mega volcano coming soon... That will solve some problems - wipe out much of North America and cool the earth substantially in the process.

Of course I am sure you environment nuts will blame the eruption on man as well...

However, you didn't answer any of the questions. For example, what fuel are you going to use for jet planes?

No, I didn't. That's because the question is a diversion.

If you're running out of food and someone says, "either find food or die," there's no point in arguing over hypothetical recipes. Mandarin, Cantonese, Sonoran, or Goan -- none of it changes the basic fact: find food or die.

I don't understand this theory. Seriously. There don't seem to be any facts, just generalizations or cherry picking of data, and viewpoint petitions. Where is the hard science?

The Global Warming argument is what is going to destroy the earth. We have NO idea how the world will warm up, or what it will do. Over human history (2 million years) the Earth has had periods of being MUCH warmer. And in recent human history, the world down to New York and Paris has been covered in ice and the ability to grow crops has gone down into Africa/Middle East/Texas. So all we know for sure, is that Warm MIGHT be bad and COLD WILL BE BAD. We can't predict weather out more than a day on top of that.

What we do know for sure is that oil money is being used to fund hatred of pretty much everyone and to buy those people being taught hate plenty of weapons. We do know democracy goes away as a rule in countries that make a majority of their money from natural resources. We do know that there are too many people in the world to give water, food, and clothing to. So unless everyone can stop arguing with shaky science about what MIGHT happen and start paying attention to what IS happening, the world might indeed end. Stop letting Global Maybe Warming distract us from the real issues.

Where is the hard science?

Here's the IPCC report. Lot's of hard science there. If that's not enough, you can also read the literature cited therien.

Boris, I think he is talking about denialists (viewpoint petitions).

Best,

D

> So unless everyone can stop arguing with shaky science about what MIGHT happen and start paying attention to what IS happening, the world might indeed end.

Aye, indeed, it's only a theory that Our Glorious Nation (whether it's the US, or the UK, or Australia, etc.) even has any problems to solve. However, it's obviously a true, hard, legitimate, peer-reviewed fact that Other Countries Have Problems.

Therefore, we should totally ignore the issues in our own countries and only focus on saving those other countries (by, I don't know, maybe dropping a few bombs here and there).

Remember, friends, this is Sound Science.

(Also, if the way to solve the global warming crisis involves blowing up crap, then yes, it's a True Hard Legitimate Problem. Otherwise no.)

denialist - such a cute term...

Carbon isn't the issue for global warming. Man only makes a fraction on the CO2 compared to mother nature. The gasses that cause problems are CFC's, Methane, Nitrogen Trifluoride.

You're all buying into a large political shell game. On the face the movement looks good and has a good purpose but really - the technologies used will only be ones that companies can capitalize. There will be no real efficiency because they can't make money on efficiency.

And calling anyone that disagrees with you a denialist is nothing short of being close minded and an elitist.

None of you are doing the research yourselves, and which media outlets are supplying you with the data you are reading?

get real...

Shorter CO2?: You are wrong! I am right!

Longer shorter CO2?:

Christopher Booker? Who's that? What did he say? I don't know! I don't care! Because you shouldn't talk about Christopher Booker anyway! The only person you should talk about is Algore! TALK ABOUT AL GORE!!! TALK ABOUT ALGORE NOW!!!!!! WHY WON'T YOU TALK ABOUT ALGORE?!?!!!!!!!!! I DEMAND THAT YOU TALK ABOUT ALGORE!!!!!!!!!!! James Inhofe? I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TALK ABOUT ALGORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jennifer Marohasy? JUST TALK ABOUT ALGORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Christopher Booker? ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Gregg Easte-- ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE ALGORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY AREN'T YOU WARMISTS TALKING ABOUT YOUR POPE ALGORE?!?!???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BLASPHEMY ISN'T IT? TO TALK ABOUT ALGORE? WHY WON'T YOU TALK ABOUT ALGORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, I'm thinking that the new denialists that appear on here have to pass some sort of stupidity test before they post. How else explain the total lack of reference to reality shown in such posts as #70.

But just for laughs:
THe issue is the excess CO2, above what the natural systems can absorb, and so far thats around 100ppm above the pre industrial level. Secondly, those other gases you mention, are not so strong as Co2, and we can more easily control their existence, as for example the phasing out of CFC's to protect the ozone layer.

As for the politics, I've seen everything from libertarians to communists pointing out the problems with global warming. ANd your concern for companies profits is noted, but kind of misses the point.

The word denialist is used for people such as yourself who don't know anything about the topic, yet keep telling us we're wrong, despite the non-media provided evidence we have.

Dear #73,

You are completely incorrect regarding which greenhouse gasses are more dangerous. And again incorrect regarding how much C02 made by nature - that being decomposing matter as well as the ocean, etc.. compared to man.

No i will not provide data, which im sure is the next line of thought for you. Because you can Google it as easily as i can. The word denialist is used by people like you towards people that don't agree with you, especially when our facts are more relevant than yours. And by grouping people with different view points into the 'us' 'them' categories you're only further separating the ideas that could bring about positive change.

Pulling out the 'intelligence card' already?
Thank you for only further perpetuating my point. =D

@ 41 - I asked a sincere question and you patronizingly answer. I'm on the fence on this issue for a number of reasons and I came to this site in an effort to continue refining my position.

Your command of science may be more than that of the layman, however your command of the language is not. The question was not poorly formed and no amount of patronizing on your part justifies such an absurd observation. Given the fact you answered the way you did (tone and obfuscation), to me, belies either a) a certain bias-based defense, and/or b) an unwillingness to contextualize your argument with readily available global warming trends data outside the relatively narrow scale you're examining here (to break it down so that you don't get thrown off again - thousands and millions of years of data), c) ignorance of the information in (b).

Now, if you can spare the condescending crap and contextualize this in the manner above instead of attempting to baffle with bullshit, I really am all ears.

The idea that scientists don't fall prey to the same ethical, political and social pressures present in every other field of human endeavor is the Achilles' heel of the global warming scare.

Of course scientists are going to jump on the global warming bandwagon. Their grants, reputations, and futures absolutely rely on going along with global warming lie and reinforcing it with shoddy science. Go against the modern movement, and you risk destroying your entire career. He who speaketh against the Almighty warming of the Earth shall be banished from it forever.

These scientists, whom you magically regard as incorruptible, are the same scientists who can be hired by the Pentagon in the 90's to research warp drive based on older flawed science, can be bought by a tobacco company in the 80's to produce a "consensus" that cigarettes don't cause cancer, can be featured in the news in the 70's if they make a fuss about "global cooling," can be put in front of Congress in the 20's to report that interracial breeding will destroy the human race, and all the way back to the 1600's are the same scientists who would rather denounce Galileo's findings than lose their position in the Church.

These are the scientists you put your endless faith in. And, while science should be respected as the ultimate method of attaining knowledge, scientists should be held to the same rigorous skepticism as the experiments they carry out. Just because someone is a scientists doesn't mean that he's just as flawed and corruptible (or even corrupt) as the rest of us. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that he's utterly incompetent. Just because someone is a scientists doesn't mean that he isn't as capable as a political chicken hawk of concocting a scare and getting us to dump billions of dollars into combating it.

For every convincing global warming scare graph, there's an equally convincing disproving graph. For every flaw uncovered in a disproving graph, there's an equally convincing flaw in a global warming scare graph. This isn't to say that both sides are engaging in shoddy science. It's that it's almost impossible for the layman to tell the difference between actual critical analysis and scientific double-speak and chart manipulation.

The act of the layman in taking position on one side of the argument or the other based on the evidence he prefers is ultimately meaningless because his view of the evidence he prefers is so easily manipulated.

On the other hand, any person who takes position on one side of the argument or the other based on the larger landscape of behavior, motivation, past precedent, and a healthy dose of skepticism is a person to take seriously, indeed.

I, for one, choose to be skeptical of the theory of global warming for three reasons:

1. Past Precedent: looking at the primary examples of "global cooling" in the 70's and eugenics in the 20's, you see that the pattern of how these crises were developed, argued, acted upon, and eventually abandoned match how the global warming scare is proceeding.

2. Scientific Progress: the best theories in Science are ones that are testable and have been tested in experiment for 50 to 100 years. Evolution, relativity, and gravity are all rock-solid ideas thanks to decades of rigorous testing and debate. Yet global warming has gone from unknown to "undeniable fact" in 15 years, without any tests whatsoever. How is it possible for any scientist, who would apply skepticism to any other theory without mountains of experiments, suddenly sign off on a hypothesis that only has human-designed data models and scant observation to back it up? That a scientists would do this simply doesn't make sense unless there's an agenda being served.

3. Changing Arguments: the causes, predictions of and solutions to global warming have changed several times over the last 15 years. First, it was an irreversible trend of rising temperatures, signified by increased hurricane activity. But when monster hurricanes didn't appear as predicted, the new hot phrase was suddenly "climate change" which can be far more broadly applied to any weather anomaly, thus turning it into "evidence" for the global warming scare. Then, when a large number of hurricanes did show up for one season, the news media immediately asked if this was related to climate change. NOAA's answer the first time to the question was "absolutely not" but suddenly changed to "yes" within a couple of days. And when last year's hurricane season was nearly non-existent, NOAA's answer was a very quick "must be climate change" again. In any other situation, fluctuating the definition and characteristics of a hypothesis would not be tolerated. Yet, for global warming, it's par for the course.

Global Warming is based on shoddy short-sighted science, an agenda of manipulation, and the age old tactic of political scare-du-jour fundraising.

RFJason,

Very well said. Should have been the first post here.

RFJason ... posting outright lies which can easily be shown wrong by anyone who wants to do a bit of research into the science, and the history of the science, is an astoundingly ineffective style of argument.

Hell your "it's only 15 years old" claim is going to take your average computer literate 5 yr old about 15 seconds flat to debunk.

when last year's hurricane season was nearly non-existent

So, Co2?, you agree with RFJason that last year's hurricane season was "nearly non-existent"?

Really?

The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season was the fourth busiest year since 1944 and the only year on record in which a major hurricane existed in every month from July through November in the North Atlantic.

That fits your definition of "nearly non-existent", CO2?

Wow ...

CO2? #75- feel free to popst links to whatever pseudo-science you like to say that other greenhouse gases are more dangerous than CO2. Last I read, nitrogen trifluoride was 0.04% of the warming:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2008-35.html

Your stupidity is in fact proven (a word I do not use lightly) by the way you ignored my point regarding CO2, i.e. that it is the excess above what the natural sinks can absorb that is causing the problem.

Finally, a refusal to provide data means you are nothing more than a creationist think alike. You can run away to your pals now complaining about how those nasty warming believers called you names, when in reality we're bored of people who refuse to take part in rational adult debate.

Pulling out the 'intelligence card' already? Thank you for only further perpetuating my point. =D

RFJason said (or pasted):

"These scientists, whom you magically regard as incorruptible, are the same scientists who .... can be bought by a tobacco company in the 80's to produce a "consensus" that cigarettes don't cause cancer,"

Ain't it funny that Jason doesn't realize he has that fact exactly OPPOSITE of the truth. Two prominent AGW deniers started their career as paid liars for tobacco.

You know you've been doing this too long when you can see every error RF Jason makes without actually needing to refer to anything.

Anyway, firstly, the possibility of global warming was first noted by Arrhenius over a century ago, i.e. more than 15 years ago.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

By the 1980's, scientists were getting concerned about warming due to CO2, although at that stage nothing much was done except for more research, and understandably so. That is more than 15 years ago.

Testable predictions that have been correct include a cooling stratosphere and warmer night temperatures, as well as northern hemisphere warming faster than southern one, although that last one isn't so much to do with the greenhouse gases.

The spate of evidence free posts suggests to me that someone needs to check IP's.

They just ran a follow up piece, which was even more pathetic.

especially when our facts are more relevant than yours.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You don't get your own facts, son.

Oh, wait: this is a parody character. Nobody is that clueless.

I was pwned!!!

My bad.

Folks, I think rather than new denialists, some performance artist is making parody characters in the web for some sort of new art form.

Best,

D

My true legitimate unbiased facts just beat up all your facts. Bow before my facts, if you want your facts to live.

@Ben

I'm with you on this one Ben. I'm not an old man by any stretch (42) but I've lived long enough to learn that any doomsday crap spewed on the "news" by an "expert" should be taken with a grain of salt. In the sixth grade (probably around 1979) I was told in science class that scientists said we were heading to another ice age . . . . . presumably the same scientific "experts" who are now predicting doom, but via the opposite scenario due to global warming. I've heard "scientists" say that eggs are bad for you, then saying they are good for you, then saying they're bad for you again. Experts saying nuclear power will destroy the planet to them saying it's the only way to save the planet. I've heard "experts" predicting massive death tolls from SARS and Bird Flu, etc. It never ends, and coincidentally they are never right. None of these scenarios ever materializes, and please don't waste my time by saying that we've managed to avert all these disasters through science.

What I am saying (and I think Ben too, although I don't presume to speak for him) is that all this hysteria is just that, hysteria. Scientific "experts", both past and present, seem to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as some sort of neanderthals, but scientific experts in general need to be taken with a grain of salt. Mankind and science have a long history of getting it wrong and we should slow down and check our facts before flying into a blind panic. We definitely need to stop polluting and preserve nature, but carbon credits and huge solar reflecting blankets for glaciers, etc. are all just a bunch of silliness at this point. Yes, the earth is warming, but it's been warming for thousands of years. Yes, the climate is changing, but it has always changed. Just slow down, take a breath, and try and make some rational decisions rather than running around in circles screaming "the sky is falling!"

Now, cue the enlightened "experts". . .

To #80, #81, and all the rest,

Most of you seem to share a common thread. And that is that you will argue your side with rabid fervor no matter what. In fact, i don't think many of you really care about global warming. Mostly you like to be right and insult anyone else who you deem is not the 'popular majority thinking'.

#80,

Last season refers to 2007, in which yes, i agree, it was non-existent compared to the historical data for all hurricanes in the world.

#81,
If you re-read that article that you posted then you could notice a few things. "I'd say case closed. It is now shown to be an important greenhouse gas," says Prather, who was not involved with the Scripps study. "Now we need to get hard numbers on how much is flowing through the system, from production to disposal."

That's from the website you provided. To summarize the entire paper, to me, it says this:

1.The gas has an effect as a greenhouse gas thousands of times more potent than CO2 as well as decays 4 times slower.
2.It is a byproduct from producing LCD TV's and other electronic devices.
3.Production of LCD TV's and other electronic devices is rising and therefore the level of gas in the atmosphere will rise as well.

"0.04 percent of the total global warming effect contributed by current human-produced carbon dioxide emissions"

How is this measured exactly? Surely they're taking into account our distance from the sun, magnetic fields shielding the earth, solar activity etc...

The point is, it's a greenhouse gas and that's why it was on my original list. Also, i never insulted you - and you're really scoring some massive points for yourself by insulting me. I'm not stupid because i disagree with you.

I am well read in carbon sequestration and still disagree with you.

To #85,

Your response is cute but i was actually mocking with that statement. I would like to add that it's difficult to discern sarcasm and mockery through text. So i can understand why you would post such a demeaning comment.

#34+#32
It's not possible to make steel from iron ore without quite a bit of fossil fuel. It requires natural gas fired oven to "cook" coal into coke as well as gas fired furnaces for hotrolling and annealing. A steel plant also uses copious amounts of electricity during the process.

I've noticed that most of you like to argue the minute details while ignoring the main point

As if proving or perceiving to prove the tiniest piece of information wrong, you've completely debunked the entire argument

This goes for both sides. You're all forum trolls and you know it, get a life

re: #76 burn the witch

The reason that the question was not well-formed is that the term "intense" is ambiguous in this context:

a) Does it mean a rapid change in Earth's heat content, or in surface temperatures?

b) Does it mean the slope of the curve? [i.e., change in temperature) (or OHC) / length of time.]

c) Does it require a minimum change in temperature?
I.e., if something changes 1C in a hour, that's a really fast rise ...but of course, that happens every day in most places after the Sun rises.

In any case, I provided the standard explanations and Googleable terms for natural events in which there were temperature transitions with higher slopes than usual, for periods long enough to change average surface temperature substantially. As noted, the rapid changes have tended to be "state-change...reversal of state change" rather than the more continuous effects that brought us out of the last ice age.

For more, I recommend
David Archer's The Long Thaw - p62-64 and 98 on "abrupt climate events".

I'm a bit bummed that nobody bothered to read/respond to my comment (#32), but so many thought it worth their while to respond to baiting from people who think: "if I can just post these talking points enough times, I can negate all of the basic physics of atmospheres demonstrated over the last 150 years".

@RFJason

You post of #77 was right on the money. Scientists are human and history has shown (your references 1-3 are good examples) that they are just as fallible and susceptible to political pressure as anyone else. The sky may indeed be falling, but scientists have failed to prove it, and their past failures make their current "you have to believe us because we're scientists" argument a failure from the start.

#90

Is that you I hear arguing a minute detail? Does your posting make you any less of a forum troll?

Physician heal thyself.

Steve L #92- more fusion hopes. By now I don't see anyneed to get my hopes up about it. It'll be great if it works. Where do you get this in 10 years time thing from? It'd take 2 or 3 times that even if the technology does work.

CO2? #88- and all that screed you posted is relevant how? You still havn't come up with anything to support your contention that CO2 is irrelevant, thus demonstrating a complete lack of ability to engage with anyone.
To explain further. You say:

""0.04 percent of the total global warming effect contributed by current human-produced carbon dioxide emissions"

How is this measured exactly? Surely they're taking into account our distance from the sun, magnetic fields shielding the earth, solar activity etc..."

Nope, you don't measure a gases warming effects by looking at things happening at the sun... All this is physics, complex physics it is true, but absorption and radiation by water and CO2 and other molecules has been known about and measured for decades. I can provide lots more links if you are interested.

So to sum up the current spew of denialists who've descended upon us like cow turds on a pasture ...

1. Scientists are always wrong.

2. Ideologically driven pseudo-scientific bullshit is always right.

That pretty much sums it up, right?

And pretty much explains why airplanes don't fly and my computer doesn't work, too, I imagine?

Guthrie @ #94: I'm certainly no denialist, but in the interests of seeking out teaching aids to explain this better, I'd certainly be interested in the "lots more links".

Re: This thread. It's always interesting to see mutually exclusive denialist memes rallying on the same side of a false dichotomy. Reminds me somewhat of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, except without any judge they'd respect (or even accept, since we're still waiting on their initiative...).

Thanks Guthrie. I made up the 10 years time frame. But if this experiment works in 2010, I imagine that there will be a huge increase in interest immediately. Coming from a genetics background, 10 years is an awfully long time wrt technological advancement. Perhaps it's too optimistic/naive to apply that to physics.

Brian D #94- rats you aren't supposed to call me on it ;)

For starters theres Spencer Wearts book:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Then from Eli:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.h…
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/06/lubos-explains-it-not-greenhouse-eff…

I'm sure there are more, but finding them is tricky.

Steve- firstly you have to get your pilot plant working. Then you have to run it for a long time for reliability and tweaking. Then you need to design and build bigger commercial plants, all of which takes many years, and finally, you have to build more commercial plants. And more. Replacing fossil fuels with fusion would take several decades just to build all the necessary plants.

The place I work, using decades old technology to make furnace insulation, moved site this year and it still took nearly 2 years of planning and building to do so, and it'll have taken about 3 years overall from start to finish.

I believe in my own observations. And they tell me that since 1995, the average autumn climate has changed in some consistent way here in Southern Ontario. As long as I could remember, the leaves on oak trees turned a mud brown and then fell. Since 1995, they hang on longer and add bronze, red, and wine tints. Whatever the year-to-year variations: early cold snaps, dry or wet years, or three "Indian summers" in a row, the new look has been consistent.

1995 had an outstandingly warm and fine fall, which produced other variations, such as plumb leaves that turned all the way to "plum" purple and cherry leaves that went through a rainbow from green to yellow, red, and brown in bands on the same leaf. But the oak trees were the most striking change. It's fairly obvious that the longer fall season allowed an extended progression of chemical changes in the leaves. But so far as I know, no climate researcher has addressed that particular piece of evidence, either in support of climate change or to explain it away. Anybody?

Sorry, that should have been "plum".

Everyone seems eager to harness the wind, but it seems to me that we have a fairly continuous power source in waves. Why aren't we harnessing either the power of waves pounding on sea walls and shores or the vertical motion of waves with some kind of floating oscillator?

Monando, we are harvesting waves in Yurp.

It's fairly obvious that the longer fall season allowed an extended progression of chemical changes in the leaves. But so far as I know, no climate researcher has addressed that particular piece of evidence, either in support of climate change or to explain it away. Anybody?

Can't find it now, but there is some evidence that longer periods in leaf leads to longer metabolic respiration, and lower nutrient levels in litterfall in autumn. IIRC.

Best,

D

Monado @99
"But so far as I know, no climate researcher has addressed that particular piece of evidence, either in support of climate change or to explain it away."

A good compendium of research results on these topics is Stephen Schneider & Terry Root, eds "Wildlife Responses to Climate Change - North American Case Studies", 2002.

There are *many* studies:
Google: global warming vegetation range

Or go to the IPCC WG II, especially Chapter 1. See especially section 1.3, and precisely:

Table 1.7 Changes in lengths of growing season

Table 1.8 Changes in timing of spring events

Table 1.9 Evidence of significant recent range shifts polewards and to higher elevations

[I.e., there are numerous studies.]

More specifically:

New England expects to lose most of its sugar maples to you folks in Canada:

Google: vermont sugar maples global warming

The grapes in the Lake Okanagan, BC area have improved over the last few decades, due to milder climate; we sample them each year when we're up there, and they're getting pretty decent. I always thought "Canadian wine" was a contradiction in terms, but not any more.

Of course, fauna migrate as well. Unfortunately, insects, especially can fly faster than trees move, hence the pine beetles now chewing the trees in BC and Alberta, and the West Nile virus, relatively recent up there. Hence, Canada gets some near-term plusses from AGW, but you get some minuses also,

Flora and fauna range motion is of course extremely compelling evidence of warming since:

-- they don't read thermometers

-- they could care less what NASA GISS or Hadley say, or whether the MWP was warmer than now, or whether they can find a badly-sited weather station somewhere in the USA's 2% of the world.

-- most of them aren't near big cities, so they could care less about arguments over Urban Heat Island effects
(except possibly racoons, who will likely adapt to almost anything :-))

@ dhogaza

To answer your drivel . . .

"So to sum up the current spew of denialists who've descended upon us like cow turds on a pasture ..."

- It's a nice trick giving anyone who disagrees with your the label "denialist". Unfortunately it doesn't work.

"1. Scientists are always wrong."

- I didn't see anyone post that on this thread, so you're arguing against yourself on that point. What I did see was people saying that we need to view scientists "expert" conclusions with a grain of salt because a lot of doomsday conclusions they've made before have not come to pass. They don't have a reliable track record, so that skepticism is just good common sense. If you want to drink the kool-aid then fine, but I look at stuff with a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially when the people who propagate it (such as yourself) belittle and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. THAT sets off alarm bells to me that they probably don't have a leg to stand on.

"2. Ideologically driven pseudo-scientific bullshit is always right."

- Funny you should mention this one, because it sounds like you're describing yourself and the whole global warming/climate change cult who won't tolerate dissenting opinions.

re: Monado @99 & 100

Oops, after talking about the general problem, I forgot to post something more specific to the leaves.

I assume you were talking about red oaks?, as per Vermont pictures. The Wikipedia page autumn leaf color has some useful info, but a nice summary is from Why leaves change color:

"A succession of warm, sunny days and cool, crisp but not freezing nights seems to bring about the most spectacular color displays."

Hence, it looks like a little more warmth gets more of your oaks into the colorful range.

Wave power: lots of people are working on it, but it's not really here yet, and it is work. I heard a talk a few months ago by Stanford Prof. Margot Gerritsen, and people are trying numerous wave power, tidal power, and related approaches. Maybe some of them will get practical.

Hmmm, it's mushroom season alright.

Or perhaps they're puff-balls: big on the outside, empty inside except for the countless pernicious spores that waft abroad once they've been split in two.

They certainly do seem to come in waves. Are they specifically recruited to come here en masse? And are they so stupid that actually they believe the frequently-rebuffed crap that they post, or do they merely think that by repeating it sufficiently it either becomes true, or at the least will be regarded by most as being true?

These denialists often wonder, or claim to wonder, how apparently small amounts of a greenhouse gas could cause warming. Well, to provide a metaphor for an answer, it's a bit like how there are a only a small number of contrarians and denialists who ignore the genuine science, but that they nevertheless make enough clamour to sway the critical few percent in the general population that can turn an election.

It's the only reason that I pay them any heed at all: they are by themselves a simply perverse minority, but they have effects beyond their numbers.

And they know this; that's why they continue to pop up with patent garbage for 'evidence'. And because they understand that small effects can have profound impacts, I would bet that many of them also know deep in the atrophied jerky that passes for their hearts, that the science similarly, and validly, describes phenomena of small effects and profound impacts.

It's bizarre though to see mainstream science accused of employing the denialist propaganda strategies. That's a twist on FUD.

Perhaps they are feeling the pressure, and growing desperate.

They are certainly not supported by science.

@Bernard J.

I think just about every one of your posts uses the ridiculous term "denialist". Is that the latest word that Big Brother has approved. I see you're using it a lot during your 2 minute hate. Your inability to allow anyone else to have an opinion contrary to yours reveals how little you trust your own "science". The more your belittle the weaker your position becomes.

um...dhogaza #95
Tag team trolling mayhaps?

"Your 'facts' are bogus, and here is a detailed explanation of why."

"WAAAH! YOU CALLED ME A 'DENIALIST'! BOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! MOMMY! MOMMY! THEY HURT! I AFRAID!!!!!!!"

"Here's the IPCC report. Lot's of hard science there."

i think that's the problem. science at that level is hard. i know it takes me more time that i really have to spare to digest the relatively small selection of the literature which i care to chase down via the web, and a lot of brainpower and even then i know i haven't gotten it all under my scalp; and that's completely beside the question of how a given paper fits in the big picture of the field and whether it's an outlier or not. and i know the professionals in the field spend ten hours a day minimum at it.

whereas the skeptic literature is pretty simple and can be digested quickly; unfortunately the holes in the publications show up quite rapidly. i could peer review it and reject it from my knowledge.

but if you're the kind of person who didn't get an advanced degree in a climate related field but bets he could if had wanted to, you're not going to demonstrate it to your own satisfaction by following the hard path, you're going to go with the cranks and their simpleminded halfbaked concepts, and fill in the missing gaps with tales of the moral turpitude of those who are so craven as to publish something which you yourself cannot understand.

oh and despite the bleating, this thread could do with more disemvowelling, rather than less.

@Steve L,

Regarding you link on #32. I can not access it because it is a tiny url so my firewall will automatically block it as a spy site.

At #106.

I have no qualms calling a spade, a spade.

To follow on from what z said: if you and your ilk actually referred to expertly substantiated science, then I would use a different term - perhaps even 'sceptic', just as I consider myself to be.

As it is, you rely on discredited work, on mythology and hearsay, or even on just downright ridiculous ideological imaginings. Thus it is that I am left with no alternative but to consider you a denialist, because that is exactly what you are - denying the best science in order to maintain your contrary stance.

Look up Dunning-Kruger effect, and then ask yourself why you Denialists happen to understand something so much better than do thousands of the world's most experienced, most qualified experts.

The answer, in case you discover that its derivation overly taxes your intellectual resources, is simply that you don't.

Ergo, denialist.

bob manages to post seven denier cliches in one medium-sized paragraph:

Do you realize that c02 is the smallest factor in the greenhouse effect? Water vapor does far more to heat the earth, so should we cut back on that too? Do you realize that one volcano erupting puts more crap in the atmosphere than all humans combined, ever have and will? I don't have any problem with trying to cut back on the use of fossil fuels etc. but to think that we as humans have any chance of changing the climate is just foolish. Which of earth's animals was responsible for the ice age? Do you think the Gigantic ball of burning gas that's been getting consistently hotter since we've been keeping track may have at least a little to do with it heating up? After all, it is Earth's ONLY source of heat, and it's filling our oh so fragile atmosphere with killer water vapor as we speak. We need to figure out a way to put that fireball out before we all die from the .0001 degree increase in temp. we might experience in our lifetime,

1. CO2 is not "the smallest factor in the greenhouse effect." It's #2 after water vapor, and contributes about 26% of the clear-sky IR absorption (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997).

2. We can't cut back on water vapor since it's controlled by ambient temperature.

3. The volcano trope originated with Rush Limbaugh and was pulled out of his ass. All the volcanoes in the world put about 200 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year according to the US Geological Survey. Human technology adds more than 30 billion, 150 times as much.

4. Humans have been changing the climate in many ways for a long time. Nature is not magically exempt from human interference. Ask the passenger pigeon.

5. Ice ages are caused by subtle changes in the Earth's orbit known as Milankovic Cycles, which alter the distribution of sunlight over the Earth's surface. The changes are not in and of themselves enough to provide the known temperature changes; you need amplification by carbon dioxide to make it work.

6. The sun's output has shown no trend either up or down for the last 50 years. We've been measuring it from satellites like Nimbus-7 and the Solar Maximum Mission. So sunlight can't have caused the sharp upturn in global warming of the last 30 years.

7. The Earth's temperature has risen by half a degree just in the last 30 years. That's considerably more than 0.0001, as you suggest.

RFJason writes:

Scientific Progress: the best theories in Science are ones that are testable and have been tested in experiment for 50 to 100 years. Evolution, relativity, and gravity are all rock-solid ideas thanks to decades of rigorous testing and debate. Yet global warming has gone from unknown to "undeniable fact" in 15 years, without any tests whatsoever.

Do some research before you post. Fourier discussed the greenhouse effect in 1824, Tyndall showed that it was primarily due to water vapor and carbon dioxide in 1859, and Arrhenius made the first estimate of global warming from doubled carbon dioxide in 1896. How do you get "15 years" out of a theory that is more than a century old?

InTheShelter posts:

Yes, the earth is warming, but it's been warming for thousands of years.

No, it has not. We passed the peak of the interglacial 6,000 years ago and the Earth has been steadily cooling since then, on its way to the next ice age 20,000 years from now. It only began to warm 150 years ago when the industrial revolution kicked into full swing. Do some research before posting.

@Bernard J

Well then let me take a minute to call a spade a spade.

"denying the best science in order to maintain your contrary stance."

- Who determined this was the "best science"? You? Some other "expert". How does this correspond to the "best science" of the late 70's when I was taught in school that we were heading to an ice age? Best science. . . . if our past best science is any indication of the quality of our current best science then I'm right on the money when I look at their rantings with a skeptical eye.

"ask yourself why you Denialists happen to understand something so much better than do thousands of the world's most experienced, most qualified experts."

- I never said I understood it better. (A poor attempt at a strawman argument). I said look at the scientific proclamations with a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially when supported by cult members (such as yourself) who shout down any dissenting opinion or give those who disagree with them childish labels like "denialists". You do know that's not even a word don't you? Did you apply the same rigorous attention to accuracy in your scientific review that you do in your grammatical skills when you post?

And who decides who is the "world's most experienced, most qualified experts"? You? Me? What independent test did they take that rated them as the most qualified experts? What was their score on that test? You label them as the most qualified and experts in order to support your position, but let's be honest, you only rate them that way because they agree with the agenda you're pushing.

And then you follow up your lack of facts by name calling in bold letters? As though you're going to hurt me by putting the word in bold. I already see through you and other cult members like you, so you're wasting your time with that tactic. Go drink the kool-aid and hide under your bed.

Barton Paul Levenson writes:

"How do you get "15 years" out of a theory that is more than a century old?"

- Because 15 years ago no one was screaming the sky was falling at the top of their lungs like they are today. If your global warming proof has been around for a hundred years then why were they saying in the late 70's that we were heading for another ice age? If it was proven already then the "experts" wouldn't have been saying that, now would they? RFJason was right on the money with his skepticism. Do some research before you post.

very good and very patient explanations.thanks Barton.

"BOO-HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! MOMMY!!!!!!!!!! THOSE WARMIST NAZIS CALLED ME NAMES!!!!!!!!!!! THEY CALLED ME A 'DENIALIST'!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Time was, back in the day, the quality of denialist trolls here was much higher.

What happened? Did someone get a shipment of organ grinder monkeys at rock bottom prices? You never know what will occur in a bad economy...

Best,

D

Barton Paul Levenson writes:

"It only began to warm 150 years ago when the industrial revolution kicked into full swing."

- Really? Then why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's? By your own statement this should have been some 120 years after global warming began yet the experts still got it wrong? Could it be the "experts" are getting it wrong again? Or are you wrong? Do some research before posting.

Dano:

Well, you see, we're now headed for the Nude New Economy and the Nude New Media, where what matters is not Quality, but Quantity. The good old days when climate trolling came in the form of a few smooth-talking PR experts wearing lab coats showing up on TV at every opportunity? No more, no more. This is the Web 2.0 era, bro.

NEWS FLASH

Denialists scraping the barrel have reportedly just encountered the boundary between the asthenosphere and the mantle.

Independent verification, after peer review, is still awaited.

InTheNutHouse spews,
"Why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's?"

Cite please.

When you say "our experts", you do mean the nation academy of science or some such, right? You are not just talking about "Joe the adjunct professor in geology" right? Not just one lone nutjob but the vast majority of the scientific experts, right? And this was published in OUR literature, right? That is to say in the scientific journals, right?
And no, that doesn't include the National Enquirer or Time or Newsweek or popular science even. Those aren't our journals.

Who determined this was the "best science"? You? Some other "expert".

InTheShelter, I would suggest that you have spent rather too much time hunkered in your own particular shelter if you do not have an operational understanding of the processes of science, and yet deem yourself qualified to criticise it. Apparently you have no acquaintance with granting bodies, with university administrative bodies, with professional societies, with scientific journal editors, with intergovernmental panels, nor with any of a number of other processes by which science is assessed.

I don't directly assess material outside my own professional disciplines of science (unless it is to weed out the patently absurd), but I know how to compare the scientific interpretation of fellow scientists and how to understand the critical analyses they provide.

The scientific process itself is not infallible, but your denialist 'evidence' and 'assessment processes' are nearly always found wanting, and certainly much more so than is the expert consensus.

If you disagree I would be most amused to see your detailed rebuttal.

As to 'grammar', you don't seriously believe that you have somehow scored a point do you? Dear me, if you are looking to ping me for my use of vocabulary (and on the rigor of my attention to my writing skills), perhaps you should hose down my coining, in jest, of the term 'damplification' which has started to find life on other blog.

Mind though that your dictionary doesn't fall out of your pocket when you goose-step over.

How does this correspond to the "best science" of the late 70's when I was taught in school that we were heading to an ice age?

If you were taught that in school then you weren't being taught "best science", but rather a mass media meme promulgated by a small cadre of folk, most of whom weren't even scientists.

Of course if you dispute this fact then you will be able to point to the many published mainstream papers that explore the processes behind that anticipated ice-age.

A poor attempt at a strawman argument

No, it is a straight-forward question: "why [do] you Denialists happen to understand something so much better than do thousands of the world's most experienced, most qualified experts?" It is surely a simple one to answer directly, as I am interested only in the direct answer.

And note that I used the plural, so I am in fact interested in the validation process used by the body-general of denialism (oh, that word again!). Your turning of the question into one focussed upon yourself is the strawman, if there is any at all.

And for what it's worth, I have no cult fetish, I have no prescribed agenda, and I am sceptical of all 'final' conclusions. As a professional ecologist/population biologist I have many other pressing issues to preoccupy my mind, and I would gladly accept any sufficient and credible evidence that carbon dioxide is not going to warm the planet to the endangerment of its ecosystems and their attendant functions. I treat scientific knowledge as any reasonable praticioner of science does, and I assess each and every fact upon its own merits.

The thing is, so far the denialist case does not stand up to scrutiny nearly as well as the AGW proposition does, and it is on that basis that I accept the current consensus. And because I accept that consensus, and because I see that the Denialist cause does not apply the same 'rigor' (that you so crave), I will call you and others out on your erroneous claims.

When I can be bothered that is... these days the contrarian cause is limping to a grave, albeit not a quiet one, and I am happy to let others whack more of the moles. Sadly, and frustratingly, the denialist cause has acheived most of the aim it had of causing delay, so I intend to turn my attentions to matters where I might have a greater positive impact for the ecosystems that I so care about.

The fact of my engagement of you must imply that you are a somewhat special denialist - or simply just a particularly recalitrant one.

If only I had that fungicide...

Show me a computer model that can accurately predict the 10-day forecast and then I'll be slightly more inclined to believe in global warming.

InTheShelter made a fool of him/herself by writing "Then why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's...Do some research before posting."

Do you people ever do any research before posting? Here's a hint - take a look at the following paper (it's available online). The title might give you an idea of why you are making yourself look silly:

Peterson, T.C., Connolley, W.M. and Fleck, J. 2008. The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 89, No. 9. 1325-1337.

In your own words - "Do some research before posting". Of course, if the above paper is wrong, so feel free to submit a reply to the journal. Until then...

Ryan,

1. Do you know the difference between weather and climate? I suggest that before you ask any more silly questions you might want to look this up.
2. Can you explain how one can predict a forecast, or indeed why one would want to do so?

I remember the being taught the Ice age hype in the 70's as well........I am a proud "Man Made Global Warming denialist.

Elkmon,
It is very brave of you to come out so publically about your denialist delusions. Admitting your weaknesses, as you have, is the first step towards recovery. Please be assured that you are amongst friends here. We are here to help you - you have taken a big step. Well done!

I remember the being taught the Ice age hype in the 70's as well........I am a proud "Man Made Global Warming denialist.

What do we expect from someone whose science knowledge in the 1970s came from one article in Time Magazine?

And one thing that's clear ...

The bottom of the barrel of denialists have come scraping by ...

Whoever above said that the quality of denialists here used to be much higher is right. These guys make Lance seem brilliant, for example.

dhogaza, in the case of Elkmon it was the big, scary school teacher man who told him, so it must be true...

Here is the link for the paper mentioned by Dr. Dave

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

@
@ bernard J.

"If you were taught that in school then you weren't being taught "best science", but rather a mass media meme promulgated by a small cadre of folk, most of whom weren't even scientists."

- How would you know who taught it? It was the general consensus back then that we were heading into another ice age. ElkMon (post #129) remembers it too. Your denialist stance about scientific experts flip flopping on issues shows your true colors. It just demonstrates that the latest "expert" opinion can turn 180 degrees a few years later, so you should take their self proclaimed "expert" opinions with a healthy grain of salt.

As for your condescension in all your posts, it doesn't make you more intelligent, nor correct to write your posts that way. You haven't advanced your cause at all, and you can't even competently converse with someone who simply states the "expert" opinions should be scrutinized and questioned based on their poor performance in the past. Learn some people skills first and then maybe you can graduate to telling me how the entire world's climate functions.

@Dave

"InTheShelter made a fool of him/herself by writing "Then why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's...Do some research before posting. . . . . Do you people ever do any research before posting?"

- I don't need to do any research on it. That is what I was taught. I was there. There's no research that can be done that can prove or disprove what my science teacher taught me. So rather than me wasting my time researching something that I KNOW happened, perhaps you could do some research on reading comprehension so your replies make sense in the context of the original message. You made a fool of yourself when you posted something that made no sense. Physician heal thyself!

And just for the record, Ryan is correct in his wish for an accurate 10 day forecast before he'll swallow any more of your "expert" drivel. If you don't have the understanding to forecast at least 10 days in advance then how could I possibly trust you to understand the global climate and what is causing it to change?

What you climate change/global warming cultists don't seem to understand (despite your vast self proclaimed expert knowledge) is that the cheesy techniques you use on this thread don't affect me. You're like Scientologists who shout insults and brainwashed dogma at anyone who dares to question them. I see you for what you are and there's nothing you can do to hurt me, nor convince me of the infallibility of your scientific experts. Your own denialist attitude toward the concept that scientists could be wrong, that they are human and succeptible to political/fiscal pressure, and the title of "expert" is a title with no certification behind it, leads me to discount anything you say. Until you can admit that the best scientific consensus often gets reversed later because it was wrong, you will never convince me that you have a shred of scientific impartiality yourself. Your very inability to allow for anything other than what your opinion is shows you don't understand scientific impartiality, so you render your own arguments as suspect.

Sorry, but you have failed to convince me that you know any more about this than I do. I can beat your arguments with simple life experience that shows that "experts" are often wrong, especially when disseminated through the infotainment of the network evening news.

> You're like Scientologists who shout insults and brainwashed dogma at anyone who dares to question them.

"BOO-HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! MOMMY!!!!!!!!!! THOSE WARMIST NAZIS CALLED ME NAMES!!!!!!!!!!! THEY CALLED ME A 'DENIALIST'!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Trent1492 @ 111, try typing ""tiny man-made star"" into google. That should take you to a story about a fusion experiment. Thanks for the info about tinyurl -- I didn't know it was commonly blocked by firewalls.

InTheShelter's science teacher taught him:

we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's

You must have gone to a rubbish school if your science teacher's knowledge came from Newsweek magazine. No wonder you know so little about science.

InTheShelter:

I am as old as you are, and I recall the global cooling crap. However, it was popularized in the general press without support by the science. In a physical geography class, it was raised and then refuted by the prof. In the late seventies/early eighties I attended several courses in climatology and glaciology, none bothered to address a theory of rapid cooling, but offered simulations based upon Milankovich that temperatures were to cool. By the same token they did discuss the Alvarez 'bolide impact' hypothesis at the K/T boundary.

Fifteen years ago you had island nations and the third IPCC concerned with rising sea level from global warming leadking to Kyoto. Most climatologists were not 'alarmed' because there appeared to be ample time to address given the success in phasing out CFCs.

Ryan and you forget how inaccurate pre-weather satellite and computer driven weather forecasting was. As I recall, you had an equal chance looking out the window as you would following the daily forecast, at least on the west coast.

Mike

It was the general consensus back then that we were heading into another ice age.

I'm 54. You're either 1) misinformed or 2) lying or 3) both.

It is obvious from InTheShelter's comments that he never even completed school. So how come a teacher told you all that nonsense?

InTheShelter, your posts are so juvenile and ignorant of science that you probably are still in school probably about Grade three or four right now.

As I recall, you had an equal chance looking out the window as you would following the daily forecast, at least on the west coast.

Not quite that bad. Looking out the window of the weather ships and using weather buoy data gave us a *little* more information. In fact, this allowed for the forecasting of the Category 3 Columbus Day Storm that hit the Pacific Northwest literally HOURS before it hit! :)

z @ 109:

Dire Predictions, by Michael Mann and Lee Kump, is a very accessible layperson version of the IPCC report, in a nutshell. It's even formatted like a coffee table book, with longer stories punctuated with graphics and blurbs. It was enough to get my decidedly nonscientific mother up to speed (she wasn't informed about the science but wasn't opposing it at all, now she understands the scope of the problem), and that might be enough to help others rise above the denialist tripe as well.

The biggest problem I see is that it's written by Mann, who's long been the target of a smear campaign.

@ mgr

Where the teacher got the information I can't tell you. Obviously in 6th grade you don't ask your teacher to cite references, but at least you're another person who remembers being taught this, wherever it came from. The cultists on here (based on the civility of your reply I wouldn't include you in that group) have come up with some Newsweek straw-man argument, but it's really irrelevant. A common sense assumption is that he didn't pull it off the evening news or from a magazine, but either way it's what he taught and apparently others were taught the same thing back then.

What's funny about this whole thread is that not one of the cultists on here ( those insulting me and calling dissenters the ridiculous "denialist" label) can at least admit the plain truth that there is a long history of scientists claiming they understood something only to reverse it later. They also say that anyone who disagrees (or at least voices the opinion that there is room for possible disagreement) doesn't understand science or is not a reputable scientist. They've made up their mind and won't allow anyone to discuss anything to the contrary. To me that sets off the alarm bells right there. I continue to remain skeptical of the certainty of any of this "science" since there are dissenting opinions from other scientists. Maybe I'll end up being wrong, it won't be the first time, but I'll continue to be skeptical of any "experts" on any topic as long as the cult that surrounds them uses tactics like I've seen in this thread.

@Ian Forrester

"It is obvious from InTheShelter's comments that he never even completed school. So how come a teacher told you all that nonsense?
InTheShelter, your posts are so juvenile and ignorant of science that you probably are still in school probably about Grade three or four right now."

- What is also obvious is your failed attempt at derision reinforces my mental image of anyone named Ian. None of my posts argues any particular science one way or the other. What my posts DO say is scientists have a history of getting it wrong too, and saying there is no room for dissenting opinions in the face of your version of scientific fact is a ridiculous assumption. If you can't understand my posts then ask me nicely and I'll explain them to you, but until then please don't comment about them if you can't comprehend what I'm saying.

Intheshelter, you are the one who is doing the insulting. By your ridiculous comments you are insulting every honest and hard working scientist who has done much to improve your life (maybe even teaching you a thing or two).

You are not only an AGW denier you are an anti-science bigot. You know nothing about science or how science is conducted. Please take your drivel some where else.

@Ian Forrester

"Intheshelter, you are the one who is doing the insulting. By your ridiculous comments you are insulting every honest and hard working scientist who has done much to improve your life (maybe even teaching you a thing or two).
You are not only an AGW denier you are an anti-science bigot. You know nothing about science or how science is conducted. Please take your drivel some where else."

- This is exactly what I'm talking about. Way to go, you're holding up your end of the bargain! According to you I'm "insulting" scientists? How am I doing that exactly? When did I insult any scientist in any of my posts?

According to you I'm also an "AGW denier"? What exactly is the litmus test for that? Anyone who dares to question rabid AGW cultists on their blind faith in scientists infallibility?

I'm also an "anti-science bigot"? I think you've outdone yourself on this one. Does this mean I'm against science and people of another race, or I'm a bigot against "anti-science"? Is anti-science like anti-matter? Will there be a huge explosion if anti-science and science come together? Can I use anti-science to power the warp drive if I run out of anti-matter? . . . Did you even read your nonsense before you hit the Post button?

You latest posts show you to be anything but a learned man of science. The childish insults you've strung together don't even make sense. If your grasp of science is anything like your inability to string a coherent sentence together in a posting then I feel my position is even more justified.

I don't need to do any research on it. That is what I was taught. I was there. There's no research that can be done that can prove or disprove what my science teacher taught me.

But why would you assume that because you were taught something, that all the experts were predicting an ice age in the 1970s?

If you found a consensus statement like those for AGW, that might be interesting. Your individual schooling history is not evidence that all of science is wrong.

Intheshelter said: "When did I insult any scientist in any of my posts"? Here is a quote from your post, are you going to deny that you said it? "I don't need to do any research on it. That is what I was taught. I was there. There's no research that can be done that can prove or disprove what my science teacher taught me".

That shows your true colours, you are not a "skeptic" but pathological denier.

You, like so many other deniers, lack basic skills in understanding science and other disciplines, which most of us mastered during our education.

Keep on responding, you are proving yourself more and more of an AGW denier with every sentence you write.

Well, InTheShelter ...

"I don't need to do any research on it. That is what I was taught. I was there. There's no research that can be done that can prove or disprove what my science teacher taught me"

There are science teachers in this country who teach that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the story of creation is literally true, and all of modern biology bullshit.

That doesn't mean that there's a scientific consensus that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Well, in your world, apparently it does.

@Ian Forrester

""When did I insult any scientist in any of my posts"? Here is a quote from your post, are you going to deny that you said it? "I don't need to do any research on it. That is what I was taught. I was there. There's no research that can be done that can prove or disprove what my science teacher taught me".
That shows your true colours, you are not a "skeptic" but pathological denier."

You idiot. I don't deny I said it. Unfortunately for you, it was referring to me not having to do any research into whether or not a teacher taught me we were headed for an ice age. And I don't need to research that, because I was there when he taught it. Aside from that, how could I research whether he taught it? Should I jump in a time machine and go back and videotape him teaching me that lesson? I wasn't talking about science nor scientists there, so how could that be insulting any scientist? How can you try to question my ability to understand science when you can't even understand the context of a few sentences? Once again proving my point that you need to learn some basic reading comprehension skills before you display your ignorance to too much of the world.

And just to reiterate my point throughout all these post, since you have failed to understand it IAN, I have said nothing against science nor scientists. I have only said scientists have been wrong many times so a dose of skepticism and caution is warranted, especially when the "science" is pushed so heavily by intolerant cultists (e.g.: YOU).

Well dhogaza . .

It seems that more than myself were taught this in the 70's. So although that doesn't mean there was a scientific consensus it sure seems to indicate that multiple science teachers across the country were getting their science curriculum from the same source. So I would assume there was, in fact, a sizable group of people who believed in it enough to incorporate it into public school science curriculums. So maybe there wasn't a consensus. I can't prove there was any more than you can't prove there wasn't. But it was obviously believed enough to be incorporated into science curriculums, so I seem to have a bit more proof for my side of the argument then you have for yours.

So aside from your ridiculous straw-man argument (which failed of course), it seems I've got more to bolster my assertion about what was taught then you have for yours, now doesn't it Einstein?

InTheShelter said:

I'm not an old man by any stretch (42) but ... In the sixth grade (probably around 1979) I was told in science class that scientists said we were heading to another ice age ...

(1) If you're 42 and it was 6th grade, then that is likely to be 1977, isn't it? Or perhaps you were taught in 8th grade that "we were heading to another ice age [sic]". Still, it could conceivably be 1978 and/or 7th grade. No matter really, but it seems typical of the inexactitude present elsewhere in your opening comment.

(2) If your teacher told you "in science class that scientists said we were heading to another ice age" (and I presume you mean imminently, i.e. on the order of 1,000 years or so), then either your recollection is materially incorrect about what you were taught or your teacher was not up to much. Why? Because we are in an ice age: the Devensian (or some other local variant name)! And we've been in one for about 100,000 years (IIRC). What do you think is covering Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean? Fairy dust? A competent science teacher would not get this wrong; an incompetent teacher and/or incompetent/inattentive pupil and latter-day commenter would likely get it wrong. Which is it then: incompetent teacher, incompetent/inattentive pupil, ...?

Anyway, in passing, use of the phrase "heading to another ice age" does smack of popular culture sourcing, i.e. Newsweek, Time, NYT, ..., which if not proof is at least indicative of probable source of "knowledge", whether it was the teacher or you. Read the Peterson et al. paper to which you were referred later, particularly Sections 7 and 8. But I don't suppose you will.

(3) Being taught in "1979" that we were "heading to another ice age [sic]" was not necessarily wrong (except in terminology terms). Until some work in the last year or two we were held to be heading into another glacial period (within the current ice age) some time in the next 10,000-15,000 years or so; and until that recent work that was still the consensus. It might still even be the consensus -- I don't know -- but the chances are reasonable that current and pipeline AGW will postpone that next glacial period beyond about 50,000 years.

(4) "presumably the same scientific "experts" ...".

Well no! As any reasonable reading of Peterson et al. would confirm.

(5) "I've heard "experts" predicting massive death tolls from SARS and Bird Flu".

Well, since mass deaths associated with avian flu still await the various avian flu strains' genetic mutation (either directly from the avian source or indirectly perhaps through pigs infected with human and avian flu concurrently) to become an inter-human transmissible influenza virus, then there won't have been many avian flu deaths yet would there? Facts about avian flu cases in humans and the >50% mortality rate can be found here and here.

Ah, but what about SARS then I hear you say? Well, I suggest you read this BBC report on what the scientists at the time said and this abstract and do the maths yourself.

InTheShelter:

You might read the post how to learn about science, which might help explain some things, doesn't use the term "denialist", and has suggestions for sources to read. The main update is that my initial "starter kit" is currently:

Either or ideally both of:

William Ruddiman, Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum

David Archer, The Long Thaw

and then
Michael Mann & Lee Kump, Dire Predictions

and if you want to understand the history:
Stuart Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, 2nd Ed, 2008. of look at his website at AIP.

@Boris

"But why would you assume that because you were taught something, that all the experts were predicting an ice age in the 1970s?
If you found a consensus statement like those for AGW, that might be interesting. Your individual schooling history is not evidence that all of science is wrong."

- I did NOT say ALL the experts were predicting an ice age. I also have NOT said all of science is wrong. Why do people continue to put words into my mouth? How can so many people who purport to be so intelligent and scientifically astute continue to misquote me when the entire history of my postings is available on the same page for them to RESEARCH for accuracy?

I don't mean to rip on you, I understand the questions you asked, but I did not say the things you questioned me about in your post. Just for the record, I DON'T think all science or scientists are wrong. I DO think they have been wrong in the past and so it's fair if their proclamations are reviewed with caution rather than blindly accepted simply because someone labels them "experts".

If this hasn't completely devolved into name-calling, there's a nice map that puts the snow vs. temperature record issue into context.

@P.Lewis

(1) "No matter really, but it seems typical of the inexactitude present elsewhere in your opening comment."

- It wasn't inexactitude you fool, it was a best guess of the year because it wasn't necessary to know the exact year in my post. It WAS taught to me in 6th grade. Whether it was taught in '77 or '78 doesn't negate the fact it WAS taught to me (and others in this thread).
(2) "I presume you mean imminently, i.e. on the order of 1,000 years or so"

- Ask the teacher what his timeline was, he taught it, I didn't.

"then either your recollection is materially incorrect about what you were taught"

- My recollection is correct, and I was obviously not alone in being taught this because others on this thread have stated they were taught the same thing.

"Because we are in an ice age: the Devensian (or some other local variant name)! And we've been in one for about 100,000 years (IIRC). What do you think is covering Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean? Fairy dust? "

- So because there is ice anywhere on the surface of the Earth I should assume we are in an ice age? Could it be that I was using the term "ice age" as a common sense term, just as it was taught to me back then, and I needn't separate "ice age" from "glacial" from "interglacial" in order to relate my experience of the 6th grade science class because I would assume anyone with common sense could understand what I meant? And to answer your asinine fairy dust comment, does all ice have to be gone before the ice age is over? And just to fill you in Einstein, 30 seconds of research via Google tells me the Devensian period you mentioned ended already.

"A competent science teacher would not get this wrong"

- A competent rebuttal would not have got the Devensian scam you tried so wrong.

" . . an incompetent teacher and/or incompetent/inattentive pupil and latter-day commenter would likely get it wrong. Which is it then: incompetent teacher, incompetent/inattentive pupil, ...?"

- How would we define you then? Are you inattentive or incompetent, or both. You got something wrong so by your own definition you have to be one of those.

(3) Being taught in "1979" that we were "heading to another ice age [sic]" was not necessarily wrong (except in terminology terms).

- I would agree, the term ice age seems to have been taken so literally from my original post that the layman's understanding of that term was not used in the rebuttal.

(4) "presumably the same scientific "experts" ...".
Well no! As any reasonable reading of Peterson et al. would confirm.

- I'll be honest, I have no intention of reading the Peterson thing simply because it won't change my general argument that scientists (and their rabid supporters) have made proclamations before only to reverse them later. I don't think all scientists are wrong, nor all science, nor even the majority of either. I just think that subjects (global warming panic, SARS panic, bird flu panic, etc.) pushed on the evening news by scare tactic networks looking for ratings, and supported by "experts" (again, who certified them as an expert?), deserve a healthy dose of skepticism and caution.

(5) "I've heard "experts" predicting massive death tolls from SARS and Bird Flu".
Well, since mass deaths associated with avian flu still await the various avian flu strains' genetic mutation (either directly from the avian source or indirectly perhaps through pigs infected with human and avian flu concurrently) to become an inter-human transmissible influenza virus, then there won't have been many avian flu deaths yet would there?

- That is exactly my point. The doom and gloom scenario about both of these never materialized, but it sure was pushed on the evening news, and by "experts" that it was inevitable and it would mean worldwide mass death. Yet it has not happened. So maybe a good healthy dose of skepticism of doom and gloom experts (my point throughout this ENTIRE thread) is a good thing. If I'd listened to the experts back then I'd still be hoarding food for the coming avian flu onslaught.

inTheShelter:

A common sense assumption is that (my teacher) didn't pull it off the evening news or from a magazine,

Well he certainly didn't get it from scientific journals. So your opinion is based on your brave assumption or something similar. Thanks for your opinion but no thanks.

So I would assume there was, in fact, a sizable group of people who believed in it enough to incorporate it into public school science curriculums.

Do you have any evidence that this was in any school curricula? In any school text-books? Otherwise how do we know your teacher wasn't just repeating what he saw on a TV program?

"If this hasn't completely devolved into name-calling, there's a nice map that puts the snow vs. temperature record issue into context."

HAHAHA! Unfortunately I think your statement has already passed. We've already completely devolved into name-calling. I thought my name was "caution" or "cautious skepticism" and there are some others on this thread who have tried to change it to "denialist".

It isn't the first time I've been misquoted and called a name, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

So maybe there wasn't a consensus. I can't prove there was any more than you can't prove there wasn't.

Science has an institutional memory, in the form of the published literature. This, not what some boneheaded 6th grade teacher was teaching, or perhaps some boneheaded 6th grade student misunderstood, or perhaps some 42 yr-old man misremember, allows us to establish whether or not such a consensus exists.

So, your claim that we can't prove there wasn't, is simply false.

And, believe it or not, your claim has been made by many before you, to the point that one researcher got pissed off and sifted through that institutional memory - back issues of relevant scientific journals - and DOCUMENTED that it was not a consensus. There were a couple of speculative papers written, no more.

So, bugger off, mate.

Keep it up InTheshelter, you are just showing how little you know about climate, science and many other things which you do not appear to know very much about (eggs, bird flu, SARS etc).

I must admit I like to pull the chain of deniers like you, especially when you try so hard to show us that you are not a denier.

And stop insulting scientists, every post that you have put up has insulted scientists in one way or another. Quit it!

@Chris O'Neill

"So your opinion is based on your brave assumption or something similar. Thanks for your opinion but no thanks."

- My "brave" assumption? How is that different from a regular assumption?

I DON'T know what my teacher's source was in 6th grade. As I said before, I didn't realize I'd have to cite references for people calling me a "denialist" over 30 years later so I never asked him at the time. He may have been repeating a news story or newsweek or whatever. He may have also been teaching what was in the curriculum or textbook. I don't know. I know it was taught to me. At least 2 others in this thread have said the same thing. I can't go back in time to ask him where he got it. I can't prove my assumption of where he got it (I thought I've been very clear on that), nor can the opposing viewpoint prove the assumption he got it from Newsweek, etc.

Here's a link to the paper.

InTheShelter: Kindy STFU until *after* you've read, and understood, it.

@IAN

"And stop insulting scientists, every post that you have put up has insulted scientists in one way or another. Quit it!"

- You still haven't shown me one quote of mine where I insult scientists. You're lying when you say this and you know it. Quit it!

As I said before, I didn't realize I'd have to cite references for people calling me a "denialist" over 30 years later so I never asked him at the time.

You are claiming that science, in the 1970s, predicted a near-term ice age, and that today's consensus on global warming represents a "flip-flop", and that since science got it so wrong in the 1970s, we can ignore what science says today.

Now you complain that people are asking you to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

Sorry, dude, you've come to the wrong place if you think you can get away with that crap.

@ dhogaza

Kindly STFU until you understand my entire argument throughout this thread and realize no paper will prove nor disprove it. For someone who seems to like to insult others intelligence you still can't seem to understand what I've been saying all along, so you should probably take your own advice and keep quiet.

Intheshelter, your post number 121 says this "Really? Then why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's? By your own statement this should have been some 120 years after global warming began yet the experts still got it wrong? Could it be the "experts" are getting it wrong again? Or are you wrong? Do some research before posting."

Now you are saying (#155) "I did NOT say ALL the experts were predicting an ice age." OK, so please clarify for us exactly which experts, apart from your science teacher (who is unlikely to have been an expert, right?) you think were saying that we were heading towards another ice age in the 1970s.

I too remember the Newsweek article from the '70's. But I was already old enough to be reading the scientific literature, so I knew that it was typical media sensationalist nonsense, and not an accurate description of the prevailing scientific view.

It is sad, but not particularly surprising, that an an elementary school science teacher was getting his scientific information from the popular press. But let's be fair. A sixth grade science teacher would have received training in education, but little advanced training in science, and very likely did not read the original literature. Frankly, there is not much reason for him to do so, unless he was a science enthusiast, because all of the science that sixth graders need to learn can be gleaned from predigested textbooks. He was probably trying to enrich his class a bit by bringing in some topical information. People outside the real scientific community often do not realize just how unreliable the reporting of science in the popular press is. Even today, the majority of the scientific "information" that I encounter in the popular press is highly misleading, if not downright wrong.

Oh, someone already linked Peterson before I did, oops.

And InTheShelter's response:

"I'm not going to read it! Fingers in my ears, head in the sand, I'll believe what I want to believe".

I just think that subjects (global warming panic, SARS panic, bird flu panic, etc.) pushed on the evening news by scare tactic networks looking for ratings, and supported by "experts" (again, who certified them as an expert?), deserve a healthy dose of skepticism and caution.

INFORMED skepticism is fine. Denialism, which you practice, is not.

For the record:

1. global warming is based on sound science

2. SARS could've been very bad. Health workers face a serious problem: when their efforts bear fruit, and they successfully counter a threat, boneheaded science denialists like you assume this means that no threat existed. False.

3. bird flu: we're not done yet. At the end of the First World War, bird flu killed tens of millions of people around the world. Mostly younger, healthy people. If you don't think this represents a serious threat, or for some magical reason could never happen again, you've got your head in the sand (again).

You've got one thing right: the media sometimes sensationalizes things. Don't get your science from CBS or Time or Newsweek.

Example: so-called global cooling scares.

At the very least, read some credible popular publications that cover science. They don't always get things right, but they have a much higher batting average than do the major networks, etc.

@ dhogaza

"You are claiming that science, in the 1970s, predicted a near-term ice age, and that today's consensus on global warming represents a "flip-flop", and that since science got it so wrong in the 1970s, we can ignore what science says today.
Now you complain that people are asking you to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.
Sorry, dude, you've come to the wrong place if you think you can get away with that crap."

- No stupid, I have claimed that I was taught by my science teacher in 6th grade that we were heading towards another ice age. I didn't say near-term you fool, go look at the post. I also said my assumption was that it was part of the curriculum and so I also assumed it was the general consensus back then. THAT is what I have said, not any of the other crap you're trying to attribute to me.

Sorry dude, you're in the wrong place if you think you can continually misquote me and get away with that crap.

@dogandponyshow

"INFORMED skepticism is fine. Denialism, which you practice, is not."

- Obviously informed skepticism is defined by you as only those who agree with you? Are you aware that I haven't DENIED anything. Are you also aware, Mr. Science, that Denialism isn't even a word?

I have said I remain skeptical of all topics like this that are pushed via scare tactics on the evening news and defended by cultists such as yourself. The paper you are trying to push on my will NOT change that healthy skepticism of scare tactics and bullying.

Intheshelter, you said "No stupid, I have claimed that I was taught by my science teacher in 6th grade that we were heading towards another ice age. I didn't say near-term you fool, go look at the post. I also said my assumption was that it was part of the curriculum and so I also assumed it was the general consensus back then. THAT is what I have said, not any of the other crap you're trying to attribute to me."

Lets ignore the insults (we are all so impressed with those), but you did say "Then why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's?". You did say that - didn't you? Are you now denying this? Are you also admitting that you were wrong about the science consensus in the 1970s because you believed your 6th Grade teacher rather than doing some basic research?

Any wonder that some here don't give much credence to your views?

InTheShelter has proved by many statements that he's nothing but an irritating troll. The no intention to read Peterson et al. statement (amongst other things) says it all. The guy's a complete waste of space.

InTheShelter [killfile], but needs disembvowelling IMHO.

That is exactly my point. The doom and gloom scenario about both of these never materialized, but it sure was pushed on the evening news, and by "experts" that it was inevitable and it would mean worldwide mass death. Yet it has not happened. So maybe a good healthy dose of skepticism of doom and gloom experts (my point throughout this ENTIRE thread) is a good thing.

Anybody can be called an "expert." I can tell you from experience what a lot of news organizations do--they call up some professor at the local university who probably is an "expert" of sorts--just probably not in that specific area, and talk to him for 15 minutes. Then his off-the-cuff remarks are described as an expert opinion.

For example, I challenge you to find any actual influenza expert--somebody with actual research on influenza and publications in major journals--who actually predicted that there would be massive death tolls from SARS or avian flu. What you'll find the real experts saying at the time is more along the lines of expression of concern--that these particular diseases have some worrisome characteristics, and if they happen to mutate and spread in specific ways (and nobody knows for sure if this will happen) they could be quite dangerous.

But of course, by the time it gets to the evening news, this measured expression of concern has mutated into "experts predict massive death tolls!"

""Then why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's?". You did say that - didn't you? Are you now denying this? "

- I don't deny I said that. Geez, I also don't deny that I wasn't surprised to hear another of you sanctimonious pricks use the word "deny". Is there a cult handbook you guys read? Is that the name of the month?

"Are you also admitting that you were wrong about the science consensus in the 1970s because you believed your 6th Grade teacher rather than doing some basic research?"

- No, I am not admitting that. I do not know if I was wrong or not in my assumption that there was a scientific consensus. And I didn't do any basic research on the topic because I WAS IN THE 6TH GRADE AT THE TIME!

Do you even read your posts before you submit them?

I know I'm late to this discussion and this is only a small subthread, but here goes:

Steve L, I was really happy to see the National Ignition Test Facility preparing to demonstrate Technological (not just Scientific) Breakeven soon. Of course this was supposed to have happened 30 years ago, but then oil got cheap again and everybody lost interest. I've been following the fusion story for 35 years, but it dropped completely below the radar for at least 25 of those years.

I would love to see this work; I always thought inertial confinement sounded more promising than magnetic confinement. Even if it works, though, there are still decades of effort to go to make a commercial reactor. Even then, you'll have to breed tritium in a lithium blanket, unless you pull the temperature up enough that you can go scraping the lunar regolith for helium-3, but however you slice it, it's going to be expensive.

Now I know that it's everybody's knee-jerk reaction to totally dismiss anything from a plasma physicist who wrote a book entitled The Big Bang Never Happened, although his alternative Plasma Universe Theory was at least published, but it appears that Focus Fusion has finally gotten funding for a real test, and the positive results of its success would be so monumental that I'm willing to cut Lerner some slack in his field of expertise. (I think it's a classic case of "To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail" syndrome.)

If this pans out, the effects would be monumental. 20 or 50 megawatt reactors could fit in existing electrical substations, in place of the huge step-down transformers. One pound per megawatt-year of boron-11 hydride would be fused into .999 pounds of helium. And as icing on the cake, since all the energy appears as kinetic energy of charged particles, it could be converted to electricity at about 90% efficiency. Maybe it'll work and maybe it won't, but it's worth rooting for.

Of course, there are many sources of energy that could be developed, the main problem with most is that the supply curve doesn't match the demand curve in any way. Storage is the big problem. I've also been following the EEStor story for a while now, and I don't know what to make of the probability of their success. I've been judging the believers vs. the skeptics by the kind of arguments they use, and so far the skeptics sound more like creationists and AGW denialists that the believers, but we'll soon know. An ultracapacitor that can store 150 watt-hours per pound and charge as fast as you can pump the power in will go a long way toward making electric cars and true hybrids standard. In any case, here's EEStor's patent, and here's a forum where both sides are fully aired: http://theeestory.com/ (Apparently I can only embed three links.) I'd really appreciate some of your reactions to these possibilities.

If either or both of these technologies can be brought to market, the world could change profoundly in the very short term (20 years or so.) My only regret would be that the AGW denialists would then get to say: "See, it was all propaganda, nothing bad happened." But I'll settle for survival and let them gloat.

"InTheShelter has proved by many statements that he's nothing but an irritating troll. The no intention to read Peterson et al. statement (amongst other things) says it all."

- It's not my intention to be a troll. But you have all been so close minded to the possibility that scientists are fallible, they CAN make mistakes. Then you've followed it up with misquotes, name calling, and failed attempts to equate my lack of desire to read the Peterson paper as some sort of failure. The Peterson paper won't change my opinion that a healthy dose of skepticism is justified when dealing cult-type behavior (as I've seen on this thread from many of you) . If it won't change my opinion then why read it? Answer me, why read it? Also, considering how crazy most of you have acted in this discussion why would I consider any source you cite as reputable? And how do I know Peterson is reputable?

Your poor behavior towards me doesn't help convince me of your side of the argument. If you really wanted to do something constructive to "save the world" then you certainly should have approached this differently. For people who purport to be so intelligent you obviously weren't smart enough to see that fact.

Intheshelter - on the basis of your sixth grade teacher's comments you said "Then why were your scientific experts saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's?" They weren't! I have posted a peer reviewed paper that shows this but you refuse to read it. This is why you are being treated with such derision here - don't you get that? Do you actually have anything useful to say at all?

For some reason, the links I did embed don't work, so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor/

Eeestor's patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PAL…

http://focusfusion.org/

Sorry.

Of course denialism is a word ...

And apparently InTheShelter believes that the only science that one should pay attention to, is science that the news media doesn't know about or report on...

I have said I remain skeptical of all topics like this that are pushed via scare tactics on the evening news

and that he WANTS to remain ignorant:

The paper you are trying to push on my will NOT change that healthy skepticism of scare tactics and bullying.

Fingers in the ears. Head in the sand.

inTheShelter:

I don't know.

Exactly. So don't use your ignorance as justification for assertions of what scientists were saying because they certainly didn't say an imminent ice age was predicted.

I have said I remain skeptical of all topics like this that are pushed via scare tactics on the evening news and defended by cultists such as yourself.

If you suspect that somebody is a "cultist," and is not reporting to you the actual scientific consensus, there are many sources that you can go to to find out the truth. Many countries, including the US, have organizations of top scientists--people who have established their scientific credentials by making major contributions to science--that review the science on controversial issues. For example, you can find information on climate change from the US National Academy of Sciences here.

On the specific topic of climate change, there is also an international organization of top scientists with established expertise in climate science. You can find their reports here

Your poor behavior towards me doesn't help convince me of your side of the argument

Doesn't matter, you're probably too dumb to have figured out how to vote, anyway.

trrll@168 - I'm 42, and I remember mixed hype - there were some "pop science" stories and tv shows that predicted we were heading to an ice age, but like you I knew enough to be skeptical. I never did find out if there was any consensus on the issue, but since the issue faded pretty fast (replaced by global warming, IIRC), I assumed there never was. Now that I have written more, I seem to recall that both warming and cooling were being bandied about at the time.

Given that many teachers do not have the time, training, education, or even inclination to do research into what occurs in pop science (not a slight on teachers, I am one, but there is a lot of work that has to be done to even stay current with classes), to find the reality behind the buzz, I think many of us remember hearing of the same fad. I get kids asking about things they heard in the news all the time. All teachers do. We do the best we can, and unfortunately, we do get things wrong. Sad, but true. That's why we in the sciences rely upon the peer-reviewed work, rather than popular culture.

The idea that what someone's grade school teacher thought was accurate does not make it so, and a refusal to actually look at the evidence to see if what was remembered was actually true....that does smack of denialism, pure and simple. If there was a scientific consensus the journals would have articles supporting that. Now, it was a long time ago, but from what I can remember (understanding, naturally, the way that we modify our memories over time), that all I heard about was a few books and tv shows. I do not remember much real science being talked about, nor do I remember it going beyond some very vocal proponents. If I went and tried to claim that this made some serious fact, without evidence to back it up, I'd expect to get laughed at.

Actually, the oft-made comparison to ID is very apt - same type of situation. Same with the big freeze, same with anti-AGW denialism.

I do like this quote " have said I remain skeptical of all topics like this that are pushed via scare tactics on the evening news and defended by cultists such as yourself. The paper you are trying to push on my will NOT change that healthy skepticism of scare tactics and bullying."

Science is not done through newspapers, nor through tv, nor magazines, but through peer reviewed papers, research, and evidence. Prefering to rely on 30-odd year old memories rather than published, evidence-based work is silly and definitely not skepticism. At least not in any scientific sense of the word. From this comment, do you (intheshelter) mean to say that this journal is "scare tactics and bullying", or the insistence that you look at evidence is the bullying?

re174:
"Anybody can be called an "expert." I can tell you from experience what a lot of news organizations do--they call up some professor at the local university who probably is an "expert" of sorts--just probably not in that specific area, and talk to him for 15 minutes. Then his off-the-cuff remarks are described as an expert opinion."

I was once asked to give an interview on winter lawn care since I was a certified nursery professional. While I did not make too big an ass of myself, I did not think I was any kind of expert, I just knew a bit more than other people (and I was the only one willing to be interviewed - I thought it was radio, it was tv ;P). But this goes to show that anyone can be called to be an "expert".

"The Peterson paper won't change my opinion that a healthy dose of skepticism is justified when dealing cult-type behavior (as I've seen on this thread from many of you) . If it won't change my opinion then why read it? Answer me, why read it? Also, considering how crazy most of you have acted in this discussion why would I consider any source you cite as reputable? And how do I know Peterson is reputable?"

Head in sand is right. When I spent more than an hour talking with a student (who was not working, but this was ok - it was all about critical thinking and skepticism), I made sure that I stressed one point - "Do not be afraid to read things that you disagree with. Do not be afraid to challenge what you think you know, your own viewpoints, even your most deeply held beliefs." To me, it is obvious that the sheltered one has chosen the correct name. He (or she) wants to remain sheltered, and does not want to hear contrasting views, especially if they are from actual scientists. It is sad.

Guys, come on. It's obvious InTheShelter is a troll. There's no point in stooping to his/her level. I half expect it to blurt out "YHBT. YHL. HAND." like in the good ol' newsgroup days of yore. Lets focus on more important things, like the adults taking over in 20 days and making folks like InTheShelter less relevant. :-)

InTheShelter.

You should try the decaf instead, and blow into a paper bag.

When I posted way back at #125 that "you weren't being taught 'best science', but rather a mass media meme promulgated by a small cadre of folk, most of whom weren't even scientists", I was telling simple truth.

The global cooling scare was not 'accepted' science, as many here have tried to point out to you, and the fact that you were 'taught' it at school says nothing about science and rather a lot about the quality of school(s) that you, and obviously several others, attended. For your information the school I attended in Australia raised the issue of global warming back in the 70s, and the 'imminent ice-age' furphy was mentioned then as the unsubstantiated beat-up that it was.

Perhaps this says something about the quality of our respective schools. The fact that yours didn't equip you with a capacity to test the veracity of claims independently of media memes certainly does say something. Or perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that I had science teachers who were actually practicing scientists before they taught. Their example was one reason why I gained a DipEd on the side - I understand the benefit to students of having a teacher who has professional experience in their field outside of the school system.

How would you know who taught it?

It is immaterial who taught it to you. The simple fact is that it was not accepted science, and in any mediocre-quality school it should have not seen the light of day in a science curriculum, unless it was qualified with the acknowledgement that it was not accepted science.

It was the general consensus back then that we were heading into another ice age

Wrong.

It was not a general scientific consensus, it was a scare story to provide media fodder. The fact that it slipped into your education unchallenged shows the inadequacy of the education system in which you were taught, and nothing of the science of the day.

Your denialist stance about scientific experts flip flopping on issues shows your true colors. It just demonstrates that the latest "expert" opinion can turn 180 degrees a few years later,

You really have no clue about scientific paradigm shifts, do you?

For a start, 'flip-flopping' (where scientists 'conveniently' change their minds) does not occur in science, or if it does so, it happens rarely. Rather, paradigms shift with the accumulation of the weight of evidence; sometimes this can take decades, sometimes it happens almost overnight as in the example of Helicobacter pylori/stomach ulcers.

However it happens, it is weight-of-evidence that brings the change, not a process of 'flip-flopping'. This is why the denialist stance has yet to curry favour with the consensus of science - its 'evidence' carries no credible weight.

Oh, and how does it feel to use the 'D' word in your turn?

[Y]ou can't even competently converse with someone who simply states the "expert" opinions should be scrutinized and questioned based on their poor performance in the past.

If you learned to parse sentences, and to use the search engine on this blog, you would understand that I have repeatedly stated that science is a process wherein the relevant experts continuously scrutinise and question their own knowledge.

"Poor performance", huh? Do you have any idea how well the alternative propositions to AGW stack up, performance-wise?

Do you? Really?

Learn some people skills first and then maybe you can graduate to telling me how the entire world's climate functions.

People skills? What would you say if I informed you that I have Asperger's syndrome, and that your snipe is an insensitive slight on my disability? After all, you seem to be rather sensitive yourself to the criticism directed at you, so you should surely be careful about casting such at other people...

More relevantly, as 'people skills' are irrelevant to climatology, you could just learn some science first and then maybe you can graduate to telling us how the entire world's climate functions.

I don't need to do any research on it. That is what I was taught. I was there. There's no research that can be done that can prove or disprove what my science teacher taught me.

The issue was not whether you were or were not taught this, but that the teaching was itself incorrect. The others were attempting to encourage you to research the veracity of your claim that "your scientific experts [were] saying we were still heading towards another ice age in the 70's".

Your own denialist attitude toward the concept that scientists could be wrong, that they are human and succeptible to political/fiscal pressure, and the title of "expert" is a title with no certification behind it, leads me to discount anything you say.

Science is largely predicated on the assumption that all knowledge will be superceded, so you are wrong about scientists not accepting that they can be wrong.

The issue of political/fiscal pressure is a well-recognised one, and there are many mechanisms in place to scrutinise for such. Although when the Bush II administration leaned on science for ideological reasons, I didn't notice any anti-environment/anti-AGW supporters get hot under their collars...

Until you can admit that the best scientific consensus often gets reversed later because it was wrong, you will never convince me that you have a shred of scientific impartiality yourself.

I have repeatedly explained that scientific consensus can be changed, according to the weight of evidence. Again, some use of the search engine and some careful parsing would demonstrate this, and obviate your need to erect the strawmen, as you freely accuse others of doing.

What is also obvious is your failed attempt at derision reinforces my mental image of anyone named Ian.

Ah, now this is scientific, and logical! If you are as careful in your data critiques as you are in your formation of mental images, your analyses must be tight indeed.

Or not. It warrants no further comment.

You [sic] latest posts show you to be anything but a learned man of science. The childish insults you've strung together...

Erm, who was it who said "you sanctimonious pricks"?

If your grasp of science is anything like your inability to string a coherent sentence together in a posting then I feel my position is even more justified

Actually, Ian's grasp of science is excellent, and far, far superior to yours. Consequently I assume that you will feel that your position is entirely unjustified.

Ask the teacher what his timeline was, he taught it, I didn't.

Gawd, I don't know what to say in response to this! You mean to tell me that you castigated 'our' scientific experts for referring to an impending ice-age (which they did not), when you didn't even have a timeframe to consider?

Come on, you must be joking.

Or just trolling. FormerSceptic has probably nailed it, although I find it hard to believe that even a troll could be so internally inconsistent.

InTheShelter posts:

If your global warming proof has been around for a hundred years then why were they saying in the late 70's that we were heading for another ice age?

Simple -- "they" weren't saying any such damn thing. A few climatologists suggested cooling might be coming and Newsweek picked it up and ran a cover story about it. There was never a consensus of scientists behind global cooling the way there is now behind global warming. Here's some more information:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ryan posts:

Show me a computer model that can accurately predict the 10-day forecast and then I'll be slightly more inclined to believe in global warming.

You have weather confused with climate. Weather is day-to-day variation. It becomes chaotic quickly and can't be predicted beyond a week or two. Climate is a long-term regional or global average weather, usually over a period of 30 years or more. It is deterministic and can usually be predicted over fairly long time spans. Here's an example to distinguish the two: I don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow in Cairo, Egypt (weather). But it's a safe guess that it will be higher than in Oslo, Norway (climate).

It's very like the way insurance companies stay in business. No one can predict when one person will die. But you can be fairly safe guessing what percentage of a large population of people will die over a given period of time. Casinos stay in business the same way -- you can't predict an individual hand of blackjack, but over time the house is almost always going to win.

Hi folks, been busy overnight, but I did read your Peterson paper. I'll be honest with you, it does attempt to say that there was no global cooling consensus. The one big problem I have with that paper is why does it exist? If there was no global cooling consensus, or at the very least a fair number of scientists who adhered to a global cooling verdict, then why was it taught so much? In just this thread there were a total of 3 people who were taught this same thing in the late 70's. The explanation is, according to wild theories bandied about on this thread, this was due to some story on the evening news or some article in Newsweek, That just doesn't survive the common sense test. 3 different people, on a thread heavily dominated by close-minded AGW supporters, testify that they were taught that the global cooling theory. What are the odds that 3 people, on a thread overwhelmingly dominated by people who rabidly support the exact opposite, would have the same thing taught to them? That reasonably leads me to believe that a more evenly balanced cross section of people who support or deny AGW would show an even higher percentage of people who were taught global cooling back then.

Is it reasonable to believe that many people were taught global cooling based simply off a Newsweek article or a story on the evening news? I'm sorry, but that is not a reasonable assumption. Couple that with the fact that Peterson felt the need to write the paper at all, leads me to believe that global cooling was far more widely taught and believed at the time.

I'm sure you'll all do the usual dance of telling me about peer review, and my supposed lack of knowledge about science, or even dogandponyshows assertions that I'm "insulting scientists" (that stupidity still makes me chuckle), but the very fact that the Peterson paper exists is damning evidence against its assertions. I don't know whether Peterson's paper was written with a bias towards AGW and omitted evidence to the contrary or not, but I find it hard to believe that it was necessary to write this paper to refute something that didn't happen and which was not a hot-button topic 30 years ago.

@Bernard J

"I have repeatedly explained that scientific consensus can be changed, according to the weight of evidence. "

- So you agree that my original statement is correct about scientists saying one thing at one time and something different later. That has been one of my points all along. Scientists say "verdict A is the scientific truth" and later change to "verdict B is the scientific truth". At both points the scientists told us they knew what they were talking about when they made their proclamation, yet it turns out the original proclamation was wrong. EXACTLY MY POINT.

Yes, they changed their consensus based on the evidence, that is fine. I understand that and accept it. It is understandable to believe one thing based on the evidence and then change your conclusions based on further evidence. But that still doesn't change the truth that at BOTH times they thought they understood the truth about something and it turned out that at least one of those verdicts was wrong.

So as I said, one of my original points has just been confirmed by you. That science does get things wrong. Based on that fact I feel it is perfectly justifiable to leave room to question scientific conclusions that fail the common sense test, or are pushed with cult-like devotion such as seen on this thread.

My whole point all along has been that scientists DO get things wrong from time to time and so it's is okay to take a cautious approach to accepting every word from their mouths as gospel. You confirmed the fist part of that in your post, scientists DO get things wrong. The remainder, the cautious approach towards accepting every one of their conclusions, is obviously a matter of opinion and can never be proved one way or the other. I choose to take a more cautious approach on this particular topic due to the way it has been shoved down the world's throat by big media and intolerant AGW supporters. If you choose to take a different approach then that is obviously your right.

@ Barton Paul Levenson

"You have weather confused with climate. . . .. Here's an example to distinguish the two: I don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow in Cairo, Egypt (weather). But it's a safe guess that it will be higher than in Oslo, Norway (climate)."

- I think I know what you were trying for in this analogy, but it doesn't quite work. If you would have tried to predict that the temperature, based off climate data, would be higher or lower in the same city in 30 years then the analogy would work. Comparing Cairo with Oslo doesn't work the same way. There's no great science in that prediction, my kids can make that prediction with accuracy. Predicting the other is much more difficult.

As to weather versus climate, I agree, they are different topics. But predicting either with accuracy would seem to require a level of knowledge that we do not currently have. If weather is day to day variation on a fairly local scale, then climate could reasonably be described as a year to year, decade to decade, or century to century variation on a regional or global scale. Weather or climate, I don't think mankind has reached the level of knowledge necessary to predict either with accuracy. We ALL know weather can't be predicted with this accuracy, and I find it unlikely that mankind has the knowledge necessary (at this point) to predict the climate with accuracy.

You have a remarkable memory inTheShelter. Most folks probably won't even remember who there 6th Grade teacher was let alone some inconsequential (at the time) remark they made 30 years ago.

I think others posting here are of a similar mind but are too polite to say it. However, I've always called a spade a spade so I am saying that you and the others who conveniently "remembered" what their 6th Grade teacher said 30 years ago are full of it, it being what comes out the back end of a male bovine.

There never was any mention of global cooling in any text book that 6th Grade teachers would be using. No wonder people are picking on you, you deserve it.

@Ian Forrester

Thank you for the compliment, I DO have a remarkable memory. My 6th grade teacher's name was Mr. Uehlenkamp.

As for your opinion about whether my teacher taught that, I could care less. I was there, I remember it, and I know it happened. End of story.

As for there not being any mention of global cooling (or moving towards an ice age, or close derivation thereof) in any textbooks, that is also just your opinion.

If you're so narrow minded that you think people deserve to be attacked because they disagree with you then your opinion has no weight with me. If you feel you need the boost in your self esteem from posting narrow minded replies then go ahead. If you think you're going to convince me of your viewpoint with your hateful replies then don't bother, you've failed.

The one big problem I have with that paper is why does it exist?

To counter lying denialist sacks of shit, of which you are one, InTheShelter.

For the same reason people have felt forced to show that creationists are lying sacks of shit when they claim that "most biologists don't believe in evolution", as they try to force creationism into the high school biology class.

It's not the lying per se that needs countering - it is the political influence wielded by those who are doing the lying ... pressure to ignore science and to teach religion in science class ... pressure to ignore science and pretend that our consumption of fossil fuels is warming climate.

If you think you're going to convince me of your viewpoint with your hateful replies then don't bother, you've failed.

They say that even a non-functional clock is right twice a day. No one's going to be saying that about you, I'm afraid.

"It's not the lying per se that needs countering"

- The big problem with that statement is I am not lying. I was taught we were headed towards another ice age and so were two others on this board. My analysis stands. If this wasn't widely believed then why write the paper? If this wasn't so widely recalled by people then no one would have felt the need to write a paper to deny it. Only if it was believed would the paper be necessary, and only then to attempt to rewrite the past. The way I see it, the only people who could be lying are those trying to disprove the fact that global cooling was accepted at some level and that it was widely taught.

InTheShelter's been spewing his talking points for a long time, apparently, for example in this post nearly 14 months ago.

Answered by our very own BPL.

There are two possible conclusions ...

1. InTheShelter's a slow learner.

2. InTheShelter's willfully ignorant.

My guess is both are true ...

inTheShelter:

In just this thread there were a total of 3 people who were taught this same thing in the late 70's.

We're still waiting for your evidence that global cooling was part of any school curriculum. 3 people directed here from Digg or somewhere else doesn't prove anything. There is a very big supply of global warming Denialists out there willing to exaggerate the truth by saying it was part of the school curriculum when it was actually just the teacher talking about something that was not in the curriculum. We're still waiting for your evidence about the curriculum otherwise how do we know you're not making it up?

I just nuked a whole pile of comments. Less name calling, please.

And please, no complaints that I deleted good comments and left bad ones. I certainly did, but comment nuking is indiscriminate.

I remember the ice age nonsense in the 70s, too. Funny, my science teacher declared it a crock. He even sponsored a voluntary field trip to Texas A&M so that those of us willing to get to the truth could see for ourselves that Time was talking out its ass. There wasn't anything supporting what this article claimed. Not in the journals of the day, and certainly not since.

Sort of like cold fusion.

We're still waiting for your evidence that global cooling was part of any school curriculum. 3 people directed here from Digg or somewhere else doesn't prove anything. There is a very big supply of global warming Denialists out there willing to exaggerate the truth by saying it was part of the school curriculum when it was actually just the teacher talking about something that was not in the curriculum. We're still waiting for your evidence about the curriculum otherwise how do we know you're not making it up?

You're not going to get any evidence. I've stated this before. I was there. It was tuaght to me in 6th grade. That's my evidence. I could just as easily say that I'm waiting for your evidence that 3 people were directed here from Digg. I could also just as easily say that there are a big supply of AGW cultists who are trying to deny the truth that it was part of the school curriculum. How do I know you're not making up the assertion that it wasn't widely taught, and please don't point me to the Peterson paper because I've already discussed my doubts about it.

The bottom line is it was taught to me and several others on this thread. I still find it unreasonable to believe that many people were taught global cooling based simply off a Newsweek article or a story on the evening news. That conclusion just doesn't pass the common sense test.

As RFJason mentioned before, each side has their graphs, charts, etc. to prove their point and each side can point out flaws in the other's arguments. What makes me question AGW is the type of behavior I've seen on this thread and the total inability to allow dissenting opinions on the topic without personal attacks. Neither side of the argument is guilt free in this area, but the comments I saw earlier this evening (which were subsequently deleted) really blew me away, and have only solidified my views.

> What makes me question AGW is the type of behavior I've seen on this thread and the total inability to allow dissenting opinions on the topic without personal attacks.

"Your 'facts' are bogus, and here is a detailed explanation of why."

"WAAAH! YOU CALLED ME A 'DENIALIST'! BOOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!! MOMMY! MOMMY! THEY HURT! I AFRAID!!!!!!!"

How do I know you're not making up the assertion that it wasn't widely taught, and please don't point me to the Peterson paper because I've already discussed my doubts about it.

In other words, no amount of evidence will change your god-given right to be an idiot.

I'm cool with that ... just don't drool on me, OK/

inTheShelter:

many people were taught global cooling

So 3 people is "many" people. Sure if you say so.

You're not going to get any evidence. I've stated this before. I was there. It was tuaght to me in 6th grade. That's my evidence.

What someone asserts about a school curriculum from 30 years ago on a blog is not evidence. What did they actually tell you? We still don't know if you're not making it up that it was part of the school curriculum, which is a different thing from a teacher just talking about something.

We still don't know if you're not making it up that it was part of the school curriculum

Given that the science curriculum in most districts tends to be somewhat conservative, at least in the US, focusing on well-established, often out-of-date, science, my guess is that he's just making it up.

InTheShelter is Jack Lacton's uncle, and I claim my ten shillings.

InTheShelter posts:

We ALL know weather can't be predicted with this accuracy, and I find it unlikely that mankind has the knowledge necessary (at this point) to predict the climate with accuracy.

You're still confusing weather with climate. Climate isn't just a continuation of weather. Until you get that clear in your mind, you'll continue to draw wrong conclusions about it.

You're not going to get any evidence. I've stated this before. I was there. It was tuaght to me in 6th grade. That's my evidence.

In other words, you have no evidence, and you are unwilling to look at any. Basically, it's about as credible as saying, "I heard it from some guy in a bar."

As RFJason mentioned before, each side has their graphs, charts, etc. to prove their point and each side can point out flaws in the other's arguments. What makes me question AGW is the type of behavior I've seen on this thread and the total inability to allow dissenting opinions on the topic without personal attacks.

"Each side has their charts and graphs etc to prove their point" can be said about pretty much any issue you can name. It is nothing more than a rationalization for not wanting to know the truth. And it's easy enough to find out what the real scientific consensus is--just check the reports of authoritative scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences or the IPCC. So basically, your argument boils down to "I have my opinion, so please don't confuse me with facts" and "You're mean, so you must be wrong."

InTheShelter (and the others taught about imminent global cooling).

In spite of the fact that I know you to be particularly clumsy trolls with no capacity for real scientific discourse, I would still be interested to know the locations of the schools where you were (apparently) taught this ice-age nonsense.

It might helpt in the testing of your claims...

@ dhogaza

You're wasting you're time with your insults. Your inability to discuss something with civility indicates to me you have very little truth on your side.

@Barton Paul Levenson

"You're still confusing weather with climate. Climate isn't just a continuation of weather. Until you get that clear in your mind, you'll continue to draw wrong conclusions about it."

No, I'm not confused. I didn't use a Cairo vs Oslo analogy that was totally incorrect. The fact that you used that makes me wonder if you're not confused yourself. You opinion that I've drawn the wrong conclusion is just that, an opinion. Weather or climate, humans simply don't have the understanding to predict either with any accuracy yet.

@Bernard J.

"In spite of the fact that I know you to be particularly clumsy trolls with no capacity for real scientific discourse,"

- Actually you don't KNOW that, it's just your opinion. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't make me a troll, nor does the fact that I refuse to let the people on this board bully me into silence. As for scientific discourse, I see no more scientific discourse on this board than I would on a thread about a sports team. All anyone has rebutted me with is attack rhetoric because I dared to disagree.

"It might helpt in the testing of your claims..."

- How would knowing the location of the school help test the claim that I know I was taught something in 6th grade? I was there. I remember being taught that by my teacher. If the school was on the moon or next door to you, it wouldn't change that it was taught to me.

"And it's easy enough to find out what the real scientific consensus is--just check the reports of authoritative scientific bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences or the IPCC. So basically, your argument boils down to "I have my opinion, so please don't confuse me with facts" and "You're mean, so you must be wrong.""

- The IPCC is a quasi political/scientific organization. Several of the scientists belonging to that body who disagreed with the report asked to have their names removed from the list of people who supported it and they were told no, then they were attacked, ridiculed, and some even received threats of violence. Their experience sounds much like the one I've had on this thread. You only refer me to those organizations because they agree with you. You only refer to them as authoritative scientific bodies because they agree with the agenda you're pushing. There are others who disagree, but I'm sure you'll come up with the standard line that they are not "real" or "respected" scientists. How convenient for you. You could just as easily be guilty of "I have my opinion, so please don't confuse me with facts".

@Chris O'Neill

"So 3 people is "many" people. Sure if you say so."

- Jeez, can you read the context of my post accurately. There's already 3 people on this thread alone who were taught it, and this is a heavily biased PRO-AGW thread. Do you mean the Peterson paper had to be written to argue against something that was not widely taught? All that trouble to write that paper to counteract something that was not an issue and wasn't widely taught, is THAT your thesis? Sure, if you say so. . .

"What someone asserts about a school curriculum from 30 years ago on a blog is not evidence. What did they actually tell you? We still don't know if you're not making it up that it was part of the school curriculum"

- I've already told you what they told me. If you can't understand that then how could you possibly understand any more evidence. And just to be clear, I didn't say it WAS part of the school curriculum, I said I ASSUMED it was because it was being taught there, and as it turns out it WAS taught to many other people. And what evidence could I possibly find 30 years later that you would believe? The answer is none. You have your OPINION and you are going to attempt to bully me into believing it and I simply won't respond to that type of persuasion. The attacks on me from people on this thread continue to show me that this is more of a political issue than one grounded in science.

Weather or climate, humans simply don't have the understanding to predict either with any accuracy yet.

simple question: do you think there will be a summer next year?

Barton is right. you don t understand the difference between weather and climate.

that weather can t be predicted has close to ZERO relevance to "predictions" of climate.

The IPCC is a quasi political/scientific organization.

political/scientific as in: even pretty sceptic nations like the USA have to agree to EVERY SENTENCE in the sum up.

Several of the scientists belonging to that body who disagreed with the report asked to have their names removed from the list of people who supported it and they were told no, then they were attacked, ridiculed, and some even received threats of violence.

names please. and "expert reviewers" don t count!

And just to be clear, I didn't say it WAS part of the school curriculum, I said I ASSUMED it was because it was being taught there, and as it turns out it WAS taught to many other people.

you assume a lot. actually i can t shake the feeling, that most of you "assume2 that this was taught to you in school.

if it is not part of the curriculum, then it is exactly the same, as hearing it in a bar.

perhaps a teacher was waving some popular science magazin in front of the class, to get you interested for once?

slightly different situation, than the IPCC report.

>The IPCC is a quasi political/scientific organization. Several of the scientists belonging to that body who disagreed with the report asked to have their names removed from the list of people who supported it and they were told no, then they were attacked, ridiculed, and some even received threats of violence.

Name one.

Our troll ...

Your inability to discuss something with civility indicates to me you have very little truth on your side.

Creationist Casey Luskin ...

The internet Darwinist track record of name-calling against Intelligent Design proponents speaks for itself...

Same denialist playbook all over again. HIV denialists, Holocaust Denialists, Tobacco denialists, Climate Science denialists, biology denialists, all the same ... "you guys are mean to us, therefore science is false!"

InTheShelter wrote "And what evidence could I possibly find 30 years later that you would believe? The answer is none."

If this myth was as widely taught as you say it was then there would be some evidence. For example, there would be sections in textbooks, in teacher's notes, in exercise books (many people keep their school books - I still have mine for example), etc. Therefore, it is quite reasonable for us to challenge you to provide evidence to support your claim.

Why can't you / won't you provide it?

Why are people still corresponding with the current resident No. 1 idiot?

All I'm seeing is acres of [show comment] against said troll.

Anyway, Barton, he's probably being wilfully mendacious on the aspect you picked him up on of late, rather than being confused. Nobody can be that confused having been put right once or twice already. But then, I s'pose, he's a troll with the (effectively) stated intention of not wanting to be educated on such matters, so it might be both confusion and wilful mendaciousness at play.

Where there is no hope, ignore. Life is too short to play silly buggers with people like that.

dhogaza:

> "you guys are mean to us, therefore science is false!"

Well, here's how it works:

If InTheShelter isn't banned and people don't say unflattering things about him, then he's obviously right.

If InTheShelter isn't banned and people say unflattering things about him, then he's obviously being suppressed.

If InTheShelter is banned, then he's also obviously being suppressed.

Conclusion: Perhaps banning him won't be such a bad idea.

I suggest a new Year's Resolution to consider:

I resolve to be courteous to people who might be classical skeptics, recognize which are trolls, and use Firefox+Greasemonkey+Killfile more liberally.

The IPCC is a quasi political/scientific organization. Several of the scientists belonging to that body who disagreed with the report asked to have their names removed from the list of people who supported it and they were told no, then they were attacked, ridiculed, and some even received threats of violence.

So now we have conspiratorial thinking, the sine qua non of cranks and cultists. The IPCC includes pretty much everybody with any expertise in climate science. Of course, even among scientist you'll run across a crackpot or two (but please provide documented evidence of threats of violence--this is a new claim to me, and I'm skeptical), but the IPCC report reveals a truly remarkable degree consensus among the climate research community. This is truly remarkable, since as everybody who has dealt with scientists knows, getting them to agree to anything is like the proverbial herding of cats. Scientists love to disagree and quibble more than anything--every scientist is at heart convinced that nobody else in the world really understands his field as well as he does.

You only refer me to those organizations because they agree with you. You only refer to them as authoritative scientific bodies because they agree with the agenda you're pushing.

The US National Academy of Sciences? Are you JOKING? The US National Academy of Sciences is universally recognized as the most respected and authoritative scientific bodies in the world. It is comprised of the most eminent scientists in the nation, every one of whom has been recognized for major contributions to science, who serve pro bono as advisors to the nation on critical scientific matters. They are not some cherry-picked astroturf group chosen because they happen to agree with a particular point of view. The NAS has been the most respected scientific body in the nation for nearly a century and a half, ever since the Act of Incorporation was signed by Pres. Lincoln. It is entirely apolitical. No President or political body can appoint members--appointment is only by a vote of the existing members.

You say that I only refer to them as an authoritative scientific body because they agree with me--but in fact, I couldn't choose one that disagreed if I wanted--every major national scientific academy in the world agrees about the reality and the danger of global warming.

I didn't say it WAS part of the school curriculum, I said I ASSUMED it was because it was being taught there, and as it turns out it WAS taught to many other people. And what evidence could I possibly find 30 years later that you would believe?

Yes, it is quite clear that you ASSume a great deal--and are assiduously avoiding any information that would allow you to replace your assumptions with actual knowledge. The elementary school curriculum is defined by the approved texts, so you could produce a text that included the "global cooling" claim. But it is fairly unlikely that you would find one, since (as clearly proved by the papers that you refuse to look at) there never was any scientific consensus that global cooling was a concern.

Gotta jump back on the troll hunt for this. I might be one of the ones he refers to as hearing about cooling back in school. However, it was not part of the curriculum, but was brought in, as I said, by the teacher or a student asking questions. These things happen. They are not evidence of any real situation. Most teachers do not have the time or inclination to verify the truth of a lot of the pop-science they hear. Even though I try to do it, I often cannot (but I clarify with "this is what I hear, but I can't verify its accuracy, so look into it).

Remembering hearing something in school does not mean it was any part of a consensus. Assuming that much is a fallacy and a FAIL.

@ sod

simple question: do you think there will be a summer next year?
Barton is right. you don t understand the difference between weather and climate.
that weather can t be predicted has close to ZERO relevance to "predictions" of climate.

Neither of you obviously understand it because your analogies/questions you try to pose to me to illustrate the difference don't make an ounce of sense. "Do you think there will be a summer next year?" has NOTHING to do with climate. At best it's a question of "will the world end next year".

Not one of you has shown an ounce of anything approaching scientific understanding. Based on your inability to defend your position with some coherence I honestly believe you're political trolls.

"If this myth was as widely taught as you say it was then there would be some evidence. For example, there would be sections in textbooks, in teacher's notes, in exercise books (many people keep their school books - I still have mine for example), etc. Therefore, it is quite reasonable for us to challenge you to provide evidence to support your claim.
Why can't you / won't you provide it?"

There's several problems with this assertion. First is you want me to track down 30 year old textbooks, or teacher's notes (assuming he's even still alive). Nobody keeps their 6th grade textbooks because they did not belong to the student, they belonged to the school.

It is NOT reasonable to expect me to come up with any of this stuff because it would probably take me hundreds of hours to see if I can even find the people who MIGHT be able to help me, as if I thought for a second that ANY proof would satisfy you. If I brought proof that it was part of the curriculum you would say it was based on junk science, if I found it in the textbooks you'd say it was not scientific consensus, etc. You people are far from dispassionate scientists looking for the truth. I expect you're one of two things, either scientists with an agenda (therefore untrustworthy) or non-scientists with an agenda (therefore untrustworthy). I suspect the latter, but either way the result is the same. You've all tried to bully me from my first post. Hardly unbiased men of science.

@bi -- IJI

Wow, I'm actually surprised your call didn't come sooner. Unable to bully me or trick me with self serving papers that support your position, now you want me banned? Much like I would expect from a quasi-political/science organization like the . . . IPCC? Hmmmm, how quickly it turns full circle and your true colors are exposed. "Agree with us or we will ban you." How pathetic.

As for the several posts that ask for names of those who were bullied by their refusal to adhere to the IPCC party line, I don't know their names. I watched them as they were interviewed months ago, so I saw them talk about it themselves.

Let's be honest here, even if I gave you names you wouldn't accept it. You're adherence to this dogma is blind and no proof will change your mind. The funny thing is I don't even deny it might be happening, I've just said that the jury is not in on this, so I maintain some healthy skepticism. I don't even oppose that it could be true, but none of you will even allow me to have doubts or question the reliability of human (therefore fallible) scientists.

No names or proof will convince you. So why would I bother? Your motivations are political. If they were scientific you would have treated me differently rather than screaming "Witch! Witch!" at the top of your lungs.

Do you think there will be a summer next year?" has NOTHING to do with climate.

This deserves to be preserved somewhere.

Someone should start a climate science equivalent of this.

inTheShelter:

"So 3 people is "many" people. Sure if you say so."

Jeez, can you read the context of my post accurately. There's already 3 people on this thread alone who were taught it,

Can you read the context of what I wrote previously? 3 global warming denialists attracted here proves diddley squat.

If you can't understand that then how could you possibly understand any more evidence.

So far you have provided zero evidence. I could understand if you provided some such as what did they actually teach you about the supposed imminent ice-age? Did they teach you why it was expected? Did they teach you when it was expected? Corroboration is possible evidence.

as if I thought for a second that ANY proof would satisfy you

Try to be a bit less arrogant.

InTheShelter: As for the several posts that ask for names of those who were bullied by their refusal to adhere to the IPCC party line, I don't know their names. I watched them as they were interviewed months ago, so I saw them talk about it themselves.

The point is you have no idea if these people were really scientists. The fact that you refuse to even look for the names shows you are unwilling to face a challenge to your preconcieved notions. Just like the notion that your teacher was teaching you that a coming ice age was the scientific concensus in the 70's.

If you want to impress anyone, figure out who you were listening to and track down what they said. (Surely on a topic as important as this you wouldn't let just anyone pour mush into your brain, would you?)

Dhogaza, you could just put it here: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=3 . Given that the complaint seems to be a conspiracy of massive proportions, it probably would fit in.

"3 global warming denialists attracted here proves diddley squat."

- They didn't deny anything, they just said they were taught it back then too. But of course you consider anyone who doesn't carry your political views a "denailist".

" I could understand if you provided some such as what did they actually teach you about the supposed imminent ice-age?"

- I actually did provide you what he taught me. You've chosen to ignore it, but I'll state it once again. He said that we were heading towards another ice age. And to correct your (and your friends) continual misquote (seems to be common amongst your political beliefs) I did NOT say imminent, all of you have put those words in my mouth. Your continued persistence with that shows me that even with the evidence of what I did say right on the same page you will choose falsehoods and deception. Why would any more evidence produce a different result from you?

"Try to be a bit less arrogant."

- It's not arrogance, it's a spot-on analysis of the fact that none of you will change your political dogma no matter what evidence I provide.

"If you want to impress anyone"

- I DON'T want to impress anyone. None of you are going to change your views and I'm not going to change my view of your or you compatriots tactics.

The poster dhogaza showed his true colors with his comments and you removed them.

Actually there was a rhetorical point to my posts but I wouldn't expect you to get it ...

Intheshelter wrote "There's several problems with this assertion. First is you want me to track down 30 year old textbooks, or teacher's notes (assuming he's even still alive). Nobody keeps their 6th grade textbooks because they did not belong to the student, they belonged to the school."

No, again you deliberately duck the issue. Let me spell this out simply:
1. You maintain that global cooling was widely taught (your words were "leads me to believe that global cooling was far more widely taught and believed at the time")
2. I don't care about you and your teacher - I want you to support that statement. If global cooling was widely taught then there must be evidence - i.e. textbooks, notes, etc.
3. Therefore, provide us with this evidence.

If you cannot provide the evidence then you have no reason whatsoever to believe that this theory was widely taught.

Please be clear - I don't want evidence that you were taught this (I care not a wit about this). I want some evidence that it was widely taught.

Your call. We are ready for your next attempt to wriggle out of this of course. What excuse will it be this time?

"If you cannot provide the evidence then you have no reason whatsoever to believe that this theory was widely taught."

- I've already explained my reasoning as to why this theory was widely taught. Go back through the thread and read #191.

"Therefore, provide us with this evidence."

- I've also posted several times that it is pointless to spend the hundreds or maybe thousands of hours to research this. Let me also point out that you knew it probably wasn't possible for me to spend that much time and resources on that research when you requested it. So, knowing those two things I'll leave you with the point I've made already. . .

No amount of evidence will change your political views. No amount of evidence will stop the attack rhetoric from you or your allies. No amount of evidence will even convince you that it's reasonable to take a cautious approach towards AGW theories. If it won't help then why would I bother even if I had the time and resources to conduct the research?

Your call. I am ready for your next attempt to wriggle out of this of course. What excuse will it be this time?

If I brought proof that it was part of the curriculum you would say it was based on junk science, if I found it in the textbooks you'd say it was not scientific consensus, etc. You people are far from dispassionate scientists looking for the truth.

It is certainly junk science, whether or not it was taught to you, and whether or not it was in the textbooks, so the question of whether it was in the curriculum is really only of interest in assessing whether the teaching in your 6th grade class is really as bad as it sounds from your description, or whether you are imagining things (which frankly, based upon other things you have said, does not sound particularly unlikely).

Unlike your self-serving recollections of your sixth grade teacher, science does have a memory, laid down in the publication record. And while you may not be able to lay hands on the probably nonexistent sixth grade textbooks that espouse global cooling, the scientific literature of the day remains available in university libraries, with titles, abstracts, and often full text available online to anybody who cares enough to search out the truth.

As it happens, others have already done so (see here and here).

But science is all about predictions, and I think I've seen enough from you to deduce something about your character. Let's see if I am right. Here are my predictions:

1) You will reject these literature reviews, insisting that the authors who conducted them must be part of the global warming "cult" and therefore untrustworthy.

2) But you will nevertheless be too lazy (or too afraid of disturbing your own carefully constructed rationalizations) to actually carry out your own review to find out the truth of the matter, even though it would doubtless require less time and effort than your numerous posts arguing about what you think you heard in the 6th grade.

"Actually there was a rhetorical point to my posts but I wouldn't expect you to get it ..."

- No there wasn't. You were just mad you couldn't bully me and resorted to a childish attack. Then the record of it was whitewashed from this thread. Is this typical behavior from "scientists" when someone disagrees with them? Sort of like. . . . the scientists that were harassed when they dared to disagree with the IPCC?

"Unlike your self-serving recollections of your sixth grade teacher"

- Much like your self-serving links to sites that only support your position? As I've said before, based on the behavior here it's obvious none of your are dispassionate men of science. With that knowledge how could I trust ANY link you provided? They're all self-serving as well, but they just serve your side of the argument so you think that is justified.

Intelligence test

Hey Tim, how much does this clown rent for, or if he works for free, what do you use for troll bait.

I thought mine was good, but that's priceless!

"Hey Tim, how much does this clown rent for, or if he works for free, what do you use for troll bait."

- Wow, pretty classy guys. You must also be part of the IPCC, right? You're using the same tactics on someone who doesn't follow your party line.

Huh, Shelter argues that because ONE high school teacher told (or may have told) his students that an ice age was impending some 30 years ago, then ALL science can safely be ignored ?

That doesn't compute. Why is he still arguing ?

3 global warming denialists attracted here proves diddley squat."

They didn't deny anything, they just said they were taught it back then too.

I'm just pointing out there is a large supply of people who are politically motivated to make assertions that exaggerate the truth. That there are 3 such people here proves nothing about school curricula 30 years ago.

" I could understand if you provided some such as what did they actually teach you about the supposed imminent ice-age? Did they teach you why it was expected? Did they teach you when it was expected?"

I actually did provide you what he taught me. You've chosen to ignore it, but I'll state it once again. He said that we were heading towards another ice age.

Is that it? No detail whatsoever? One sentence is supposed to be evidence that it was in the curriculum? I'm sorry but I've never heard of curriculum that entails just a one-sentence statement to students. You'll have to do better than that to be able to call it evidence

Why would any more evidence produce a different result from you?

This attitude is arrogance BTW.

"Try to be a bit less arrogant."

It's not arrogance, it's a spot-on analysis of the fact that none of you will change your political dogma no matter what evidence I provide.

I wasn't asking you to provide evidence about anyone's political dogma.

I'm just pointing out there is a large supply of people who are politically motivated to make assertions that exaggerate the truth. That there are 3 such people here proves nothing about school curricula 30 years ago.

You're right, there are a large supply of them, on BOTH sides of the argument. All I know is there were 3 people on just this predominately pro-AGW thread who came forward to say they were taught the same thing. That leads me to believe that it was far more widely taught then just my school or teacher. Was it part of the curriculum, I don't know. I said before I assumed it was, and I still believe it was, but I have no proof one way or the other. What is not reasonable to believe is that so many people were taught the same thing based on a Newsweek story.

The whole campaign to disprove global cooling in the school curriculum strikes me as a red herring. I began by making a statement of what I was taught. Now it has turned into whether it was part of the school curriculm in the hope that if it wasn't part of the curriculum you can claim victory and say it wasn't taught. But guess what, it WAS taught, I was there and I heard it and I remember it all these years later. NOTHING you can say or do will change the fact that it was taught.

Is that it? No detail whatsoever? One sentence is supposed to be evidence that it was in the curriculum?

That what was taught. It is not supposed to be evidence that it was in the curriculum, I never claimed it was evidence. You asked what was taught and I told you. I didn't take notes and keep them for 30 years just to use for a counter argument on a political blog.

Why would any more evidence produce a different result from you?
This attitude is arrogance BTW.

Look up arrogance in the dictionary before you use it in a sentence. It was a simple statement that I believe to be true. No evidence will change your mind.

I wasn't asking you to provide evidence about anyone's political dogma.

Sure you are. You just mask it as "science". You keep asking for evidence about school curriculums in the hope that my failure to produce it will somehow vindicate your political dogma. You're wasting your time, so try another angle.

Huh, Shelter argues that because ONE high school teacher told (or may have told) his students that an ice age was impending some 30 years ago, then ALL science can safely be ignored ?
That doesn't compute. Why is he still arguing ?

No, that is NOT what I said. Just to clarify, I said my 6th grade teacher (not high school) taught us (not may have taught us, but definitely DID teach us) that we were heading towards another ice age. And I have NEVER said that all science can be ignored.

Since you all are so high on citations and proof perhaps you could take just a minute to research the quotes you attribute to me. It's all on this page so it shouldn't be that hard for you to get it right. I thought you all were all learned men of science. By all means don't let facts stand in the way of your deliberate misquote of my position.

Shelter, to repeat from one who accepts AGW as the theory that best explains all the data we have, I, for one, was NOT TAUGHT that global cooling was a consensus. I HEARD it. I bet if you go back and look up what people said, and asked them (and here I refer to the 3 pro-AGW "cultists"), they would probably say the same thing. Hearing about something, and indeed, even being taught it by a teacher, does not make it a real consensus among scientists. We get it that you believe it. Good for you. I can remember the big fuss made in the papers, along with Nuclear Winter, and the A-Bomb would ignite the atmosphere (through history research), and that the LHC would create a black-hole and destroy the world (I have students and teachers in my school who believed that, despite the fact that it was all hype and no physicist worth anything really thought that as a viable possibility). In fact, the last would be a good example.

I heard that a few students were concerned with the "black hole" bit from another teacher. I explained the facts, and thought nothing of it until I put the funny videos I had found (the black hole swallowing the LHC) on the school email. I had a teacher thank me as students were worried. I had to send another email fast saying it was a joke and giving them the information, with links, to the real facts of the matter. Despite the efforts of myself and several other teachers to dispel the rumors caused by cranks and crackpots, we had some panic, and a teacher who broke down in class thinking the world was going to end. Our principal had to intervene. How many of those students in that class went on to think that it was a fact that the LHC would create a black hole?

Same situation. Some newsmag runs with a story, probably (although I have no real idea) based off the nuclear winter ideas floating around, and it hits big. People start talking about it, ignoring the fact that it was not a serious idea to most of the world. Look up such incidents as the "Satanic Panic" of the 80s. All the "ex-satanists" who described the kidnapping and murder of millions of babies. Damn, I can't remember what Michael Shermer called these events. Anyway, the "global cooling" myth is a similar case. Non-science (really) blown out of proportion and accepted as fact by an uncritical and uneducated (I mean this in the sense that they were not being told the truth by the media of the day) populace. That's the danger of fads like that. That's why scientists look at the data, and when asked, produce the evidence for other scientists and experts, who have spent years learning the relevant disciplines, to evaluate.

Those of us without climatology degrees have to rely upon our knowledge and the words and evaluations of the experts. Listening to non-scientists (like economist Lomberg, for instance) is simply ludicrous, the same as taking the words of a well-meaning teacher 30 years ago. I'm sure he (?) may have believed it, or your anti-AGW stance colored your memories and expanded his relating a news story to the best of his ability into a consensus that supports your position. Either is possible. And both are really irrelevant, as others have stated. So, please, if you really want to be taken seriously, which admittedly would be hard at this point, either give evidence to support your assertion that Global Cooling was a scientific consensus (and not just a popular fad) or drop it, admitting that your memories do not indicate what you are stating.

Simple, no?

(Oh for the record: "I said my 6th grade teacher (not high school) taught us (not may have taught us, but definitely DID teach us) that we were heading towards another ice age. And I have NEVER said that all science can be ignored." is saying that all (climate) science can be ignored, since there is no evidence that what you were taught was the scientific consensus of climatologists. People can and are taught wrong things every day. You continue to ignore the evidence saying there was no consensus that another ice age would occur. That is ignoring the work of the scientists of the time, no beating around the bush. I am a teacher in high school and know of one biology teacher who is a creationists - I never identified who (it was a friend of a friend), so I don't know how much damage this loon was doing, even though my friend says that he did teach evolution. Probably half-assed, but it goes to show that even teachers can teach non-factual things.

Much like your self-serving links to sites that only support your position?

As I pointed out before, I couldn't find a link to any established scientific society that did not support the reality of global warming if I wanted to--there isn't any!

With that knowledge how could I trust ANY link you provided?

You have just confirmed my first prediction: "1) You will reject these literature reviews, insisting that the authors who conducted them must be part of the global warming "cult" and therefore untrustworthy."

But as I pointed out before, you don't have to trust me, or the links I provided, because all of the information is publicly available, easily confirmed by anybody who is more interested in knowing the truth than in debating what his 6th grade teacher might or might not have said.

It looks like you are well on your way to confirming my second prediction:"2) But you will nevertheless be too lazy (or too afraid of disturbing your own carefully constructed rationalizations) to actually carry out your own review to find out the truth of the matter"

I began by making a statement of what I was taught.

And why is this so much more important to you than the actual truth of the matter? The fact is that a sixth grade education does not adequately prepare you to understand advanced science, and much of what you, like the rest of us, learned in elementary school about science is not technically correct. But you seem bound and determined not to learn anything beyond what you heard in 6th grade.

That what was taught. It is not supposed to be evidence that it was in the curriculum, I never claimed it was evidence.

I agree that it is not evidence--so why even bring it into a discussion of the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, either today or in the '70's. In a serious discussion, you can't have it both ways.

If it is evidence, then defend it--not whether you were actually told it, but whether it does or does not reflect the climatological consensus of the 1970's.

If it is not evidence, then simply apologize for sidetracking the discussion with an irrelevancy that is not evidence of anything, and let's get back to discussing the evidence.

I don't know why you guys let IntheDogShelter rile you. His 1970s ice age predictions are so thoroughly discredited that you may as well just provide the RC link and leave it at that. Any further effort is pointless.

The clean air act didn't come into force in the US until around 1990, about the same time as the Eastern Bloc factories came down. At this point Nth Amer and European aerosols really started to clear up. But that was also the time Chinese and Indian sulphates really started churning, so we've had the aerosol mask as a pretty continuous phenomena for the past 60 years. The issue is that once you've got a certain amount of aerosols, the forcing remains fairly constant (i.e. it's not accumulating, just being constantly regenerated). CO2 on the other hand, is increasing cumulatively, even though it takes decades for its full forcing to be felt.

So I see the 1950s to 70s as the period of time when the aerosol forcing overwhelmed the GHG forcing, and 1980 onwards was the opposite (though Chinese aerosol forcing is still outpacing Chinese CO2 at present).

So, please, if you really want to be taken seriously, which admittedly would be hard at this point, either give evidence to support your assertion that Global Cooling was a scientific consensus (and not just a popular fad) or drop it, admitting that your memories do not indicate what you are stating.

I've already stated that I assumed it was part of the curriculum and/or a scientific consensus. I don't have proof one way or the other. Nor do you. I don't care if you take me seriously or not, so drop the nonsense about proving school curriculums. Your misquotes of what I have said have become tiresome. If you want to be taken seriously then please quote me accurately or drop it, admitting that your misquotes do not indicate what I have actually said.

Oh for the record: "I said my 6th grade teacher (not high school) taught us (not may have taught us, but definitely DID teach us) that we were heading towards another ice age. And I have NEVER said that all science can be ignored." is saying that all (climate) science can be ignored

Actually it is NOT saying that all science can be ignored. Again a vain attempt to put words in my mouth.

even teachers can teach non-factual things

But scientists can espouse non-factual things, right? Science is NEVER wrong. Give me a break. The exact same maxim that you apply to teachers can apply to scientists. That some do get it wrong some of the time. THAT is why I have a dose of skepticism about this particular topic.

I couldn't find a link to any established scientific society that did not support the reality of global warming if I wanted to

But there are scientists who don't support the THEORY (not reality, nice try) of AGW. To deny that is sticking your head in the sand. But again, you offer only links to sources that support your position. I don't bother because it's a self serving exercise. If I offered links you wouldn't accept any of them. I don't accept yours because the vitriol on this thread leads me to believe that any poster here is more motivated by politics than science.

And why is this so much more important to you than the actual truth of the matter?

I didn't say it was more important. I simply pointed out that when I stated what I was taught I was attacked and called names. Not what I would expect from men of science. Definitely what I would expect from politically motivated dogma.

If it is not evidence, then simply apologize for sidetracking the discussion with an irrelevancy that is not evidence of anything

I didn't sidetrack the discussion, you and the rest of your supporters did. You guys are the ones demanding that I prove what the curriculum was in my school 30 YEARS AGO. Not a reasonable request for me to carry out by myself, and a definite attempt to sidetrack the discussion. So why don't all of you apologize for your attempts to sidetrack the discussion?

OK troll, into the corner with you...

First is you want me to track down 30 year old textbooks, or teacher's notes (assuming he's even still alive). Nobody keeps their 6th grade textbooks because they did not belong to the student, they belonged to the school.

All I want is the name and location of your school.

We'll do the rest.

I've also posted several times that it is pointless to spend the hundreds or maybe thousands of hours to research this.

As I said, five seconds of typing on your part and we'll do the rest.

The internet is a wonderful thing, and one of its wonders is that just about any first-world school is an email away from anyone with a computer. And if your recollections and/or time commitments are such that you can't find the evidence to support your claim that a 70s media beat-up was actually taught widely in schools as a scientific theory, then believe me that there are many others here who will do the simple work involved.

And the bottom line is that if it takes more than an email or two to a school or to a state education administration to confirm your claim, then your claim that the imminent ice-age was a widely held and taught theory is certainly based on either ill-informed recollections (or upon simple lies) and thus your original statement was most definitely not warranted.

Come on troll, start putting down some evidence.

And if your recollections and/or time commitments are such that you can't find the evidence to support your claim that a 70s media beat-up was actually taught widely in schools as a scientific theory, then believe me that there are many others here who will do the simple work involved.

Again, a red herring that will prove nothing one way or the other. Is the reason you stick with this argument because it's all you have left. Either way I'll dissect the quote above. First, it was not my claim that a "70's media beat-up" was taught. It was all of you who have made that assertion. So let's just practice what you preach, okay? Prove to me that it was a 70's media story that was teached? What day and time was it on TV. And prove to me where my science teacher got the information? Not the curriculum crap, as I said that is a red herring on your part. You're maintaining that I was taught this because of some media story, so how EXACTLY are you going to prove that? Even if I gave you the school's name (the teacher is named above) are you going to contact him (I'm assuming he's 60-70 years old now, maybe more) and he's going to remember his motivation for teaching me this in the 6th grade? And just as an aside on this, how do you think he would feel being contacted by you pro-AGW people? Would you treat him as badly as you treated me or others who dared to disagree?

Come on Bernard, what is exactly your plan to prove your assertion that he taught me that because of a media story? Start putting down steps as to how you'll come by this evidence. See, I can play your brinksmanship game too.

I've deleted some off-topic complaints about my deletion of comments. Any further complaints will result in a ban.

Why is trying to talk to the Sheltered kid seem like talking to Lauren (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXRbfCurbAE)?

Hmm:
"So, please, if you really want to be taken seriously, which admittedly would be hard at this point, either give evidence to support your assertion that Global Cooling was a scientific consensus (and not just a popular fad) or drop it, admitting that your memories do not indicate what you are stating.
I've already stated that I assumed it was part of the curriculum and/or a scientific consensus. I don't have proof one way or the other. Nor do you. I don't care if you take me seriously or not, so drop the nonsense about proving school curriculums. Your misquotes of what I have said have become tiresome. If you want to be taken seriously then please quote me accurately or drop it, admitting that your misquotes do not indicate what I have actually said."

Actually, we do have evidence, which in a scientific sense is as much proof as you can get, that there was no consensus, so you cannot support your claim. Game over, kid.

"Oh for the record: "I said my 6th grade teacher (not high school) taught us (not may have taught us, but definitely DID teach us) that we were heading towards another ice age. And I have NEVER said that all science can be ignored." is saying that all (climate) science can be ignored
Actually it is NOT saying that all science can be ignored. Again a vain attempt to put words in my mouth."

Actually, wrong again. Refusal to admit that the work of climatologists, and the report that there was no consensus on the issue of global cooling, is saying that the facts can be ignored. Once people could be admired for their refusal to let the facts get in the way of their ideology, but not anymore. How is ignoring the work of climatologists which supports global warming, global climate change, and AGW, not a denial and ignoring of science, specifically climate science? Sorry kid, but ignorance is ignorance is willful ignorance when it's been pointed out time and time again. Sorry kid. Man up and admit your mistakes.

"even teachers can teach non-factual things
But scientists can espouse non-factual things, right? Science is NEVER wrong. Give me a break. The exact same maxim that you apply to teachers can apply to scientists. That some do get it wrong some of the time. THAT is why I have a dose of skepticism about this particular topic."

Aah, I think this is a combination of the "Science was wrong before" fallacy, along with...let's see...strawman, perhaps? Sorry, but a 6th grade teacher, today, 30 years later, just needs a bachelors degree and the ability to pass a state test. That's all. What it was back then, I have no idea, but standards have improved. I know that for a fact.

Most working scientists consider a BS or BA a start. A Masters or PhD is better, and indicates a much higher level of specialization and knowledge. Classroom instruction is not peer-reviewed either, but scientific publications are, which imposes a higher standard for accuracy. Newspaper and magazine reports are not peer-reviewed either, meaning that mistakes happen with a much higher frequency, and are rarely corrected, in both the classroom and in print than in published, peer reviewed papers. Scientists came to a consensus not because of sloppy work, or mistakes, or a cult, or whatever else your tinfoil hat can come up with, but because the data supports the conclusions that AGW is real. Sorry to blow your bubble, but the methodology of science is in place to prevent and weed out the mistakes that people make. They happen, but they are caught with a rate astronomically higher than in popular culture. Sorry, but it's true.

Let's see: to prevent the next round of complaints along that line of fallacious argumentation, hoaxes such as Piltdown man were not really accepted by the majority of scientists, and further investigation showed that they were hoaxes. The methods of science discovered the hoax, so, yes, they do work. Amazing thing, that.

Also, yes, science has changed in some cases. Ever since Darwin proposed his theory, we have learned a lot more since then. We have learned a lot that has changed the way we think, and older paradigms have changed. Unfortunately for the denialists, as the evidence mounted, the theory became stronger even as some things were proven incorrect. Evolutionary Theory is still the strongest theory, still explaining the data we have, still predicting more data that will or will not prove true in the future. AGW is like that. Even if we were to buy into the idea that Global Cooling (and Nuclear Winter, for that matter) were once the strongest hypothesis at the time (which I do not believe, sorry - all available evidence says it wasn't), as we have learned more, we have learned that it was wrong, and a new theory that better fits the data developed. So far, there has been no competing theories available that explain the data better.

So, even if science and scientists have been wrong before, we have learned, and as we have learned, have taken that knowledge and error corrected and built upon it to make more accurate predictions, hypotheses, and theories. If you want to think that the current theory is wrong, let's see some data, from peer reviewed sources, from climatologists, not weathermen, or economists, or even from data analysts. Let's look at the data and see what the evidence supports. Popular writing, meanwhile, has no error correction mechanism (look at the fact that Greg Easterbrook continues to mangle science whenever he writes on it as supporting evidence for that, or the fact that the DI still puts out books, but not scientific papers).

Anyway, time to buck up and lay your evidence. While this has been a good exercise in patience and trying to explain things, to make me a better teacher, this has pretty much run it's course. Anyone else want to feed the troll. And, Shelter, if the label bothers you, don't be one and own up to mistakes, insults, and give us some evidence to support your claims, or accept the title as yours.

Oh, as for your request for Cooling Media bits from the '70s, you can start with Wikipedia:

1975 Newsweek article
While these discussions were ongoing in scientific circles, other accounts appeared in the popular media, notably an April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine.[21] Titled "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article did not state the cause of cooling; it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
The article mentioned the alternative solutions of "melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers" but conceded these were not feasible. The Newsweek article concluded by criticizing government leaders: "But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies...The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality." The article emphasized sensational and largely unsourced consequences - "resulting famines could be catastrophic", "drought and desolation," "the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded", "droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons," "impossible for starving peoples to migrate," "the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age."
On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."') [22].

[edit]1980 Cosmos series with Carl Sagan
In the science series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, physicist Carl Sagan warned of catastrophic cooling through the burning and clear cutting of forests. He postulated that the increased albedo of the earth's surface might lead to a new ice age. He also mentioned that this may be counteracted and overcome by the release of greenhouse gases. Cosmos was a popular series on public television and was often shown in elementary, junior and senior high schools in the United States.[23]
[edit]Other 1970s sources
In the late 1970s there were several popular (and melodramatic) books on the topic, including The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.[24]
[edit]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)

The Cosmos show is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Z7wJdYa44&feature=related AND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPC66QgAwg&feature=related (the actual quote is split up at the break, but is easy to hear and understand).

If you want to believe that Cosmos was not a big show, you got an uphill battle. It is doubtful that even Sagan would make mention of it unless it had been getting a lot of airplay. Of course, this will lead to an argument that he was wrong - or he wouldn't have said it if it wasn't a real scientific worry, but he just said "some...think" (IIRC). Look up the books mentioned. Wiki has a Newsweek link as well,

Ok, since I'm doing an EBSCOHost search for global cooling in the 70-80 range, and this will take a while, I'll post this. Once I have the reports and such, in PDF format, and have them posted, I'll link here. It's funny - I see some mention of cooling, especially in regards to popular books, but so far I'm getting mostly scientific journals where the consensus still seems to be on warming.

So InTheShelter can recall very clearly that "They" were preaching the Global Cooling Theory in the 1970s, even though he

1. can't recall which school he went to, or
2. what else his teacher taught, or
3. what other people were saying about the theory back then.

Yeah, I can buy that, yeah.

Wow, a bit much of a last post for me. Sorry. Well, I couldn't do as well as I wanted. I didn't have access to newspapers, and I couldn't find one for non-science or non-academic journals, at least not from the 70s. I did find a few that mention cooling as a possibility, although more were concerned with warming. I put the files at pdfs into zip format and posted them here: http://web.me.com/badger3k/Site/Files_and_Papers_files/Climate%2070s.zip

I also still have the Dunning-Krueger effect there as well, if anyone wants to read them. I did notice that most of the papers mentioning cooling seemed to be from around 75 or 76. I speculate that that is the time when it was popularized, and yeah, if the Newsweek article doesn't mention that the story started to be popularized in 1975.

I was trying to find popular shows, but even looking at Nova only goes back to 1996 on their website (pbs.org). Still, I think we have enough info to illustrate that while it was being talked about back then, it was not considered such by many, and definitely not by a majority. I didn't do a search linking cooling with the nuclear winter scenario, but I am now curious to see which way the link went, or if it was a feedback loop.

Evidence enough that the idea was being tossed around at the time, even if there was not a consensus, and that it had made it into popular culture?

Hmm, I'm not sure what happened to the link. It should b:

http:// (AND) web.me.com/badger3k/Site/Files_and_Papers_files/Climate%2070s.zip

Sorry, I'm not sure how to use html codes here, and guess the underscore is causing problems, so I broke it up with the (AND) bit. Sorry it's a bit of a mess. Hope this works.

Sorry, still not working. Just go to the front page, go to files, and look at the bottom. Sorry for the hassles for those who are curious.

http://web.me.com/badger3k/Site/Welcome.html

Yeah, the sites a bit old and hasn't been updated. Work and all....

In TheShelter has been banned for 24 hours for repeated off topic complaints about comment deletions.

I've already stated that I assumed it was part of the curriculum and/or a scientific consensus. I don't have proof one way or the other. Nor do you.

Well, yes we do, because the history of scientific thought on the topic is enshrined for posterity in the publication record. So all one needs to do to determine whether there was a consensus is survey the literature. This has been done, the evidence has been presented to you, and if you seriously doubt it, the evidence is available for you to examine personally. Indeed, it would probably take less time and effort than you've expended in debating your recollection of what your 6th grade teacher said.

But there are scientists who don't support the THEORY (not reality, nice try) of AGW. To deny that is sticking your head in the sand. But again, you offer only links to sources that support your position.

No, I couldn't find a major scientific society that doesn't support the THEORY of global warming if I wanted, either--there isn't any!

I don't bother because it's a self serving exercise. If I offered links you wouldn't accept any of them.

Sorry, you can't bluff your way out of this one. Name even one major national scientific academy that rejects either the reality or the theory of global warming. You can't, because there is none.

Scientists may quibble about some of the details, but with respect to the major theoretical conclusions--that the earth has warmed, and will continue to warm, as a consequence of CO2 released by human activities--there is a remarkable degree of consensus. Indeed, such a high degree of agreement among researchers is rare in any field of science, because scientists are very competitive; every scientist's fondest dream is to prove everybody else wrong. The consensus did not come about overnight. It emerged over decades, as with improvements in theoretical modeling strategies, the various global climate models converged. And once again, you do not have to take my word for it; it's all published, available for you to examine personally (but I confidently predict that you will not.)

I didn't say it was more important. I simply pointed out that when I stated what I was taught I was attacked and called names. Not what I would expect from men of science.

What, you think that scientists are polite?! This, as much as anything you've said, reveals that you know nothing about science and scientists. Scientists as a group are not exactly renowned for their "people skills," you know. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but hurt feelings don't make you any less wrong, or make what your 6th grade teacher said any less irrelevant. If you want your arguments sugar-coated, talk to a politician.

I didn't sidetrack the discussion, you and the rest of your supporters did. You guys are the ones demanding that I prove what the curriculum was in my school 30 YEARS AGO.

Once again, I ask you: How is what a 6th grade teacher said to you relevant to whether or not there is global warming? If it is relevant to the topic of discussion, explain how. If it is not relevant, why did you bring it up in the first place, and why have you devoted multiple messages to defending it?

Badger3k, Science Blogs uses underscores for Markdown (see Comments box below); in this case the subsequent text is italicised.

If you want a literal underscore, then stick a '\' in front of it if you want to use the URL explicitly.

Or use the Markdown style for links, as given above the Comments box.

Or use HTML: usual opening and closing tag format containing the text _a href="*"_ (quotes required) in the opening tag and an _a_ in the closing tag, substituting * with your URL and placing some descriptive text for your link between the opening and closing tags.

Yawn.

So, we have here an issue -- global change -- where the very survival of large segments of the human population is at stake.

And of course, the most important thing when dealing with this issue is to make sure that some random troll's feelings aren't hurt.

Seems to be a concerted troll attack under way.

Chances they are all the same troll? Good.

> Right, your issue, global change (an even better title isn't it, because something on the globe is always changing) and it's sooooo important that "the very survival blah blah blah" that rather then try and convince people

The issue is important. You are not.

Who exactly do you think you are anyway? The President of the Universe, with lots of executive powers?

You're not worth "convincing".

InTheShelter/inTheSheltersCensoredGhost/TheMisquotedOne/
VindicatedByBadger3ksAdmission/AgainstCensoredBlogs...

...and whatever other sockpuppets you care to spawn.

You've shown far better than just about any other troll I've ever seen why the heading for this thread is so apt. You can whine away with all of your pouty strawmen and refusals to address the substantive criticisms of your ill-education and non-science, but no-one with even half a brain will miss the fact that you are completely clueless.

I've seen butterflies, drunk on fermented nectar, with more coherent flightpaths than have you.

You have no case. It's as simple as that.

You have no idea of science. It's as simple as that.

And it seems that you have even no shred of human dignity, and it is as simple as that. If you had, you would exhibit a little more decorum that you have thus far.

Do yourself (and us) a favour, and go haunt Jennifer Marohasy's and/or Andrew Bolt's blogs - you'll find there the sort of comapny that you seek - or rather that you need.

Before you do, please supply us with the details of your 6th grade school. Rest assured that I won't, and don't care to, bother your old teacher - my point doesn't remotely require that.

And hurry up, because the Greasemonkey is starting to rattle the bars...

Sorry, but it's true that's it's a self-serving exercise. Even if someone offered links that disagreed with your position you would find some excuse to dismiss them, so why bother.

So from the fact that you are still offering the same flimsy excuse for your failure to cite even a single major scientific academy or society that supports your position, I think that we can safely conclude that you are unable to do so.

Hardly surprising, since there aren't any.

Thank you for admitting they've been wrong

This is a pretty ridiculous strawman, don't you think? Who has claimed that science has never been wrong? The logical fallacy is obvious:

"Not absolutely infallible" does not equal "likely to be wrong in this specific case"

Didn't they teach logical fallacies in the 6th grade?

Banning someone who isn't threatening anyone or accusing others of "beating their wife" probably wasn't the smartest move, was it?

Ah, so it's an old troll, from at least 2007. He knows his Deltoid history... I rather think I know who it is, too, but I won't gratify his ego with acknowledgement.

It all becomes clearer now.

Hasn't grown any more educated though, and his science-envy and logic-loathing is enough to make a Freudian drool.

Have you learned about ev-i-dence yet, little old troll?

It's quite obvious now (as if it wasn't previously) that this idiot has no desire (nor any intellectual capacity) to engage on a scientific basis, and is here purely to occupy bandwidth and to bog down other discussion. Ignore him folks, and leave him in the sandpit to play with his tallywhacker all by his lonesome.

Wouldn't it be nice if the impending Australian internet filter blocked this clown?

InTheShelter posts:

No, I'm not confused. I didn't use a Cairo vs Oslo analogy that was totally incorrect.

Neither did I, since it wasn't incorrect. It correctly pointed out the difference between predictable climate and unpredictable weather.

The fact that you used that makes me wonder if you're not confused yourself. You opinion that I've drawn the wrong conclusion is just that, an opinion. Weather or climate, humans simply don't have the understanding to predict either with any accuracy yet.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it still won't be true. We know that if we put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and nothing else changes, the temperature of the ground has to rise. Hell, we know that if the thermohaline circulation cut off, Europe would freeze. There are all kinds of things we can confidently predict about climate, and the fact that you aren't aware of them just shows that you haven't studied the subject.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant of a field you've never studied. There is something wrong, however, with making confident assertions about it, especially to people who have studied it, of which there are several on this blog. If you want to stop doing that, I'd suggest you simply get ahold of a few reference books and do some studying.

A good starting place might be Henderson-Sellers and Robinson's "Contemporary Climatology" (1986), or for a slightly more mathematical treatment, Hartmann's "Global Physical Climatology" (1994). For global warming in particular, Philander's "Is The Temperature Rising?" (1998) and Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" (2003) are very good. If you want to understand the physics involved, I can't recommend Houghton's "The Physics of Atmospheres" (2002) highly enough. A more math-heavy but very useful alternative would be Petty's "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" (2006).

But don't just keep posting without studying, especially when you're hostile and insulting about it. It just makes you look foolish.

InTheShelter posts -- and I'm not making this up:

"Do you think there will be a summer next year?" has NOTHING to do with climate.

Along those lines, protons have NOTHING to do with nuclear fusion. Magnitude has NOTHING to do with observational astronomy. And the fossil record has NOTHING to do with biology.

Remember, you heard it here first.

I'm just pointing out there is a large supply of people who are politically motivated to make assertions that exaggerate the truth. That there are 3 such people here proves nothing about school curricula 30 years ago.

You're right, there are a large supply of them, on BOTH sides of the argument. All I know is there were 3 people on just this predominately pro-AGW thread who came forward to say they were taught the same thing.

I can't find 3 people on this thread who say they were taught the same thing. Apart from you, there was just one person who describes himself as "a proud Man Made Global Warming denialist" who made a single statement about being taught Ice age hype in the 70's. The only other mention from someone in school at the time was by Aquaria who said:

I remember the ice age nonsense in the 70s, too. Funny, my science teacher declared it a crock. He even sponsored a voluntary field trip to Texas A&M so that those of us willing to get to the truth could see for ourselves that Time was talking out its ass. There wasn't anything supporting what this article claimed. Not in the journals of the day, and certainly not since.

It certainly wasn't part of the curriculum for his teacher. Are there really 3 people claiming they were "taught" future ice age on this thread or are you just making it up?

Is that it? No detail whatsoever? One sentence is supposed to be evidence that it was in the curriculum?

That what was taught.

A one sentence curriculum. Incredible. Pardon me if I find you incredible too.

It is not supposed to be evidence that it was in the curriculum, I never claimed it was evidence. You asked what was taught and I told you. I didn't take notes and keep them for 30 years just to use for a counter argument on a political blog.

I'm not asking you to get out any notes. I just asking you to tell us what you remember being taught about the subject. Things like did they teach you why it was expected or when it was expected? A bit of corroboration goes a long way towards establishing circumstances.

Why would any more evidence produce a different result from you?

This attitude is arrogance BTW.

Look up arrogance in the dictionary before you use it in a sentence. No evidence will change your mind.

You should take your own advice but I'll help you out. Arrogance: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions. Your assertion that no evidence will change my mind is presumptuous and thus arrogant.

InTheShelter writes:

But there are scientists who don't support the THEORY (not reality, nice try) of AGW.

In, to scientists, "theory" does not mean "wild-ass guess." That's the popular meaning. In science, "theory" is a technical term, and it refers to the highest level a body of scientific thought can attain. A theory is the consensus working model for an entire field. Thus atomic theory in chemistry, theory of universal gravitation in celestial mechanics, theory of evolution in biology, and theory of anthropogenic global warming. Calling it "just a theory" will only impress people who don't understand what the term means to a scientist.

It's like the word "work." To a layman, work means any physical exertion, or your job. To a physicist, work is force integrated with respect to distance. A guy sweating and straining for hours to move a concrete block too big for him is doing work by the popular definition, but is not doing work by the physics definition.

InTheShelter asks:

Prove to me that it was a 70's media story that was teached?

Taught. It appeared as a cover article, Peter Gwynne's "The Cooling World," in the April 28th, 2975 edition of Newsweek. Here's a link to the text:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

I see that the brave sock puppets trolls are finally being oppressed, just like they themselves secretly wish. Tee-hee.

InTheShelter apparently can't tell the difference between censorship and punishment for a code of conduct violation, and also displays a profound ability to avoid substantiating his points.

Frank's right -- he's drama queening. Like all cranks, he desires to be persecuted so he can claim persecution, and he'll engage in the schoolboy technique of provoking others to fulfill that childish complex.

Conspiracy theorist: Check.
Cherry picking: Check.
Logical fallacies: Check.
Fake Experts: Check. (If you can call your anonymous sixth-grade teacher an expert.)
Moving Goalposts: Check.
Persecution complex: Check.
Dunning-Kruger: Check.

You, sir, are a crank and a denialist. Into the [killfile] with ye!

(Tim, any hope of an IP ban? InTheShelter doesn't seem to understand the problems with sock puppeting.)

this is an example of a curriculum for 6th grade.

notice how a single sentence about a new ice age does NOT fit into it!

http://www.rossschool.net/maps/6th-SS-MapPub2008.pdf

(without an "imminent claim", your teacher was right, of course. there will be another ice age. one day.)

SickOfTimsCensorship:

"I can't find 3 people on this thread who say they were taught the same thing."

Look again because I read them earlier.

I have looked. Just name them. Otherwise you're a liar.

"A one sentence curriculum. Incredible. Pardon me if I find you incredible too."

Again, twisting my words. I didn't say it was a one sentence curriculum.

You responded to:

One sentence is supposed to be evidence that it was in the curriculum?

with:

That what was taught.

I can't help it if your response is misleading. Again, did the curriculum involve anything more than the teacher saying "He said that we were heading towards another ice age."?

Please stop misquoting me.

Please stop telling me to stop misquoting you because I am not misquoting you.

"I'm not asking you to get out any notes. I just asking you to tell us what you remember being taught about the subject."

I already told you and you don't accept it.

I accept that your teacher might have said that we were heading towards another ice age. But if that's the only thing you can remember then you have absolutely no idea whether it was part of the curriculum and not just something the teacher was casually talking about one day.

" Your assertion that no evidence will change my mind is presumptuous and thus arrogant."

It's not presumptuous and you know it. It's a fact, therefore NOT arrogant.

Yet another demonstration of your arrogance.

There are scientists who don't support AGW just as there are engineers who believe the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition, biologists who don't believe evolution, and doctors who believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS or cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Consensus:
http://cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus

A New Ice Age
http://cce.890m.com/a-new-ice-age

FWIW, "The Cooling World" wasn't a cover story.

TheTrollyOne said: "There are simply too many factors to consider to isolate that one element as a cause".

Mmmm let me see, solar activity has been factored in, water vapour has been factored in, volcanoes have been factored in, aerosols have been factored in and a few others. So what is missing?

Wait a minute I think I know what it is. The IPCC scientists haven't factored in all the hot air given out by the likes of our newly arrived resident troll.

Can some one quickly do the calculation and see how many degrees of warming are due to the AGW denying trolls. I think it may be quite a lot.

I think my comment #65 has proven the point of several other posts: Global Warming trolls could care less about solving global warming, they just want it to exist REALLY, REALLY bad. I listed 2 main issues: Needing to stop funneling oil money to hate mongering countries and countries that use oil to suppress the population. Second, needing to find a way to provide everyone in the world decent water, food, clothing without stripping it bare. The solutions to those problems would very likely help with global warming. But they could care less about that, they wanted hard science facts and to argue some more about priority of issues. I won't even try to argue any more, these people are BLIND.

WhenWillTimStop:

Sorry if you guys couldn't handle an opposing viewpoint.

I can handle an opposing viewpoint. I just can't handle a liar.

> learn some people skills

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drama queening, indeed.

 * * *

I say this again:

So, we have here an issue -- global climate change -- where the very survival of large segments of the human population is at stake.

And of course, the most important thing when dealing with this issue is to make sure that some random troll's feelings aren't hurt.

Drama queening, indeed.

I'd put money down that says the troll is now busily complaining on other sites about how the Big Bad Deltoid is suppressing his scientific accumen, his right to free speech, and his intimate understanding of the Gobal Conspiracy.

It's profoundly unsettling to see how much mere the idea of AGW (or of any significant scientific theory) sets these characters to resisting.

One wouldn't seek to employ such a person as a fire warden.

Oh, and thanks Tim. The renovations on the thread are most pleasing.

Speaking of barrel-bottoms, I've just noticed what the current issue of Quandrant magazine contains. I've not read the piece yet, but I rather suspect that it will be classified as 'peer-reviewed', and 'accepted science', by the author.

I wonder how many erros will be found in this effort?

What school, troll?

IllNeverQuit:

It could have been a civil discussion

You'll get a civil discussion when you apologize for lying and make civil responses.

"Hippocracy." I can only assume that that means "rule by horses."

I, for one, welcome our new equine overlords!

ISeeThroughAllOfYou, the troll with X-Ray Specs.

X-Ray Specs, of course, are a novelty item with no scientific basis to back up their claim, to see through scientific arguments as if they didn't exist.

X-Ray Specs, bought and used by trolls everywhere. What they do do is blur the edges of reality.

ISeeThroughAllOfYou, in all his guises, is one such troll whose edges of reality have long been eroded away ... 6th grade at a guess.

This has been a public information announcement on behalf of FF, Greasemonkey and [killfile]

Your hippocracy never ends

Hypocrisy is mainly what we're getting from this troll now so I guess he'll be pretty boring from now on.

I say this... for the third time:

So, we have here an issue -- global climate change -- where the very survival of large segments of the human population is at stake.

And of course, the most important thing when dealing with this issue is to make sure that some random troll's feelings aren't hurt.

I don't see that AGW has been proven.

Of course you don't, you're a cretin.

Lambert, since this guy is bragging that you're an idiot because you've not been able to successfully ban him ...

Why not spend a moment or two and BAN HIM.

TrollWithMPD.

You flatterer you! It's been a while since someone called me an Intellectual Master...

[I had typed a whack of following commentary, but I have decided to cut it because there's just no point, really, is there? I'll leave the previous sentence though, as a cryptic legacy of MPD's typo.]

For the fourth time:

So, we have here an issue -- global climate change -- where the very survival of large segments of the human population is at stake.

And of course, the most important thing when dealing with this issue is to make sure that some random troll's feelings aren't hurt.

Most of us here have followed the scientific literature on the topic for years, so our opinions are based on the evidence, not on blind obedience. And you are hardly equipped to judge, are you? After all, you have shown no evidence of any real knowledge of the subject, and in fact the only source that you been able to summon up is an unsupported statement by your 6th grade teacher. It seem clear that that is the sum total of your knowledge. Moreover, when others have directed you to the actual scientific literature, you have steadfastly avoided examining it. All we've heard from you is blind obedience to the global warming denialist cant, with not the slightest hint of critical thought.

OK folk, looks like the bottom of the barrel has been spotted. Tim, Eli suggests you reroute Culty's comments to sci.environment where he will find a happy home.

OK, Brian Martens is now [permanently banned](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/04/plonk.php). Please do not respond to his trolling here, since I will delete your responses as well as his comments.

Lurkbot -- good catch. I wondered if anybody was going to notice that.

[Brian Martens](http://www.bsmartens.com/TheMartensFamily/index.html) keeps changing the name he posts under, so if you see a new troll it is likely to be him. Please, do not feed him.

Wow! What a thread! Where did all that come from?

There's something weird going on right now. The JREF and Dawkins science forums have been under attack by a couple of the most deranged and offensive crackpots you can imagine. I have a look over here for some variety and I see this.

Just coincidence, I'm sure...I hope. :)

Well, what an utter waste. I came back hoping to find a less biased and insulting thread. The amount of intellectual dishonesty displayed here is staggering. Not to mention significant lack of understanding of English.

I can now remove this site from my bookmarks.

After all this time, I will say this: the title of this post is wrong. Denialists aren't scraping the bottom of the barrel, they're not even the bottom of the barrel, they're the mold growing underneath it. No offense to perfectly nice mold forms everywhere.