Conservative environmentalism? It’s real — and in Canada, it gets results

mcKay(h/t amirlach) At the Manning Networking Conference, Monte Solberg tells me that, contrary to the beliefs of liberals — and even some conservatives — the environment is a conservative issue.

Solberg says that Harper’s Conservative government has accomplished more on environmental issues than the Liberals did during their long time in power.

He also points to conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited. They may not get the same fawning media attention Greenpeace enjoys, but they actually perform the less glamourous work of preserving Canada’s wildlife and green space.

Solberg also explains how icons like Teddy Roosevelt and Russell Kirk shaped ecological thinking on the Right going back many generations:

{youtube}GV_IB1xgNYQ{/youtube}

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (133)

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Works here too.

    [b]What do hunters do for conservation?[/b]

    [i]A lot. The sale of hunting licenses, tags, and stamps is the primary source of funding for most state wildlife conservation efforts.

    By respecting seasons and limits, purchasing all required licences, and paying federal excise taxes on hunting equipment and ammunition, individual hunters make a big contribution towards ensuring the future of many species of wildlife and habitat for the future. By paying the Federal excise tax on hunting equipment, hunters are contributing hundreds of millions of dollars for conservation programs that benefit many wildlife species, both hunted and non- hunted.

    Each year, nearly $200 million in hunters’ federal excise taxes are distributed to State agencies to support wildlife management programs, the purchase of lands open to hunters, and hunter education and safety classes. Proceeds from the Federal Duck Stamp, a required purchase for migratory waterfowl hunters, have purchased more than five million acres of habitat for the refuge system (2005 statistics only); lands that support waterfowl and many other wildlife species, and are usually open to hunting.

    Local hunting clubs and national conservation organizations work to protect the future of wildlife by setting aside thousands of acres of habitat and speaking up for conservation in our national and state capitals.[/i]

    http://www.fws.gov/hunting/whatdo.html

    Most leftists I have met live in cities and do little more than place bumper stickers on their Priuses.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The Harper Government figured out years ago that the scary global warming (climate change re brand ) was a scam .

    They have done more to work on real environmental issues than the Liberals
    and will continue to do so .

    They won’t however be bullied by the hard left promoters of global warming industry.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Judy Cross

    |

    Harper is no conservative…he’s Globalist. In proof I offer the fact that the Canadian Branch of the NeoCons signed on for Copenhagen and so far Canadians have contributed $100 Mil. to the IMF/World Bank Green Fund. Just look at what else they are doing in the name of?
    http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=906589

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Good point Judy although the reference you have provided looks mostly to be a government, oh aren’t we green, PR fluff piece .

    The governments actual involvement pales in comparison to the USA green Titanic .

    More governments are developing backbone to call BS on the overblown scam finally .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Conservatives should own [i]real[/i] environmentalism as an issue. Why do we accept misrepresentation and straw man arguments from the left, as if we somehow want dirty air and water? What twaddle!

    Conservatives ought to live up to their name and focus on conserving what’s right and what works in all domains, including the environment. The critical difference is that conservative environmentalism must be stewardship-based and results oriented; not a politically motivated, power-grabbing, wealth stealing scam dressed up and pretending to be noble.

    Again, imagine the lost opportunity costs of real environmental projects that show tangible and significant results because all that capital is being wasted on a political scam that never needs or intends to show real benefits.

    If the left truly wanted clean air and water they would be doing something about it. Instead they claim that humans pollute every time we exhale and that it can all be solved by tax schemes and regulations administered by fellow leftists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    [quote name=”GR82DRV”]Conservatives should own [i]real[/i] environmentalism as an issue. Why do we accept misrepresentation and straw man arguments from the left, as if we somehow want dirty air and water? What twaddle![/quote]

    They should, that is true. I can’t speak for Canada. But here in the US conservatives certainly have never owned real environmentalism, much less face the reality of the issue. Until that happens, it’s all ideological posturing and empty rhetoric in defense of the big money status quo.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    I just came across this which supports my own assessment:

    http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/the-fear-that-drives-climate-change-denial

    [quote]To tease out the reasons behind those beliefs, additional sets of questions measured their love of nature, insistence that humans should have dominance over nature, and—most importantly for this study—whether they feel environmentalists pose a threat.

    Participants rated their level of agreement or disagreement with such statements as “The rise in environmentalism poses a threat to our country’s cultural customs,” “The American economy cannot remain dominant if we listen to environmentalists,” and “Hard-working Americans are negatively impacted by environmentalists.”

    The results: Viewing environmentalists as a threat “consistently, strongly, and uniquely accounted for the link between right-wing ideology and opposition to environmentalist policies and climate-change denial,” the researchers report. They add that this effect manifests as “over and above views that the environment exists for economic exploitation, and other relevant beliefs.”

    In other words, “the political polarization of climate change is not merely due to attitudes and beliefs about the environment and concerns for the economy, but in large part due to attitudes and beliefs about environmentalists as threatening to the status quo.”[/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    “Nature-and-technology/the-fear-that-drives-climate-change-denial.”

    Who exactly is in denial of Climate Change? We all know that the climate is constantly changing, as it has done for over 4.5 Billion Years. This is not being debated.

    The true deniers are those who are in denial of the recent peer reviewed papers that show low observed sensitivity to Co2.
    [quote]Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”. [/quote]
    Judging from his reaction at the end of the hearing, it really got to him.

    See the 3+ minute video here. It’s well worth the view! https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya

    Your so called “science” that supports your views starts off with some provably false statements and assumptions.
    [quote]This will seem like a bad joke to climate scientists, who argue that failing to stop the rise in temperature presents the real danger to society. [/quote] Failing to stop what again? The “rise” in temperature actually “stopped” almost twenty years ago. The rest of the “study” claiming those skeptical of the invalidated CAGW hypothesis are motivated by politics is simply Pure Projection.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/why-does-nasa-giss-oppose-satellites/

    Climate Alarmists are really socialist, Watermelons. They are proposing global wealth redistribution as a way to stop a global warming that has already stopped. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%e2%80%9cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%e2%80%9d/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]This will seem like a bad joke to climate scientists, who argue that failing to stop the rise in temperature presents the real danger to society. [/quote] Failing to stop what again? The “rise” in temperature actually “stopped” almost twenty years ago.[/quote]

    I always wonder if someone like this is being dishonest or simply misinformed. The data disproving his views is easy to find. But having dealt with this type of person, I know it is unlikely he will look at anything other than cherrypicked data that fits his confirmation bias. And the more data is shown to him the greater the backfire effect. There really isn’t any point.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    “Benjamin David Steele” Your also in denial of the recent low sensitivity Peer Reviewed papers mentioned by Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels.
    [quote] I always wonder if someone like this is being dishonest or simply misinformed. The data disproving his views is easy to find. But having dealt with this type of person, I know it is unlikely he will look at anything other than cherrypicked data that fits his confirmation bias. And the more data is shown to him the greater the backfire effect. There really isn’t any point.[/quote] Your statement above is pure projection. If it is so “easy” to disprove Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels with data, where is it?
    The pause in global warming has by alarmists own metric, invalidated the CAGW hypothesis.
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    The models when compared to reality have ALL failed.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/
    [quoteProfessor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote] Climate predictions are consistently wrong, so the hypothesis is wrong and the computer models built on it are wrong and produce meaingless results.

    So please stop being a science denier Benjamin David Steele.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]”Benjamin David Steele” Your also in denial of the recent low sensitivity Peer Reviewed papers mentioned by Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels.[/quote]

    It’s not that hard to find quality data and analysis. You have to be trying really hard to be uninformed. But of course there are big money special interests muddying the water, sadly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    “A literature review by Knutti and Hegerl (2008)[47] concluded that “various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2-4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to difficulties in ruling out higher values.””

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

    “Some global warming ‘skeptics’ argue that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.”

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/06/observations-show-climate-sensitivity/

    “Even without addressing the numbers in this argument, there is a fundamental flaw in its reasoning. We don’t yet know exactly how much the climate will warm from the CO2 already in the air, there is a delay of several decades between forcing and final response. Until an equilibrium temperature is reached, present day observations will not tell us the exact value of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. The reason for this is primarily the very large heat capacity of the oceans. The enhanced greenhouse effect from higher CO2 levels is indeed trapping energy in the climate system according to expectations, but the enormous quantity of water on Earth is absorbing most of the resulting heat. Due to water’s very high heat capacity, this absorbed energy shows up as only a very modest ocean warming, which in turn dampens the temperature change on land and lowers the global average trend. “

    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/07/the-weekend-wonk-kevin-trenberth-on-climate-sensitivity/

    “A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters compiles the available measurements of the ocean’s heat content, including information on the deep ocean. The study finds that those deep waters have absorbed a surprising amount of heat—and they are doing so at an increasing rate over the last decade.”

    http://www.350resources.org.uk/2015/05/19/lukewarmers-last-stand-on-climate-change-denial/

    “The Luckwarmer argument relies on both the climate sensitivity and climate change impacts being about as low as the scientific evidence suggests they could possibly be. But that requires rejecting all the evidence supporting the possibility of the worst case, or even the most likely case scenarios. Each of the dice could come up showing any number from 1 to 6. Betting that they’ll both come up showing 1 is a risky gamble.”

    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/24/sense-and-sensitivity/

    “Ultimately, from the perspective of policy makers and the general public, the impacts of climate change and the required mitigation and adaptation efforts are largely the same in a world of 2 or 4 C per doubling of CO2concentrations where carbon dioxide emissions are rising quickly.

    “Just how warm the world will be in 2100 depends more on how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere, and what might be done about it, than on what the precise climate sensitivity ends up being. A world with a relatively low climate sensitivity — say in the range of 2 C — but with high emissions and with atmospheric concentrations three to four times those of pre-industrial levels is still probably a far different planet than the one we humans have become accustomed to. And it’s likely not one we would find nearly so hospitable.”

    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/why-climate-change-such-polarizing-subject-0

    “His work looked at two separate data sets. The first was a network of over 4,500 people who had links to 164 organizations that have been skeptical of climate change. The second was a collection of every single text that these same organizations have produced about climate change from 1993 to 2013, and included almost 50,000 policy statements, press releases, articles, and published papers. Dr. Farrell’s overall conclusion was that corporate funding has been influencing the actual language and thematic content of polarizing messages.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]It’s not that hard to find quality data and analysis. You have to be trying really hard to be uninformed. But of course there are big money special interests muddying the water, sadly.[/quote] More pure projection. Seems it IS hard for you to find “quality” data. Not one of your links is credible. All are outdated and refuted by not only observations, but by all of the recent LOW SENSITIVITY PAPERS, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report).
    WIKI and SkS? 😀 SkS is run by a know liar and identity thief who likes to play Nazi Dress up Games.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

    Which of the invalidated CAGW Models is your 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2-4.5 °C claim based upon? Got news for you, this has been refuted by observations.
    [quote]“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”[/quote]
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    It has been over 19 years with no warming.
    Here is some “good” data for you.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12
    No warming as “predicted” by your failed climate sensitivity hypothesis.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    @amirlach – The vast majority of climatologists disagree with you. They know more than you about climatology, of course, and have dedicated their lives to studying it. They work in private and public research centers in countries all around the world. But their disagreeing with you is a conspiracy, I’m sure. Just as Zionist bankers control the world, Freemasons caused 9/11, and Obama is a reptilian commie Muslim. I’m glad we got that cleared up.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] The vast majority of climatologists disagree with you.[/quote] Your pathetic appeal to authority is laughable!

    The “vast majority” is anything but. The claimed 97% consensus has been busted, it’s fake. In fact your wannabe Nazi creepy kook was one of the author’s of this consensus clap trap.

    It is also funny how your claimed vast majority of climastologists all point to models that have failed 100% of the time as “proof”. The Scientific Method “disagrees” with your claimed vast majority.

    “If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is… if it disagrees with experiment, its wrong. Thats all there is to it.”

    -Richard Feynman

    What I do or do not “agree” with is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the observations “agree” with. A little hint for you. It aint the alarmist’s and their invalidated CAGW hypothesis.
    “Scores of models, millions of data-points, more CO2 emitted than ever before, and the models crash and burn.”
    [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png[/img]

    [quote]
    This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

    John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
    [/quote]
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    @Amirlach – You put on a decent act in pretending to not be a total ignoramus. But I remain unconvinced. You don’t even grasp basic science and scientific method. The consensus of climatologists is based on the consilience of decades of research. There used to not be a consensus about AGW. Then after better data and further debate, consensus formed. That is how science works, not that you know anything about it. Pointing to the actual science isn’t appealing to authority. Your accusation is funny, considering that you appeal to fake authority to defend your all to real ignorance. You’re a sad pathetic loser. What do you have to gain by demonstrating your ignorance in public? Even if you don’t have any shame, don’t you at least get embarrassed? I feel embarrassed for you.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Benjamin David Steele”]@Amirlach – You put on a decent act in pretending to not be a total ignoramus. But I remain unconvinced. You don’t even grasp basic science and scientific method. The consensus of climatologists is based on the consilience of decades of research. There used to not be a consensus about AGW. Then after better data and further debate, consensus formed. That is how science works, not that you know anything about it. Pointing to the actual science isn’t appealing to authority. Your accusation is funny, considering that you appeal to fake authority to defend your all to real ignorance. You’re a sad pathetic loser. What do you have to gain by demonstrating your ignorance in public? Even if you don’t have any shame, don’t you at least get embarrassed? I feel embarrassed for you.[/quote]
    The scientific method is simple, when your prediction is wrong, your “theory” is wrong. Period.

    Consensus? What consensus? All of the so called 97% claims are fake.

    As for the “data” on the graph your in complete denial of. “Scores of models, millions of data-points, more CO2 emitted than ever before, and the models crash and burn.”
    [quote]Don’t underestimate the importance of the blue-green circles and squares that mark the “observations”. These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap.[/quote] This is THE DATA idiot!

    The IPCC’s 73 models are complete and utter failures. You have yet to produce one that has skillfully predicted recent or any climate.

    And we are back to what Feynman had to say about the Scientific Method.
    [quote] “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote]
    Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

    And how about this Peer Reviewed Science that refutes you?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/22/patrick-j-michaels-testifies-before-the-committee-of-natural-resources-at-the-hearing-an-analysis-of-the-obama-administrations-social-cost-of-carbon/
    [quote]The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.

    This latest research, including the decade of observed, stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
    [/quote]

    Watch the video and learn some actual science so your not so embarrassed Benjamin David Steele. 😳

    The rest of you idiotic screed is simply pure projection. All of your links are to “science” that has failed when compared to reality. There is no “consensus”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    What Amirlach said! Benjie still hasn’t figured it out yet, probably invested in the green thang. 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    @amirlach – But how can you explain what you don’t know when you can’t even acknowledge your own ignorance? Don’t you find it strange that most people who know more than you disagree with you? Is that strange? I wonder what the explanation for your simultaneously being willfully ignorant and foolishly self-confident? It seems like there might be a connection there.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    More Pure Projection! No sorry, I do not find any of that. What I do find is that you are in complete denial of reality and the data facts.

    Unless you can provide even a single CAGW Model that works? Oh wait, none do. 😀

    What you claimed was an appeal to authority on my part was me showing you actual observational data and Peer Reviewed science that refutes your outlandish claims.

    The appeal to authority looks like this nugget. 😀
    [quote] The vast majority of climatologists disagree with you. They know more than you about climatology, of course, and have dedicated their lives to studying it. They work in private and public research centers in countries all around the world. But their disagreeing with you is a conspiracy, I’m sure. Just as Zionist bankers control the world, Freemasons caused 9/11, and Obama is a reptilian commie Muslim. I’m glad we got that cleared up.[/quote]
    Where is this “vast majority”? And why do they subscribe to an invalidated hypothesis? And why oh why do all of their predictions fail? 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Dear Benjamin david steele IDIOT

    You prove there is such a thing as a
    GREENHOUSE EFFECT

    nobody else has but I suppose your arrogant self can !

    Well, Prove It or be declared an

    IDIOT !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Benjamin David Steele”]@amirlach – But how can you explain what you don’t know when you can’t even acknowledge your own ignorance? Don’t you find it strange that most people who know more than you disagree with you? Is that strange? I wonder what the explanation for your simultaneously being willfully ignorant and foolishly self-confident? It seems like there might be a connection there.[/quote]

    Apparently you acknowledge your ignorance and continue to do so.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    What your side said and reality, Who is ignorant again?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So benji, tell us about “The scientific method” again?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Never mind, I’ll provide it for you!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    You’re all rather amusing. What do you get when willful ignorance is multiplied collective denialism? At least, you’re all worth a laugh. That is something. The problems of the world aren’t a joke, but you people sure are. The ability to make others laugh shouldn’t be dismissed. It’s a rare talent. Keep up the good work!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    I’m still curious, though. Either you’re really stupid or your liars. Which is it? If it is the latter, who is paying you to lie? I hope you’re at least making good money doing it. I’d hate to think that you’re selling your souls for too cheap of a price.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So you didn’t even look, did ya? and claim others are ignorant, you couldn’t have looked because you didn’t have enough time to do so! especially with The scientific method vid I posted. now you are the liar!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And all the post here are time stamped! and the vids I provided are to so much as they timed in how long they are.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So Benji, do you wish to change your words?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So Benji? what group of NGO’s is it you belong to?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert

    |

    Sad, I see that the ONLY thing Benjamin is capable of providing is innuendo, slurs, character attacks, and appeals to authority.

    You all really need to stop feeding him. His is the sort that if you don’t respond he’ll wander off claiming he scored some sort of point or won something because in his mind he can’t grasp the fact that rather than continue providing evidence that goes over his head and which he will simply ignore anyway you chose to ignore him.

    So far I’ve seen nothing from him that indicates he has even the slightest clue how the scientific method works, that consensus isn’t science, and that it doesn’t matter if “everyone says so” if the evidence doesn’t support the claim.

    Have fun with him but you know you’re wasting your time, seeing as the real “denialist” is Benjamin who doesn’t seem to grasp the “big money” that is involved in supporting what he is arguing for.

    Like I said, sad.

    Happy holidays to everyone, good to see that most of you are still alive and kicking. I’ve reached the point where I don’t have the time or patience to waste on people like Benjamin. Too many other things to do in life that really do matter. Why waste that time on someone who doesn’t?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Robert”]Sad, I see that the ONLY thing Benjamin is capable of providing is innuendo, slurs, character attacks, and appeals to authority.

    You all really need to stop feeding him. His is the sort that if you don’t respond he’ll wander off claiming he scored some sort of point or won something because in his mind he can’t grasp the fact that rather than continue providing evidence that goes over his head and which he will simply ignore anyway you chose to ignore him.

    So far I’ve seen nothing from him that indicates he has even the slightest clue how the scientific method works, that consensus isn’t science, and that it doesn’t matter if “everyone says so” if the evidence doesn’t support the claim.

    Have fun with him but you know you’re wasting your time, seeing as the real “denialist” is Benjamin who doesn’t seem to grasp the “big money” that is involved in supporting what he is arguing for.

    Like I said, sad.

    Happy holidays to everyone, good to see that most of you are still alive and kicking. I’ve reached the point where I don’t have the time or patience to waste on people like Benjamin. Too many other things to do in life that really do matter. Why waste that time on someone who doesn’t?[/quote]

    Exactly, and it is why I did what I did.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And a Merry Christmas to you too Robert! Even though I am a non believer but that is our culture and my backgroundnd.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    background, err I mean!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    What is the rational response to ignorant denialism? I wish I knew. That is the greatest problem scientists face. Climatology science has been pointing to data that many find inconvenient. But no matter how much climatologists understand climate change, they will never understand the mechanisms of ignorant denialism. That is something that must be studied by social scientists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Now if Benji,thinks I was out to get him then he should think again., I watched and saw him for what he was. He knows better, but still continued. That is all it was. Hopefully he will challenge himself and lookat it in a new thought. Err he will continue on the same path. I don’t know but david Appel is set on the path so, nothing will surprise me. 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    What is there to be gained by your embracing ignorance? I’m just curious. Whose payroll are you on? Why do only those who are either profit-driven or ideologically blind disagree with both the consensus and consilience of climatology research? Isn’t that strange? Kind of pathetic actually. What a sad way to live one’s life? I’d prefer to embrace knowledge. But each to their own. They do say ignorance is bliss. Is that true? I’ve always wondered about that.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Benjamin David Steele”]What is the rational response to ignorant denialism? I wish I knew. That is the greatest problem scientists face. Climatology science has been pointing to data that many find inconvenient. But no matter how much climatologists understand climate change, they will never understand the mechanisms of ignorant denialism. That is something that must be studied by social scientists.[/quote]

    And you still didn’t watch the last vid I posted did you, Err you did by now and still don’t understand the scientific method! Err the other Vid in that the claims of your experts said would happen didn’t according to the scientific method? So what is it you are trying to do, and what group of NGO’s do you belong to?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    And you still didn’t learn anything about the vast majority of climatology research that disproves what you believe. That is what ignorance does for you. I know. It’s sad and pathetic. But what are you going to do? Ignoramuses are ignorant by definition.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Benjamin David Steele”]And you still didn’t learn anything about the vast majority of climatology research that disproves what you believe. That is what ignorance does for you. I know. It’s sad and pathetic. But what are you going to do? Ignoramuses are ignorant by definition.[/quote]

    Apparently they are not following their own scientific method because they set their method forward and reality didn’t match it, So again whatis it youare trying do here and what group od NGO’s do you belong to?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    I guess you will never understant it! Just ignorant!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    I guess I’ll never understand what motivates people like you. When given a choice between knowledge and ignorance, I’ll always choose knowledge. But I understand some people fear the truth. I do understand that some people prefer the comforts of ideology. Even so, I find it strange that someone would want to live in a fantasy. I sometimes enjoy fantasy fiction and I have yet to mix it up with reality.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Benji, you tell others they are ignorant, because consensus, then claim scientific method, then ignore it because consensus, then I post vids of what your experts claimed and reality didn’t match it according to the scientific method, you still claim consensus. Then I posted a vid about the scientific method and you lied about it because you didn’t have enough time watch it and let it sink in, and claim “That is something that must be studied by social scientists” ??????? Watch the scientific method Vid again, and learn!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    Ignorance is as ignorance does. If you want to know what scientific knowledge looks like, ask most climatologists and they can help you out. But you can only learn if you want to learn. It’s a choice you have to make. I wish you luck in finding the moral courage to face the truth. I know it’s challenging, but in the end it is better to be informed than ignorant. Just a suggestion.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Benjamin David Steele”]Ignorance is as ignorance does. If you want to know what scientific knowledge looks like, ask most climatologists and they can help you out. But you can only learn if you want to learn. It’s a choice you have to make. I wish you luck in finding the moral courage to face the truth. I know it’s challenging, but in the end it is better to be informed than ignorant. Just a suggestion.[/quote]

    You got that right and you set the example of that!
    But you said it!!!!! 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Ignorance is as ignorance does. Right Benji, so we know you are ignorant, we know you lied, So why?
    And waht group of NGO’s do you belong to? Err is it you are too ashamed to say?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Yeah, your scilence speakes volumes to the questions I asked!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    I think you did learn something, and it was not how to deal with a skeptic! Answer questions asked! when you make claims of science? And claim scientific method, be able to back it up! Benji you came with nothing and the end result was consensus and social science. Nothing new same old BS!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Good job boys and ladies, for paving the way. Especially amirlach! keep it up, even if you don’t agree with me err like me. It isn’t a popularity contest.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And give a visit to suyts space. James is a good christian guy and does what he says. Gator knows as do I. although I am not that religious but if it is for you then, James is your man. I just don’t understand the religion beliefs anymore than the climate alarmist ones! But that is me!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Me”]And give a visit to suyts space. James is a good christian guy and does what he says. Gator knows as do I. although I am not that religious but if it is for you then, James is your man. I just don’t understand the religion beliefs anymore than the climate alarmist ones! But that is me![/quote]
    I guess you have to be a believer, and a consensus of believers religious wise too, but you have to be some extreme to be banned there, like one alarmist was! and he knowswho he is and why!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Me”][quote name=”Me”]And give a visit to suyts space. James is a good christian guy and does what he says. Gator knows as do I. although I am not that religious but if it is for you then, James is your man. I just don’t understand the religion beliefs anymore than the climate alarmist ones! But that is me![/quote]
    I guess you have to be a believer, and a consensus of believers religious wise too, but you have to be some extreme to be banned there, like one alarmist was! and he knowswho he is and why![/quote]

    I guess in all honesty, I was up front about who I was, so don’t go there to be a pos. I may have done that, but don’t count yourself in the same boat

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    No matter how much willfulness is applied, it can transform ignorance into knowledge. If you want to know about climatology, then get a climatology degree. The best way to learn about climatology and so lessen your ignorance is by learning from those who aren’t ignorant like you. Did you know that is how education happens? You begin with not knowing something. Then you learn from those who know more than you (e.g., climatologists). Education is an amazing thing. I highly recommend. I realize ignorance is easier, but it is a lot less satisfying. I’m sure you don’t like being ridiculed for your ignorance. It is sad. You could always choose not to be ignorant. Think about that. Every day that you remain ignorant is a choice you are making. You are always free to make a different choice, such as the choice to not be ignorant. Imagine what that would feel like, to not be ignorant. Wouldn’t that be an amazing feeling? Never to be ridiculed for your stupidity and cluelessness ever again. It would help to improve your sense of self-worth and then you wouldn’t be dependent on ideological groupthink for your sense of value. Wouldn’t that be awesome? You could dedicate your life to knowledge instead of ignorance. Every morning you could wake up with the thought of what you might learn about that day rather than what you might lie and spin about that day. You could help make the world a better place, instead of defending the status quo of wealth and power. Just imagine that!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [b]Newsflash! The Consensus is Dead![/b]

    [img]http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/43-percent-climate-consensus-m.gif[/img]

    [i]More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles.[/i]

    So the majority of “climate scientists” disagree with the IPCC “consensus”.

    Guess not everyone is as smart as they think they are. 😉

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Well, the cult that trained you did a good job, Benji!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And for people of your pedigree and such scienceieee education in weather, or not! ya still didn’t didn’t get’er done, but at least you’ll can say you had Paris! Bwaaahahaha!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Gator, don’t expect Herr Stahl to understand. He’s too busy contemplating the metaphysics of climatology and the ontological implications regarding the apperceptive mass within the phenomenology of knowledge.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    Your ignorance knows no bounds. It’s quite amazing, when you think about it. But don’t think too hard because it might hurt your brain.

    I can see the propaganda machine is going in high gear. But in the end knowledge prevails. The most telling detail is that climatologists support AGW more strongly the greater the expertise and the more climatology research done. OTOH ignorance and inexperience in the field directly correlates to denialism, unsurprisingly.

    Denialist argue that consensus doesn’t exist. Then they argue it doesn’t matter. After that, they argue it does exist and does matter but falsely argues that it goes the opposite direction. They claim others are appealing to authority and yet love to appeal to authority, even when it is a fake or disreputable authority.

    It’s all silliness.

    The graphic you offer is supposedly based on work by Jim Prall. Well, just go look at his research (I’ll also link at the end to a useful discussion of the data—read at least the first several pages if you want to be informed). BTW not only does his data support the consensus, he also agrees that such consensus is valid.

    https://www.academia.edu/7621388/Expert_credibility_in_climate_change

    “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. Abroad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-human-caused-global-warming.html

    “A survey among more than 1800 climate scientists confirms that there is widespread agreement that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases.

    “This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature.”

    http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

    “How does the PBL-study compare to the often-quoted 97% consensus?

    “The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/06/21/206277/pnas-study-climate-science-media-balance-deniers/

    “The Union of Concerned Scientists notes that the study “findings are consistent with a 2009 survey of scientists’ attitudes as well as a 2004 survey of the scientific literature on climate change. The Anderegg et al. paper comes on the heels of a series of NAS reports that underscore the reality of human-induced climate change and the need to respond.””

    http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/06/scientists-convinced-climate-consensus-more-prominent-opponents-says-paper

    “Prall agrees that the system may not be perfect, but he thinks it’s good enough. “It’s conceivable that some people have formed a fixed point of view,” he says. “But the editors of journals, if they have formed a resistance to outside points of view, they have done so after years of seeing all the good, bad, and in-between papers. They know the field better than anyone else.””

    http://skeptikai.com/2013/05/30/scientific-consensus-and-the-obvious-truth-about-global-climate-change/

    http://www.realskeptic.com/2015/09/21/scientists-respond-to-tols-misrepresentation-of-their-consensus-research/

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/230350-43-consensus.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/12/13/consilience-of-the-evidence/

    “convergence of all the evidence, typically referred to as consilience. Given the continued fighting about consensus studies, it’s easy to forget the real reason why our understanding of climate change is robust; it’s because of the combination of all the evidence that leads to a coherent, and consistent, picture of the likely consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    http://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9898098/climate-skeptics-consilience

    “I’m not sure the disengaged public understands this: Climate skepticism is not an alternative theory. The climate skeptic community is a hodgepodge, a farrago of theories and conspiracies that range all over the map, from sunspots to adjustments in particular temperature data sets to hoaxes by scientists greedy for grant money. There’s no shared alternative framework, just a fixed certainty that the consensus must be wrong.

    “If the mainstream scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is wrong, then we’ll need some other theory that makes sense of present-day changes and harmonizes with data from historical record. Climate skeptics have offered no such theory. Where climate change science is fecund, climate skepticism is moribund, merely destructive.”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/

    “Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?

    “It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    57% of climate scientists surveyed disagree with the IPCC “consensus”.

    The only consensus is that climates change.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    Either you are a liar or an ignoramus. Which is it? I’m going to ridicule you for as long as you keep repeating such blatant disinformation.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/santorums-climate-consensus-claims/

    “So how did Fabius Maximus writers arrive at 57 percent disagreeing with the consensus? The short answer is, by using faulty logic and inaccurate assumptions.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/01/rick-santorum/santorum-cites-flawed-climate-change-figure-and-mi/

    “The figure likely comes from the blog Fabius Maximus (and repeated by the prominent climate change skeptic Joanne Nova), which re-analyzed the findings of a 2014 survey by the Dutch environmental research agency PBL. […]

    “The real finding of the survey actually backs the idea of scientific consensus on climate change, despite varying levels of confidence, said Verheggen.”

    http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/20/why-we-need-to-talk-about-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/lets-learn-from-mistakes/

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/08/25/scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

    http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/09/climate-consensus-deniers-97-percent-is-wrong

    http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/purdue-study-climate-change-consensus-extends-beyond-climate-scientists.html

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=05E824BA4ABDB59DB8A2D8449E8C0098.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.Vm2_RXarS00

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Who cares about agreement ?

    There is NO scientific proof of a Greenhouse Effect.

    Period.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Poor Benji! He is utterly and blissfully unaware that all of his “sources” are liars and misinformation sites.

    He has only his appeal to a fake consensus and is completely unable to produce even a single CAGW Model that can make a skillful prediction. You know pass that pesky Scientific Method?
    [quote] Steps of the Scientific Method
    ◾Observation/Research
    ◾Hypothesis
    ◾Prediction
    ◾Experimentation
    ◾Conclusion [/quote]

    Hey Benji! Please tell us what it means when you test your hypothesis, compare them to experiment or reality, like say those 73 IPCC Models and they fail?

    http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

    Consensus in not mentioned anywhere in the Scientific Method. For good reason. Even if there was one, it is not a scientific argument.

    Science must always be willing to face questions and able to withstand scrutiny.

    Arguing from a consensus view is an attempt to silence questions and avoid scrutiny.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Strawman alert!

    [i]He said 57 percent of climate scientists “don’t buy off on the idea that CO2 is the knob that’s turning the climate.” [/i]

    That is what Santorum said, and not what the survey I suppiled said.

    The survey is what it is, get over it.

    The 97% claim actually [i]is[/i] bogus, both of them.

    But let’s stop all this discussiion of opinions and drill down to facts.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    I’d like you all to know that you are always welcome to join the rest of society in the objective reality of knowledge.

    Your denialism is a losing battle. Even a majority of Republicans at this point agree that climate change is real and significant. It takes a while for knowledge to filter down to the public. But in the end denialism is a losing game.

    Creationists can deny evolution. Tobacco companies can deny carcinogenic effects. And you all can deny basic climate science. Still, the facts are the facts.

    I understand that for some of you it isn’t your fault. You were lied to and you believed the lies. I realize the truth ca be overwhelming. It’s a daunting task to actually take seriously he problems we face. But it is better than ignoring it.

    I’m sure you’ll come around eventually. Even for denialists, reality has a way of smacking people upside the head at some point. Until then, I wish you the best of luck.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Let’s try this again Benji. Your opinion means zilch to me.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    If you want to lessen your ignorance, you know how to do it.

    You could get a degree in climatology, of course. Or you could simply stop in the office of a working climatology researcher or professor and talk to them. The world is full of people who know more than you. Many of them even write books that you can read.

    I’m not going to spoonfeed you info. Either you want to know or you don’t. It really is that simple.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Benji,

    What you call denialism is our pointing out your flat-out lie. Orally defecate all you want, there is no proof whatsoever of a greenhouse effect. The only atmospheric gas that blocks or reflects or absorbs thermal infrared radiation is water vapor and everyone knows how that affects temperature.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Benji, I was a climatology student many years ago. I spent nearly 8 years as an Earth Sciences student, and have a degree in Remote sensing. It is you who is ignorant of facts and science, you have only given opinions.

    Let’s try starting at the beginning, and let’s figure out this puzzle.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    No rants, no opinions, just facts. Care to try?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    You don’t need to convince me. You need to convince the climatology researchers who know more than you do and disagree with you. Isn’t that interesting that they simultaneously know more and know that you are wrong? Why is that? If you think you’re smart, then do some climatology research and prove them wrong. Otherwise, your just spouting empty rhetoric.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Benji baby,

    Why is it that you accept as G-d given dogma the mere opinion of people who you think are indisputably intellectual but provably on the take and unsurprisingly bolstering and endorsing the policy of an obviously corrupt administration at both the national and international level ?

    If you are incapable of thinking for yourself, you’d probably be respected for admitting it.

    Relying on unproven and obviously corrupt theorizing doesn’t advance your cause.
    It proves your stupidity.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    Why do I accept confirmed scientific knowledge instead of denialist rhetoric? When the question is stated like that, it answers itself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    CONFIRMED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ?! ??!!

    YOU ARE A LIAR.

    There is NOTHING confirmed nor even provable of your brainless ejaculations.

    First confront the FACT that no one can prove that there is a GHE as presupposed w/o proof by idiots such as yourself and those you listen to.

    No amount of religious fervor on your part or the jerks you agree with will ever establish a scientific proof of your mythical

    GREENHOUSE EFFECT !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    The vast majority of climatologists, scientists, and scientific institutions around the world are all lying. It’s a conspiracy, I tell ya! Quick, put on your tinfoil hat!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Benji, if the scientific knowledge is “confirmed”, then surely you can do this…

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    After all, it is settled science. Right?

    So why all the opinions, and zero answers to these most basic of climate change challenges?

    All hat and no cattle Benji?

    Get back to me when you have the answers to my requests, I don’t have time or patience for hearsay.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]The vast majority of climatologists, scientists, and scientific institutions around the world are all lying. It’s a conspiracy, I tell ya! Quick, put on your tinfoil hat![/quote]

    Still zero answers to my query. Just more childish rants and childish appeals to authority, just as I would expect from a childmind.

    Care to try again Benji? Show me you have the capacity to understand the science. I’ll be waiting.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]The vast majority of climatologists, scientists, and scientific institutions around the world are all lying. It’s a conspiracy, I tell ya! Quick, put on your tinfoil hat![/quote]

    Still zero answers to my query. Just more childish rants and childish appeals to authority, just as I would expect from a childmind.

    Care to try again Benji? Show me you have the capacity to understand the science. I’ll be waiting.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    I assume you know how to read. There are peer reviewed climatology journals and well-respected scientific institutions. These exist in countries around the world. You probably can find a climatology scientist near you. Or at least you probably can find a university within driving distance where you can read physical journals in a library. It’s not hard to do. The reason scientists and institutions support AGW is because the climatology research supports it. There have been a number of meta-analyses of the research. I’d like to say that I fully believe in your capacity to educate yourself. The world is full of knowledge. Go out there and do some learnin, little fellow. I believe in you!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Unlike you Benji, I have read the papers and I do not need them explained to me. That is why I know the right questions to ask.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    I’m still waiting. But I’m done playing with you tonight, prattle from babes is dull, and I’ve had enough.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Gator
    There will never be direct answers nor reasoning regarding the objections to his idiotic unfounded and unprovable claims.

    Just another straw man phony posturing to know everything
    but know nothing but the leftist political opinion of the day

    Does he remind us of Andrejeweski ?
    Is he ?

    I think the Andrezjewski is actually a team of antagonistic blind belief and therefor stupid no-minds who feel some internally psychological need to justify their existence , at least to themselves because it would mean they have no reason to exist otherwise.

    Regardless they are ” justifying ” through abject stupidity.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    If you don’t actually care about science, why do you pretend to care about science? Why not just deny all science and own up to your anti-intellectualism? That would be the honest thing to do. Wear your ignorance proudly! You might as well take it to its most absurd endpoint. There is something almost impressive about someone who is shameless, but you are still trying to hide your shame. What’s the point? You might as well let it all hang out at this point. Just be who you are, a denialist.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Benji baby

    If you don’t understand science,
    why do you blather about it
    most especially
    when you clearly don’t understand.

    IAnd I mean
    DON’T UNDERSTAND.

    And I expect
    you to blather further
    AS PROOF

    of what I said !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    You’re the one whose ideological beliefs contradict the vast majority of climatology research and those who do the research. If you have issues with science to the point that you dismiss most of the science, then your problem goes deeper than can be had by discussing science. That is rather problematic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    The idiocy of calling unscientific political posturing ” science ” …………………

    The point has already been made.
    You won’t address it because you can’t without admitting the it’s unproven and unprovable.

    THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF
    SUPPORTING ANYTHING YOU SAY

    It can’t be stated more plainly.

    Given your past statements
    I DO NOT EXPECT YOU’LL UNDERSTAND.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    Think about this way. Imagine trying to discuss the US Constitution with someone who denied the existence and validity of most of the Constitution itself along with dismissing most of the academic papers and constitutional law. It would be impossible to have an intelligent discussion. Whatever such a discussion like that would be, it wouldn’t actually be about the Constitution.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Like I said Benji baby
    I didn’t expect you to understand !

    And where do you get off declaring
    greenhouse effect
    global warming

    SHIT

    to have the same validity of the
    USA Constitution ?

    You’re the mental midget I thought you are.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    And always remember Benji-baby

    There is NO

    scientific method proof of

    any of your idiotic posturing.

    I do not expect you’ll accept nor understand

    BUT

    THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIMS.

    I do not expect you to understand.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewskiwatches

    |

    True to form, Gator produces an incredibly flawed survey to back up his incredibly flawed logic.

    The “survey” he cites doesn’t say who responded and what their qualifications are, but only that they wrote “articles” containing the words “climate change” and global warming”. So, in effect, all the immensely unqualified authors that appear so regularly on CCD could be very people who populated the study.

    And that is only one of this study’s problems. For an accurate of assessment of Gator’s “evidence” check out this link:
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es504574v

    Hey Ben, if you want bigger laughs, ask JayPee about greenhouse gases.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andrzejewski

    Nobody cares that a confirmed and proven idiot liar like you is watching and I know of no one who expects you to understand.

    Yes

    You are that lowly thought of .

    Keep coming back to be laughed at.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewskiwatches

    |

    Hey JayPee,
    Still trying to be clever I see.

    BTW, are you still sticking to your story that the the moon is colder than the earth because of its albedo? You obviously weren’t aware that the albedo of the moon is 0.12 and earth’s is 0.39. Then again, you aren’t aware of most things.

    Life is good, just scored a mega contract and the climate conference was a great success — at the moment, I am a very happy chappie.

    HO HO HO

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Ah Drewski! Let’s revisit your biggest lie…

    i]# Drewski 2015-02-03 08:22
    Gator has been given many and over many periods. He is just too dense too understand them. I have never stated that natural variability does not exist, however, it is being overwhelmed by man-made forcings. ALL scientific organizations (as in every single one) that carries out original research understands and accepts this.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 09:31
    Just for once, please provide EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
    Go on smart guy, do it! 😀
    Remember, every scientist agrees with you and the science is settled. Right? So obviously it’s out there. Right? 😀

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 11:06
    Dementia it is. Poor fellow. They say doing simple physical tasks can sometimes delay the onset.
    What about calling your old pal, Morner, for a bit of dousing?

    # Gator 2015-02-03 11:13
    So you failed yet again. Do you ever tire of me pulling out that football Charlie Brown? 😀
    Paper please!

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 12:51
    Perhaps we can try hypnosis through the internet again?
    Ready, set, you are getting sleepy, sleepy. . .
    You are now back at your computer again in that dark and danky room . . . Drewski has made yet another witty riposte . . . . you are scrambling for a coherent thought. . . . oh no, here comes another 4 studies about the effect of CO2. . . you pretend to not see them. . . you ask Drewski for the same thing again like a brain dead zombie. . .
    Remember now?

    # Gator 2015-02-03 12:57
    Where is your ‘buddy’? 😀
    Better yet, where is that paper?

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:08
    Gator,
    If you can’t figure out show laces, then let someone who does tie them for you.
    And if you can’t fathom a scientific study, then let a scientist explain it to you.
    Remember, its not your fault you have a learning disability.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 13:12
    Unlike you Confusedski, I don’t need to have them explained to me. In case you are incapable of recalling recent years, I had to explain to you that your ‘proof’ was nothing more than models.
    I’m sure your imaginary friend is most impressed with your childish insults.
    Paper please! 😀

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:25
    Lying again Gator. What models?
    Being dense and a liar may make you a true blue sCeptic but, in the end, you are just another sCeptic destined to be an object of ridicule from future generations.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 13:27
    What paper? liar.
    You are a joke.

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 19:30
    As usual One Trick, you misunderstand. Gator lied when he said those dozen or so scientific papers I have given him over the years were models — they weren’t.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 19:42
    Go ahead and repost the papers [u][i][b]liar[/b][/i][/u]. [/i]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewskiwatches

    |

    Yes, yes Gator,
    10,000 studies on climate done by hundreds of scientists from across the globe spanning dozens of scientific disciplines and now we have 196 different countries agreeing on the validity and urgency of man-made climate change. All these people from so many places can understand it but not Gator. Although I have been patient and forgiving and have repeatedly tried to spoon feed studies to Gator, sadly, he just can’t comprehend any of it.
    “Dense and forgetful” should be the tag line for all sCeptics of which Gator is the poster child.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewskiwatches

    |

    And, apparently, Gator doesn’t understand that there are but a handful of climatologists for which the cultural influence could hold sway, but that the vast bulk of climate science is by contributions from dozens of DIFFERENT specialties whose work criss crosses the other specialties. Therefore, the work of a marine biologist whose work may be TANGENTIAL to climate science is under NO cultural influence from an astrophysicist whose own field of work is normally disassociated from the biologist or most of the other specialties.

    The fact that EVERY earth, space and atmospheric science organisation INDEPENDENTLY subscribes to man-made climate change theory clearly shows that your paragraph has no relevance here.

    Good try, but still a little lacking in that logic area of your brain.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    😆 😆 😆

    Drewski you are such a bad joke! Did you even read your own link? The link that concluded by saying claims of consensus in science are anti-sience?

    [i]This is disturbing and unheard of in other sciences.[/i]

    And about those papers you lieed about… 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewskiwatches

    |

    Counties that signed the climate agreement — 196
    Countries that didn’t — 0

    Those are all the numbers sCeptics need to know.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Yes, all greedy politicians agree, this scam pays huge dividends!

    Papers please! 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    Climate scientists certainly aren’t making much money, especially compared to those who work for big energy. If all they cared about is money, they’d all work for big energy.

    There are a few scientists that have chosen that path. Big energy does use millions of dollars to promote denialism, but of course they don’t use this money to fund any genuine research.

    Most scientists got into the field because they actually care about science. Otherwise, they would have sought a more profitable career. Sadly, there isn’t much money to be made by doing research that contradicts big money special interests, even if it is to the benefit of the nation and humanity.

    Very few scientists want to be involved in the politicized fight that big energy promotes. But in defending basic science, they have no choice other than to fight back. They do so with their preferred weapon, knowledge. Compared to denialist rhetoric, knowledge can seem weak. Still, it’s better than selling one’s soul for money.

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es505183e

    Reply to Comment on “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming”

    “In response, we argue that the number of “non-climate scientists” in our survey is known to be small and their in- or exclusion does not change our conclusion that the level of consensus increases with increasing expertise. With respect to point 2, we reiterate that we intended to survey the wider scientific field that works on climate change issues. This has actually led to a slightly lower level of consensus than if we had only surveyed physical climate scientists. Finally, Duarte’s characterization as if a scientific consensus is somehow enforced by nefarious means lacks substantiation.”

    http://www.realskeptic.com/2014/09/25/bart-verheggen-interview-scientists-views-attribution-global-warming/

    “When researchers surveyed climate scientists on the cause of global warming 97% of the actively publishing climatologists said that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures” (Doran 2009) Researchers found the same patterns when they analysed public statements of climate experts (Anderegg 2010). When researchers looked into how the scientific consensus on global warming evolved from 1996 to 2009 they found a steady increase in the agreement among scientists (Bray 2010). The latest survey on the scientific literature found that 97% “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” (Cook 2013).

    “The latest paper investigating the scientific consensus is ‘Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming‘ by Bart Verheggen. He and his colleagues surveyed over 1,800 climate scientists and their results confirm the consensus that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases. He also found that this consensus gets stronger the more expertise scientists have, confirming the results found by studies like Doran 2009 and Anderegg 2010.

    “One of the interesting results from this paper is that the attribution statement in the IPCC 2007 report may lead to an underestimate of the greenhouse gas contribution to global warming. This is because the net warming it reports includes the cooling effects of aerosols which partly masks the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

    “This survey also found that the media exposure of contrarian positions is higher in the media, contributing to the consensus gap. This confirms the results from Boykoff 2013 which also found that in the media contrarian positions are over represented. Despite the overwhelming evidence in the scientific literature showing that we’re causing global warming.”

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-97-irony-deniers-deny.html

    “Deniers cannot disprove the findings, and won’t even try!

    “And do deniers really and truly doubt that almost all the science points to the fact that humans are causing global warming? Why don’t they provide evidence that a quarter, a third, half the scientific papers dispute this? Why can’t they prove that even 10% of scientific papers dispute this.

    “Because it’s not so!

    “Why don’t they do their own research? Because they know they’ll find that at least 97% of scientific papers that attribute a cause of modern warming, show it to be human activity.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Maybe it is math deficiencies that cause alarmists to mistakenly blame man for a natural phenomenon. Or are they just dishonest?

    Why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s [Anthropogenic GW] real?
    -10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation
    – 7,054 scientists did not reply to the survey
    – 567 scientists surveyed did not believe man is responsible for climate change
    – Only 157 of the remainder were climate scientists
    – The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively identified “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 invited. What’s interesting is that 3% of the invitees didn’t think the earth had warmed since the Little Ice Age.

    And as Drewski pointed out through his link, using alleged consensus to bully other scientists is disturbing and not found in other sciences.

    So how about discussing the science Benji, and leave opinions to the pundits.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    I keep seeing the word “deniers” being tossed around here and it reminds me more of the Spanish Inquisition than anything connected to modern science.

    This is an excerpt from a recent interview where Ted Cruz was being dismissed like a stupid child by a journalist with half of Ted’s intellect. Ted sums up this “denier” tactic quite nicely:

    [i]”Any good scientist questions all science. If you show me a scientist that stops questioning science, I’ll show you someone who isn’t a scientist. And I’ll tell you, Steve. And I’ll tell you why this has shifted. Look in the world of global warming. What is the language they use? They call anyone who questions the science – who even points to the satellite data – they call you a, quote, “denier.” Denier is not the language of science. Denier is the language of religion. It is heretic. You are a blasphemer. It’s treated as a theology. But it’s about power and money. At the end of the day, it’s not complicated. This is liberal politicians who want government power.”[/i]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [i]And now they have even more reality to confront:
    “As the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported overnight, last month was not just the hottest October for global sea- and land-surface temperatures, it was also the most abnormally hot of all the 1630 months it had tracked since 1880.
    So far this year, eight of the first 10 months have been the hottest on record for the respective month, and the other two laggards came second (January) and third (April).
    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says its data showed global temperatures last month were 1.04 degrees above their 1951-1980 baseline – the first time the increase had cracked the 1-degree mark.”[/i]

    And now Drewski has even more reality to confront:
    [i]
    Rich people from rich countries met in Paris with rich people from poor countries and decided to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries and screw poor people everywhere.[/i]

    Then of course there is the no scientific proof that what we have seen isn’t perfectly natural.

    Please do me two favors.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers.

    I prefer science to blind folded belief. And science wins.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewskiwatches

    |

    I post a citation from NOAA stating evidence of a warming world and you post this drivel from where???:
    “Rich people from rich countries met in Paris with rich people from poor countries and decided to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries and screw poor people everywhere.”

    Just more fantasy from the Zero in the 196 to 0.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    A citation from NOAA? The same NOAA that alters data and employs unkown numbers off the public dime as long as they keep the numbers game going? That NOAA? Sure, I trust them. 😆

    You still have not shown us that this isn’t a natural cycle.

    Papers please!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]”As the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported overnight, last month was not just the hottest October for global sea- and land-surface temperatures, it was also the most abnormally hot of all the 1630 months it had tracked since 1880.[/quote]
    Sounds alarming and impressive until you consider how much of NOAA and NASA’s “artifacts” of the data is completely fabricated out of whole cloth and how much they have fraudulently “adjusted” it when it is actually measured.
    [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]

    And meanwhile… Back in the REAL world. This happened during The Warmest Year Evah!!! TM.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

    The shortest recorded arctic melt season and the fastest growth of sea ice ever recorded…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Yep!

    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/img_20151214_145725.jpg[/img]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Climate scientists certainly aren’t making much money, especially compared to those who work for big energy. If all they cared about is money, they’d all work for big energy. [/quote] Right…

    “Here’s how the global warming scam works:

    Announce that you’ve discovered something called “global warming” that will destroy the earth. Make up statistics “proving” that it’s true. Apply for lots of government grants that allow you to research the problem even further.

    No one has mastered this scam better than Penn State’s Michael Mann, one of the prime players in the East Anglia CRU email revelations.

    American Spectator discovered that Mann is so proud of all his government grants that he actually lists them on his online resume.”
    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/michael-mann-made-millions-from-his-global-warming-scam
    “That’s almost $6 million you’ve paid for Mann’s models, reconstructions and tricks over the last 13 years.

    The earth has a fever! And Michael Mann has 6,000,000 reasons to diagnose it.”

    Add these to become current.
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/research_current.php

    And this…
    http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee

    Yeah, the big money is in oil! 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Enough about the Peewee Footballers Kurt, let’s discuss that Pro-Bowl blowout!

    Science – 4.5 Billon

    Opinions – Zero

    Science wins again!

    Papers please peewee. 😉

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    I know it is easy for right-wingers and reactionaries to dismiss scientific experts and deny scientific evidence. But you’d think they’d take seriously pragmatic-minded CIA, Pentagon, and military officials.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/05/21/what-they-re-saying-military-leaders-respond-president-s-call-battle-climate-change

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/200412-the-us-military-leads-on-climate-change

    http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint_wForeword_c.pdf

    http://www.envirosecurity.org/cctm/mac_list.php

    http://wunc.org/post/changing-carolina-coast-camp-lejeune-and-climate-change#stream/0

    http://www.economist.com/news/international/21679853-americas-soldiers-are-grappling-threats-posed-changing-environment-military-and#

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change/

    http://time.com/4101903/climate-change-national-security/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/30/how-the-pentagon-is-preparing-for-climate-change-in-each-part-of-the-world/

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-climate-20150522-story.html

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/05/climate_change_and_national_security_pentagon_warning_and_vast_new_russia.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/11/14/does-our-military-know-something-we-dont-about-global-warming/

    http://www.wired.com/2015/10/how-climate-change-became-a-national-security-problem/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html?_r=0

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/05/pentagon-climate-change-impacts-threat-multipliers-could-enable-terrorism

    http://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-report-us-military-considers-climate-change-immediate-threat-could-277155

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/10/climate-change-has-left-us-exposed-in-arctic-say-military-experts

    http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/17/news/climate-change-drives-political-instability-cia-director

    http://weather.climate25.com/project/james-woolsey/

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/cia-director-cites-impact-climate-change-deeper-cause-global

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    There is, of course, the support and consilience of the scientific research. Besides that, there is a large and growing consensus among scientists and scientific institutions (public and private) in countries around the world.

    There is also a large and growing consensus among key American defense and intelligence agencies. On top of that, there is a large and growing consensus among national governments.

    Even the majority of Americans in both parties see climate change as real and significant. So even on that basic level there is a bipartisan consensus.

    That is why people who deny all of this are called denialists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Benji-baby

    What you have stated is precisely why people like you are called idiots.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Hey BS. May I call you BS? Good!

    We already know what your opinion is, and your opinion of the opinion of others, but that is not science.

    I don’t care how many people agree with something, if it is not true, then it is simply not true.

    You can try and sell me a cow pie and call it roast beef, but I know a cow pie when I see one. And you can line up all of humanity behind your BS deli counter and have them all call it roast beef, but that still does not make it roast beef.

    And you continue with these fake consensus claims (and of course you don’t vote on science) and point to a gathering of true believers as proof of something. Here is what the world thinks of CAGW…

    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/un-poll-agw-dead-last.png?w=720&h=363[/img]

    So apparently just a few elites are trying to railroad the rest of humanity with their opinions.

    Back to the science. Oh sorry, I forgot, we stiil have not been there with you yet.

    Let’s try again!

    Please do me two favors.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    I’m still waiting BS.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Hey duuhrooski! How did you get around the IP Ban this time?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]There is, of course, the support and consilience of the scientific research. Besides that, there is a large and growing consensus among scientists and scientific institutions (public and private) in countries around the world. [/quote] 😀 Support? Skillful predictions might “support” the CAGW hypothesis. There just are none. Not ONE! Zero, Nada!!!

    So then why is it this “consilience of the scientific research” is based upon models that have failed 100% of the time?

    And how about 100% Co2 Free models that do work BS? Models that WTFPAWN your consilience of the LOL… science?

    http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/10/7_Still_confirming_forecast_of_Apr_2011_at_73_accuracy._IPCC_forecast_at_10._What_drives_Global_Warming_(Update_2).html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/06/pocket-calculator-climate-model-outperforms-billion-dollar-brains/

    You can choose to accept your 73 failed “consilience” models if you like. I’ll stick with “science” that is testable and falsifiable.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    Since you all are experts, I have a question. Is ignorance really infinite? It’s hard to me to imagine that ignorance has no end. Yet your ignorance just goes on and on. It is amazing!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Benji-baby

    You’ve apparently never looked at a mirror.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    @Jape – You apparently never looked in a peer-reviewed climatology journal.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Benjamin David Steele — 2015-12-15 21:00
    @Jape – You apparently never looked in a peer-reviewed climatology journal.[/quote]

    Great! Come on BS, you are getting warmer! Now let’s discuss peer reviewed climate science, and stop the childish appeals to authority and name calling.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally.

    Show us that you understand what you are speaking of, show us that CAGW is real, and not just another natural variation that the Earth has seen for 4,500,000,000 years. You can do that, right? Otherwise you would just be another fibber like Drewski.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Benjamin David Steele”]Since you all are experts, I have a question. Is ignorance really infinite? It’s hard to me to imagine that ignorance has no end. Yet your ignorance just goes on and on. It is amazing![/quote]
    More Pure Projection!

    [quote] What do you get when willful ignorance is multiplied collective denialism?[/quote] You BS, we get you.

    As for questions try a simple one.

    What does the Scientific Method say when ALL of your Models based upon a positive Co2 Water Vapor feedback fail when compared to experiment?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    More opinions! :zzz

    Many of those you reference also warned us of an ice age scare 40 years ago. Why do you listen to and believe people who have a track record of failure?

    Let’s try science, and ignore opinions…

    Please do me two favors.

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally.

    Why is it so hard to get any discussion of science from you chicken littles?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert

    |

    Hey Gator, hope you have a wonderful holiday season. I’d say go easy on Benjamin since he is one of the clueless who believes peer reviews validates a paper when it does no such thing. It is also quite obvious he hasn’t grasped the fact that most climatologists are environmental activists which introduces a severe bias to their work, a bias which has no place in science.

    As I said, I would say go easy on him but he doesn’t deserve it. He is obviously more ignorant of the realities of this topic than what he attempts to insinuate about everyone who disagrees with him. Once again, as we have seen so many times, the more he goes on about how much he knows the more he establishes that he knows nothing.

    Merry Christmas.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    No one has yet answered my question. How does one counter igorance, delusion, and denialism with knowedge, rationality, and science?

    It’s a Catch-22. There is no way to win an honest debate because an honest debate is impossible. Engaging a denialist is like the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the river. There is no way for it to end well.

    I’m not even someone who dismisses alternative views. I’ve spent my life obsessing over seeking other perspectives and challenging info. I’ve always gotten most of my news and such from alternative media, even from people on the radical fringe (left and right). Whether or not I agree with people, I want to get all viewpoints on important issues.

    But dealing with a climate change denialist is like dealing with any other kind of denialist. It doesn’t matter if they are denying that NASA landed on the moon, that terrorists were behind 9/11, or whatever. Conspiracy theorists will deluge you with ‘proof’ and ‘logic’ for why they are right.

    They even occasionally make an interesting point. Still, it is always a mess of convoluted claims. They will obsess over a leaf on a tree while ignoring the forest or denying it even exists.

    Imagine trying to have a debate about the Roman Empire. Your opponents claim that most of the experts are wrong, lying, or biased. They dismiss out of hand most textual records, archaeological evidence, and historical scholarship. They claim to have a special insight that contradicts the consensus that developed over a long period of time. How could you possibly have a productive or even interesting discussion?

    It’s not that I limit myself to consensus thinking. It depends on the topic. Take Biblical Studies as an example. Much of it is dependent on limited to non-existent evidence with a lot of assumptions and speculation. Consensus doesn’t mean as much in that field, not that it should be dismissed out of hand either. It should be challenged with thorough analysis of the available evidence (see Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, etc).

    That said, climatology isn’t Biblical Studies. The amount of climatology data is massive and there has been growing consilience in that data. This makes consensus more meaningful. Simply dismissing all of that data, however, isn’t meaningful. The denialists aren’t up to the task to challenging the consensus, sadly.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    BS, you have yet answered my question. How does one counter your igorance, delusion, and denialism with knowedge, rationality, and science?

    It’s a Catch-22. There is no way to have an honest debate with you because you refuse to discuss science. Engaging a science denialist like you is like the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the river. There is no way for it to end well.

    You have no idea what the alarmists base their claims upon.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Hey. Robert! It’s been awhile, I hope all is well with you and yours, and have a Merry Christmas! BS is a confused child, maybe when he grows up an actually studies the facts, he will become a useful member of society.

    All the best!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Benji-baby

    We’ve been countering the ignorance, delusion and denialism of the arrogant demented alarmist crowd for years. And we’ve been doing it with common sense, logic, unbiased and unaltered data and we’ve even used the scientific method which apparently is a foreign language to the alarmist ignorati.

    Your inability to comprehend says everything, but keep talking anyway. You need your own self-acknowledgement and we need a good laugh.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]I know it is easy for right-wingers and reactionaries to dismiss scientific experts and deny scientific evidence. But you’d think they’d take seriously pragmatic-minded CIA, Pentagon, and military officials.[/quote] ROLTFLMAO…

    Yes it is easy to dismiss “scientific experts” that cannot produce and skillful predictions with their failed models and invalidated hypothesis.

    Remember the Scientific Method? And comparing hypothesis to reality? CAGW has Failed Every Time!

    And how many skillful climate predictions have these “pragmatic minded CIA and Military officials” made?… *Crickets*… Yep! They can also be safely dismissed.

    [quote] How does one counter igorance, delusion, and denialism with knowedge, rationality, and science? [/quote]

    We have tried, your completely immune to the data facts that have invalidated the CAGW hypothesis. You seem completely unable to grasp that the Scientific Method has destroyed your Faith and Doctrine.

    [quote] Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,

    “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

    Climate predictions are consistently wrong, so the hypothesis is wrong and the computer models built on it are wrong and produce meaingless results. Failed predictions indicate climate science remains unsettled. Corollary of the settled, solid rock arguments are that we can eliminate IPCC, or is that a reductio ad absurdum argument? [/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Hey Comrade BS! While we are on the topic of “How does one counter your igorance, delusion, and denialism with knowedge, rationality, and science.”

    Here we have a couple models that WTFPAWN the FAILED Models of your “consilience of the scientific, LOL… “research”.
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure.png[/img]
    Calibration and verification.
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure1new.png[/img]

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/06/pocket-calculator-climate-model-outperforms-billion-dollar-brains/

    And seeing as it is Peer Reviewed and actually can make Skillful predictions as required by the Scientific Method.

    I hope your not going to still be ignorant, delusional, and in denial of the Data Facts and Science that has invalidated ALL of the IPCC Alarmist Models and “science”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Benjamin David Steele

    |

    The thing is that denialists are lost in their own ideological reality tunnel. It isn’t just that they don’t deal with consensus opinion. Neither do they deal with other non-consensus views that don’t match their own.

    Among climatology research, the consensus opinion is simply what most climatology experts agree about. There are a few percentage who are critical of the consensus. But even among those, many or maybe even most are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from denialists.

    There are many critics who think that climate change is worse and that human influence is even greater. The denialists don’t deal with that side of things. What the denialists complain about is that they are being silenced when the reality is that they get disproportionately more public and media attention than the mainstream scientists. The most silenced group are those who hold stronger views who rarely are even heard of in media reporting.

    Denialists are entirely disconnected from reality. They like to play the victim card. Yet they get the disproportionate amount of attention. They are one of the least ignored groups in American society. Considering they are small in number and outside the consensus, it is amazing how much attention they get, despite their lack of expertise and evidence.

    They demand others engage their views. But they refuse to engage mainstream science. They assume their denialism trumps everything.

    If their arguments are so strong, why don’t they do research and prove they are right? Big energy puts millions of dollars out there on a regular basis and would love to fund anyone who could scientifically disprove AGW. It’s not for lack of funding that they have yet to convince anyone. When big money has funded research, it simply supported the consensus view, which is the reason they mostly stopped funding research.

    Even when their arguments are dismantled again and again in a thousand different forums, they go on repeating the same arguments. They are impervious to rational debate and counter-evidence. Confirmation bias and backfire effect is strong with them.

    If they don’t actually care about science, why do they pretend to care? What is the point of this game? Why do they go on posturing as if their tired weak arguments have any validity? If they want to know why they are wrong, it has already been explained to them many times before. It is unlikely explaining one more time is going to penetrate their thick skulls.

    It’s just an ideological game to them. They don’t care about truth. They have no desire to actually understand anything. It is like trying to argue with a religious apologist about the scientific impossibility of human virgin birth, the scientific irrelevance of Creationism, etc. When someone begins with a belief, there is no way to go from there to a discussion of facts that contradict that belief.

    That is what makes the scientific consensus different. Over the decades, the scientific consensus has changed as the data has changed. More and better research led to new theories and understandings. That is how the scientific method works. Yet the denialist never changes their position because their beliefs are impervious to new info.

    Everyone already knows they believe their claims. They go on praising one another’s brilliance in their special insight that defies all science. It doesn’t matter what most scientists agree about, what most scientific institutions affirm, what most scientific research supports, or anything else. The only thing that matters to a denialist is that other denialists agree that everyone else is wrong and that all evidence to the contrary is wrong. They are right in their own minds because they know they are right.

    Thousands more research papers, data sets, and public debates will never faze them. Their dogmatism is absolute.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Benji your still Projecting! All of the things your accusing us of, you are guilty of. Your the one in denial of reality. Your word pablum is meaningless drivel.
    [quote]That is what makes the scientific consensus different. Over the decades, the scientific consensus has changed as the data has changed. More and better research led to new theories and understandings. That is how the scientific method works. Yet the denialist never changes their position because their beliefs are impervious to new info.[/quote] Firstly there is no Consensus. Never has been.
    The data sure has changed. Alarmists keep fudging it to fit the invalidated Model results.
    That is NOT how the scientific method works. This is.
    http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] The scientific method requires that a physical model fulfills two simple conditions: it has to reconstruct and predict (or forecast) physical observations. Thus, it is perfectly legitimate in science to check whether the computer GCMs adopted by the IPCC fulfill the required scientific tests, that is whether these models reconstruct sufficiently well the 20th century global surface temperature and, consequently, whether these models can be truly trusted in their 21st century projections. If the answer is negative, it is perfectly legitimate to look for the missing mechanisms and/or for alternative methodologies.[/quote]
    After spending Trillions of Dollars BS, your false consensus has yet to make even one skillful prediction. You refuse to address this simple fact and you run away from the empirical observations that has refuted what you call the “consensus”.

    You ignore science that works.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/

    The harmonic climate model skillfully predicted the recent low solar cycle decades ago.
    https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/11000-year-c14-graph-lines-up-perfectly-with-angular-momentum-graph/

    This is why his model actually works. It is not based upon models with a false Co2 Water Vapor positive feed back loop. It is based upon empirical observations.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/

    And instead you cling to “science” that has failed every test.
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    You really have nothing new to offer here BS, we have seen a hundred self loathing, know nothing leftists like you come and go.

    Your walls of word pablum are wasting your time and ours. :zzz

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]The thing is that denialists are lost in their own ideological reality tunnel. It isn’t just that they don’t deal with consensus opinion. Neither do they deal with other non-consensus views that don’t match their own.

    Among climatology research, the consensus opinion is simply what most climatology experts agree about. There are a few percentage who are critical of the consensus. But even among those, many or maybe even most are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from denialists.

    There are many critics who think that climate change is worse and that human influence is even greater. The denialists don’t deal with that side of things. What the denialists complain about is that they are being silenced when the reality is that they get disproportionately more public and media attention than the mainstream scientists. The most silenced group are those who hold stronger views who rarely are even heard of in media reporting.

    Denialists are entirely disconnected from reality. They like to play the victim card. Yet they get the disproportionate amount of attention. They are one of the least ignored groups in American society. Considering they are small in number and outside the consensus, it is amazing how much attention they get, despite their lack of expertise and evidence.

    They demand others engage their views. But they refuse to engage mainstream science. They assume their denialism trumps everything.

    If their arguments are so strong, why don’t they do research and prove they are right? Big energy puts millions of dollars out there on a regular basis and would love to fund anyone who could scientifically disprove AGW. It’s not for lack of funding that they have yet to convince anyone. When big money has funded research, it simply supported the consensus view, which is the reason they mostly stopped funding research.

    Even when their arguments are dismantled again and again in a thousand different forums, they go on repeating the same arguments. They are impervious to rational debate and counter-evidence. Confirmation bias and backfire effect is strong with them.

    If they don’t actually care about science, why do they pretend to care? What is the point of this game? Why do they go on posturing as if their tired weak arguments have any validity? If they want to know why they are wrong, it has already been explained to them many times before. It is unlikely explaining one more time is going to penetrate their thick skulls.

    It’s just an ideological game to them. They don’t care about truth. They have no desire to actually understand anything. It is like trying to argue with a religious apologist about the scientific impossibility of human virgin birth, the scientific irrelevance of Creationism, etc. When someone begins with a belief, there is no way to go from there to a discussion of facts that contradict that belief.

    That is what makes the scientific consensus different. Over the decades, the scientific consensus has changed as the data has changed. More and better research led to new theories and understandings. That is how the scientific method works. Yet the denialist never changes their position because their beliefs are impervious to new info.

    Everyone already knows they believe their claims. They go on praising one another’s brilliance in their special insight that defies all science. It doesn’t matter what most scientists agree about, what most scientific institutions affirm, what most scientific research supports, or anything else. The only thing that matters to a denialist is that other denialists agree that everyone else is wrong and that all evidence to the contrary is wrong. They are right in their own minds because they know they are right.

    Thousands more research papers, data sets, and public debates will never faze them. Their dogmatism is absolute.[/quote]

    One of the purest case studies of projection I have ever seen in my life! 😆

    OK Mr BS, destroy my “weak argument”…

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    Come on projection boy! 😆

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.