Why do I bother?

"What I want to know is, where does this vitriol come from? I can understand it in field that generate conflict between faith and science (evolution) or medicine (parents of autistic children looking for someone to blame). But climate change? What gives?"

They believe that the scientists who accept global warming are part of a leftist/environmentalist conspiracy to destroy the market economies of America and the West.

I just submitted this there:

"James do you deny that temperatures have been falling over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have increased?"

First, it is bad statistics to select your start year on the basis that it is an outlier. Second, I calculated the regression and yes, it is still positive. The fact that 1998 was exceptionally high causes an optical illusion.

It is instructive that the other comments, without exception that I could see, all fling abuse but have no substance. Come on, guys! Science is not decided by who can hurl the worst insults. You need to tackle the arguments in the paper and show why it is wrong. Until you can do that, your invective counts for nothing.

(except I had a typo, now corrected)

Look, the people who have time to sit around reading and commenting on blogs are generally not exactly the most productive members of society, if you know what I mean. Oh, wait, what time is it now?

Some of these guys get paid to populate the more popular blogs to keep the confusion going.

The couple blogs I read that are written by hard-core libertarians (and that brain-slug has a pretty good grip on the Republican party's amygdala as well) are just against anything that interferes with the free market. They really believe AGW is, more or less, a commie plot.

Paulm mentions an important point - there's a veritable army of paid, professional trolls out there.

However, there's a lot of pro-bono morons too...

Hansen is a lightening rod for vitriol by virtue of his own often contentious and outlandish pronouncements, "death trains" etc.

Also to pretend that only skeptics indulge in abusive tactics is disingenuous in the extreme. Drop into Deltoid and mention that you have doubts about AGW theory and see what Dano, Dhogaza and the other regulars hurl at you. Make sure to wear your cup and keep the kiddies away from the monitor.

Also I notice that several posters make paranoid speculation about an army of paid skeptical trolls while simultaneously complaining that skeptics imagine a grand conspiracy of leftist anti-market agents supporting AGW. Is the irony of this observation lost on you?

I am a trained scientist (physics) and I find the evidence for anything beyond very modest AGW to be weak in the extreme. I am not a right wing extremist, in fact I voted for Obama, nor am I paid to post my opinions.

Mr Hrynynshyn on the other hand is paid to write his extremist AGW views and attended Al Gores climate propaganda camp. This of course doesnt bother the people that agree with him.

Lance, I'd really appreciate it if you would stick to the science, if you can.

Most months what I make from ScienceBlogs doesn't even pay my DSL bill. If I really wanted to make money from this gig, I wouldn't be agreeing with the scientific consensus, I'd be writing against it, because that would draw far more traffic to a ScienceBlogs blog.

Second, lots of people attended Gore's climate presentation training sessions, including Gore's primary science adviser Mike McCracken, who used to run the US government's climate change program, and PR agents from Walmart, a company with a business model that's fundamentally bad for the environment no matter how many CFLs it sells. But so what? That says nothing about the quality of our arguments one way or another.

I don't moderate comments here, because I value free speech too much. But there are days when I wish I had the time to read each comment and delete any that don't stick to dealing with the arguments at hand, rather than just casting aspersions on motives and character.

James,

I notice you didn't ask any of the pro-AGW posters to "stick to the science". The subject of this thread was the tone and content of the replies from "pseudo-skeptics".

It is ironic that you complain about insulting posts from people that don't share your views and respond with an insult.

Unlike you I didn't use any pejorative terms in my post. I simply addressed the subject of the post in a rational and respectful way. The fact that you aren't paid a great deal doesn't change the fact that you are paid to give your pro-AGW opinion.

That doesn't mean that you are in the "tank" for AGW related businesses and organizations but since other posters had made remarks about "skeptics" being paid to make blog posts it certainly was relevant to the discussion.

Also Al Gore's financial interests are clearly tied to the public's acceptance of catastrophic AGW. He is no less financially vested in AGW than "right wing" think tanks, like the Heartland Institute, are tied to an anti-AGW agenda. If anything his financial interests are more single issue dependent than those organizations.

As far as discussing the science neither the link to the Hansen paper in this thread or in the Forecast Earth blog seem to work, at least not for my browser.

I'm all for an honest and open dialogue free of ad hominem insults and based on credible science and practical policy considerations, but let's be honest about our motivations and try to give others the same courtesy.

James - you obviously don't read what you write. Or practice what you preach.

Second, lots of people attended Gore's climate presentation training sessions, including Gore's primary science adviser Mike McCracken, who used to run the US government's climate change program, and PR agents from Walmart, a company with a business model that's fundamentally bad for the environment no matter how many CFLs it sells.

I think its funny that the URL is "scienceblogs". This drivel is the furthest thing from science. All you have here is biased opinion on selective 'political science', and some cut and pastes from hand-picked articles that support your shallow alarmist views.

I've noticed one or two vitriolic trolls here, I pity James for having to deal with them.

Lance- if you were a trained physicist, one would imagine your posts on AGW would contain more science and less pretending. Furthermore, saying "I'm not a paid shill and I voted for Obama" doesn't in any way address the possibility or not of there being people paid to troll blogs and post anti-agw material.

paranoia will destroy ya. paid trolls? hahahahahahaha

Au Gratis, it's not paranoia. This behaviour has been seen before.

One example that comes to mind would be David Wojick, seen here providing what appears to be a reasonable skeptical response to Coby Beck's series on debunking pseudoskeptical talking points. You'll note Wojick responds to virtually every point -- until he's outed as a paid consultant for the electric (coal) power industry, whereupon he instantly vanishes. After his industry ties are revealed, Wojick doesn't even attempt to defend himself or redirect attention; he simply disappears. This behaviour is consistent with deliberately seeding pseudoskepticism rather than expressing one's views (as your typical commenter would probably defend himself or bat the claims aside; see what Lance does here, for example). More on Wojick can be found at SourceWatch.

Paranoia already has destroyed you! I'm sure someone is really paying professionals to come and spar with the brilliant people here like Brian D and Guthrie on this two bit hack site about what names to call someone who doesn't drink Al Gore's kool aid. Maybe they have a thing against canucks.

James, the reason you bother to blog is because you have a biology degree. You memorized some facts about animals and plants and it made you feel good - and now you have no marketable job skills.

I don't think you need to worry about your posts at the TWC site anymore. You're ALL FIRED. Good work there. It jibes right along with your resume of never lasting at any job you take for more than just a little while. C'ya.