Climatologists under pressure

[tabatha]

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

[villager]

1. expect the rush of denialists and biosphere-destruction apologists to this thread any nanosecond now

n/t

[Viking12]

2. Like stink on shit...

There are 3-4 extremely vocal trolls posting here on this topic. I suspect they'll arrive shortly.

[sudopod]

30. I don't see how that garbage gets by here.

One or two of em are genuinely confused, but for the most part they're just trolling and trying to get a reaction.

[tabatha]

3. East Antarctica, Long Stable, Is Now Losing Ice

While the earth has been warming overall, the giant East Antarctic ice sheet — which holds about five times as much ice as West Antarctica and Greenland combined — has actually been growing in size. That's because East Antarctica is far too cold, even in summer, for any appreciable melting to happen. And since a warmer world means more precipitation, any extra snow that falls on East Antarctica stays there indefinitely.

Or at least, that's how things have gone until recently. But a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience suggests that this growth spurt may have come to an end. Starting in about 2006, says lead author Jianli Chen of the Center for Space Research at the University of Texas at Austin, East Antarctica started declining, just like the world's other great ice sheets. "The amount right now isn't very big, but the trend is alarming," he says. (See how global warming is threatening penguins.)

It's alarming because the behavior of ice sheets is the biggest variable in estimates of how sea levels will rise over the next century — the faster ice sheets melt, the more sea levels will rise. As recently as 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted in its fourth major climate-assessment report that there simply wasn't enough data to make a useful projection. But since then, satellite observations have shown that the ice in both Greenland and West Antarctica is sliding into the sea faster than anyone expected.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1943136,00.html#ixzz0YZSxNZZj

[notesdev]

4. Nature is implicated

So be aware when reading this that they are very partial and very interested that this should be swept under the carpet.

It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

This opinion differs from that of the University of East Anglia and Penn State University, both of which have opened investigations of their own. Nature ought to clear the air and conduct a full and open investigation so that the truth of the matter - whatever it should turn out to be - is known. From the tone of the article it looks like they have chosen a cover-up strategy instead, which is unfortunate.

[villager]

5. "Point of order, Mr. Chairman! There are communists in the State Dept.!"

n/t

[Viking12]

6. Your prognostication abilities are uncanny.

:toast: :toast:

[tabatha]

8. Yep, it becomes stale after a while.

[tabatha]

7. I believe the data from

NOAA, NASA and JMA independently confirm the data of CRU. There is no smoking gun. I welcome the investigation so that the smearing can be cleared up, and the validity of the work confirmed.

[karynnj]

11. HADCRU is actually the lowest of the four sets

They track pretty nicely

[Prism]

51. I don't think modern warming is the issue

From my reading on this subject, it seems the real controversy rests in paleoclimatology, and how people like Mann constructed temperature records based on things like ice cores and tree rings. After all, you can't look at a tree ring and go "The average temperature in 1476 was 52 degrees." You have to plug in all sorts of data and make all kinds of comparisons so you can arrive at what you believe the temperature was over the last 2,000 years. Those measurements and statistical calculations are vital for knowing if our modern warming is part of natural cycles, or if it's truly anomalous and caused by humans.

It's the methodology of how historical temperature records were constructed that is currently under review.

We have fairly dependable records from roughly 1850 on. I believe the chart you posted above to be accurate. That data isn't what's currently under fire.

The question at hand is whether these paleoclimatologic models of past temperature are indeed reliable and verifiable. The data at the heart of the calculations, statistical analyses, and equations used to make the comparisons have never been entirely open to peer review (that's what people are talking about when they reference the destroyed data). Furthermore, a lot of studies have been based on that research - they have been based on the idea that those models and comparisons are true. Now, we're not entirely sure they're true, and all kinds of studies and research may be compromised if Mann's models prove to have been artificially manipulated.

That's why the controversy. These paleoclimatologic models are at the heart of AGW, and so many assumptions for further research rest on the validity of Mann's work. What we really need now is a full accounting and explanation of his work, a highly open inquiry into whether or not Mann and his colleagues' research truly is up to empirical scientific standards. Right now, we need a massive dose of open, transparent, good faith peer review.

Because how these scientists have behaved is not even passingly scientific.

I believe we need to seriously reduce all kinds of emissions, including CO2. Pumping all of that into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing for the environment. However, that does not excuse what these scientists got up to and how they've played hide-the-data because they were afraid someone would disprove it. That's not science. Science is all about taking an idea and trying to poke holes in it. If it stands, then you move forward with other tests. Hiding your work so no one can test it is about as far away from scientifically responsible as I can imagine.

[tabatha]

53. Good post.

Thanks.

[Viking12]

57. True. False. Sort of. False. False. False. False.

True: After all, you can't look at a tree ring and go "The average temperature in 1476 was 52 degrees." You have to plug in all sorts of data and make all kinds of comparisons so you can arrive at what you believe the temperature was over the last 2,000 years.

False: Those measurements and statistical calculations are vital for knowing if our modern warming is part of natural cycles, or if it's truly anomalous and caused by humans.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Sort of:We have fairly dependable records from roughly 1850 on. I believe the chart you posted above to be accurate. That data isn't what's currently under fire.

There was a loss of instrumental data at CRU in the 1980s. However, there are other repositories of the data. Here for instance:ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

False:The data at the heart of the calculations, statistical analyses, and equations used to make the comparisons have never been entirely open to peer review (that's what people are talking about when they reference the destroyed data).Furthermore, a lot of studies have been based on that research - they have been based on the idea that those models and comparisons are true. Now, we're not entirely sure they're true, and all kinds of studies and research may be compromised if Mann's models prove to have been artificially manipulated.


The code for the Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 study has been available for years. Other paleo-reconstructions don't rely on the MBH98 method at all. See:http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

False:These paleoclimatologic models are at the heart of AGW
See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf or http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/

False:that does not excuse what these scientists got up to and how they've played hide-the-data because they were afraid someone would disprove it.
Other than the CRU proprietary data which was available to legitimate researchers, there is no hidden data. That's a completely lie by the deniers.
See a list of links directly to online data:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

[tabatha]

65. Thanks for your corrections.

[Prism]

70. I should clarify a touch

Because I didn't articulate well what I was referencing by "data" in that post and where my concern about this rests.

What I've not seen shared, and where the greatest hay is being made, is the code used to homogenize the raw temperature data into usable form. The homogenized data is available, and many different studies of AGW have been used under the assumption the homogenized temperature data is true. The main question is about the processes used to create that data. This had not been released. When skeptics requested data, and what ECU has offered to release, is the product of the code - not the code itself.

What we need to see for the sake of clarity and assurance is how the raw numbers became the data set that so many studies have used when carrying out their own paleoclimotological experiments. You're correct in noting that others have done their own independent studies and have not rested solely on Mann's own work with ice cores and tree rings, etc. But many of those experiments did not grind out raw data from scratch on their own to use as comparison when attempting to establish an accurate temperature record. They used the end result of Mann's homogenization and assumed its validity.

That's where I think we need to see some validation from independent studies. Or we need a full release of the code used to mash up the raw data.

That said, thank you for the links. Some of this I've read through before, some not. More knowledge is always welcome.

[Viking12]

71. You're mistaken. Mann does not maintain the proxy data sets, nor did he produce them.

Mann's work has been in multi-proxy reconstruction where he takes the individual proxies developed by others and reconstructs geo-spatially representative reconstructions. The individual temp proxies are maintained by their creators. For instance, many of the North American tree proxies are largely the product of the Tree Ring lab at the U of AZ (http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html). The Greenland ice core reconstructions the product of GISP (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt). The codes and methods for those proxies are available from the individual researchers and/or the publications in which their proxies were published. Others who have create multi-proxy reconstructions of often use the some proxies but have used completely different methods from the MBH team to come to very similar results. Their work does not in any way rest on the Mann et al studies.

[karynnj]

10. DU's head of the flat earth climate deniers arrives!

The fact that the Universities opened investigations is that it is the routine thing to do when questions arise.

By the way, where is the 30% decline in the market you predicted would happen in 3 months last August in the Economy forum. You positioned yourself as an expert on that and you were pretty wrong.

On these threads, you try to sound like you are an expert on science but ran away when someone who worked for NASA basically blew you away. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4163859 )

You have been on over 10 threads with your lies that I can see.

[notesdev]

12. Just doing the disclosure

that Warmers don't want to do. Doing the service for DUers who may not have realized that this article was from a very interested party, something you Warmers don't seem to be too keen to reveal.

I've hardly "run away" from anything, being only one person, there is only so much I can reply to.

I now return you to your orgy of parroting what the television told you.

[karynnj]

13. Television? That is really not a major source of information for me

The idea that you think that nearly all scientists in this field would intentionally make stuff up and spend their lives creating more fiction shows that you likely have never been close to any scientific community. If there is one group of people who would be least likely to band together to create a bogus theory, it is likely scientists.

[notesdev]

14. That flies in the face of history

See "Piltdown Man". Believed for 40 years. Not the first, not the last.

It's simply not credible that scientists don't commit fraud when history shows that many have, and many have been believed for quite a long time. Often enough the fraud/hoax is only revealed when the originator(s) die, as the influence they have over the scientific establishment can keep "deniers" from being considered credible.

Top Ten Scientific Hoaxes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/13/research.highereducation2

Then we have stuff like Alan Sokol's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" hoax, which exposed how a 'peer-reviewed' journal won't take a critical eye to something that conforms to its reviewers' biases. Look it up, it's pretty funny.

And with AGW, we have claim after claim after claim that has proved false (e.g. "the debate is over", "there is a consensus"), deliberate political efforts to shut down debate, and pretty much every hallmark of a scam that one can name.

So you can see why, when someone comes here and tells me that scientists never do that, I can only wonder at their naivete and gullibility. Well, maybe you can't, but those who are not members of the Warmer religion certainly can.

So please, keep giving attention to my arguments, the stream of encouraging private messages I get tell me that the truth is something people here very much want to hear.

---

Jan Henrik Schön, a young researcher at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, had five papers published in Nature and seven in the journal Science between 1998 and 2001, dealing with advanced aspects of electronics. The discoveries were abstruse, but he was seen by his peers as a rising star.

In 2002, a committee found that he had made up his results on at least 16 occasions, publicly embarrassing his colleagues, his employer and the editorial staffs of both the journals that accepted his results.

Schön, who by then was still only 32, said: "I have to admit that I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret." Nature also reported him as adding in a statement, "I truly believe that the reported scientific effects are real, exciting and worth working for." He would say no more.

---

So much for the infallibility of Nature.

[tabatha]

16. Piltdown was by one man

"Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged. At the Royal College of Surgeons copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model, one that in brain size and other features resembled modern man. Despite these differences however, it does not appear that the possibility of outright forgery arose in connection with the skull."

"From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find. G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.<1>"

There are far too many scientists in climate change for something like that to get by.

Why were the top 10 hoaxes revealed as hoaxes --- because other scientists revealed them as hoaxes. In the Climate Change community, not only are there hundreds of scientists all communicating with each other, but there are also separate groups of scientists. The graph above indicates that if any of the groups had very variant data, it would have been scrutinized.

No, it is different - but people like easy, superficial comparisons. I don't know how many times I heard Bush defended because he was not like Chamberlin - which was a really bogus comparison.

[karynnj]

17. I know that single individuals may create hoaxes for whatever reason

What is completely unlikely is that you would have a conspiracy of a very large group of scientists. The fact is that flies in the face of everything that led them to become scientists. Not to mention, they are an incredibly independent group of people.

I note that you won't say if you have ever been part of a scientific community. I seriously doubt it.

[MH1]

49. There is a whole lot more risk involved in ignoring climate change

than in failing to take action on other issues due to skepticism.

Be a climate change skeptic all you want, but please stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere until you can prove that the rise in atmospheric CO2 will not have devastating consequences for future generations (and potentially for many of us alive now).

It really is a risk management question and I wish people would stop acting as if the proof has to be 100% before acting. If you found there is a 50% chance that your car will blow up in the next 30 seconds, would you stay in your car?

[tabatha]

54. Exactly.

Suppose there were no global warming - what is the harm in cleaning up the planet? None.

But global warming is real, and the real harm is in NOT cleaning it up.

[Uncle Joe]

19. What is your answer to tabatha's post #7? n/t

[notesdev]

20. They rely on the same data

If you trace the source of the reconstructions, every one that claims post-1998 warming relies on Hadley CRU. Those are not independent datasets as they are trying to represent to you.

[Uncle Joe]

22. So is your contention that human caused global warming has no validity or just that post 1998

warming measurements are suspect?

[notesdev]

24. Both and more

AGW theory is based on manipulated data (that's what this scandal is about).

The post-1998 data has been specifically tampered with since the instrumental readings show a decline in temperature, not a rise. This needed to be hidden ("hide the decline") because it blows AGW out of the water.

There is also evidence of tampering with the entire post-1960 dataset (look up keywords "artificial" + "climategate" for details).

Also the basic science of deriving temperatures from tree rings is faulty and strongly disputed by plant physiologists, and this is the main data relied on by the Warmers to establish their case.

[Uncle Joe]

26. So you believe current global warming to be a totally natural cycle?

Also if it is a natural cycle, what's your belief as to the cause?

Finally if post 1998 actually had declines in global temperature, why are virtually all the glaciers worldwide in retreat and why are the poles melting?

[Confusious]

56. Sun spots

Look up sunspot activity, the graph shows a rise during the 50's, same time as temps started to rise.

In history too, there was a warming period and then a thing called "the little ice age"

I'm not saying GW doesn't exist, I'm not so sure how much is caused by us these days.

[Viking12]

59. False.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full

[karynnj]

35. Hansen's projections were made in 1997 or 1998

so they were based on the pre 1998 data. (with the possible exception of 1998).

[Viking12]

33. Bullshit. You lie!

[bhikkhu]

66. 1998 was an upward spike, an expected fluctuation in the warming trend.

Temperatures fluctuate up and down within the overall warming trend over a period of years, so all one has to do is pick a warm year and a subsequent cool year to show "cooling", or pick a cool year and a subsequent warm year to show "warming". If you average out the normal fluctuations you get a smooth and clear warming trend, which becomes more and more apparent as the years go by.

Anytime you see a denier argument and "1998", its usually just a typical boneheaded or malevolent misuse of an outlier in the trends.

[Viking12]

67. Exactly. For example from Jan 2008-October2009 we have a rate of +17degC/century

Short-term variability is meaningless.

[tabatha]

25. I don't even have a television.

You are jumping to the wrong conclusion, AGAIN.

[sudopod]

31. "Warmers"

As if everyone you disagree with is part of some sort of cozy little club. Much easier to apply sweeping labels to folks that way.

[karynnj]

37. Not to mention - one with a silly name

[notesdev]

38. It's a deliberate counterpoint to "deniers"

guess you can dish it out but can't take it

color me unsurprised at yet more Warmer hypocrisy.

[karynnj]

41. The fact is that neither Sodobod or I said that the label was a smear or

basically equivalent to anything it wasn't - we just made fun of it.

So, yeah it is a counterpoint - two innocuous labels that make fun of those they label.

[notesdev]

44. This shows you are completely wrong

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&fkt=905&fsdt=2153&q=denier+-climate+-warming+-agw+-holocaust&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=95f225fe7a26181e

Notice that when you take the terms "Holocaust", "climate", "warming", and "AGW" away, there is next to nothing that shows up as any part of a policy discussion.

QED - Warmers think all who don't share their ideas are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

[karynnj]

47. Your QED exists only in your mind

There is no law of either English grammar or mathematics that makes your equivalence true.

[sudopod]

55. Not Holocaust deniers

More like gravity deniers.

[MH1]

60. easier to say than "scientists" ;)

[sudopod]

62. lolz

[karynnj]

64. Great response

:hi:

[tabatha]

15. Yep, I bookmarked that thread too

because of the information, and sent some excerpts to denier acquaintances.

(The recs have gone down to only +1. Guess there are deniers onboard.)

[notesdev]

18. You may not have picked up on it yet

but fervent Warmers are quite a small group here, and you guys are wearing out your welcome quickly with the escalating fear tactics.

The Holocaust-denial implications of using the word "denier" are not missed by anybody. Those of us who take the Holocaust seriously as an important historical lesson find this terminology repulsive.

Everyone is a "denier" but you.

Meanwhile, Americans are living in tents and on food stamps and your crowd is ferociously trying to shut down the factories that might put them to work and allow them to feed their families.

[karynnj]

21. I take the Holocaust very seriously as well and there is NOTHING linking that wordage

I am Jewish. The fact is that you are spreading lies. I use the words lies because I am convinced that you know that this is a smear of the scientific community and you don't care because it suits your agenda. "Your crowd" ????

The fact is that we accept what 99% of the scientific community believes and feel that we need to act prudently. That is not the position of a "small group here", but very likely the majority. As to the Democratic party, our last 3 Presidential candidates all believed that we had to do something on global warming - as did all their major opponents (It might be all their opponents - I don't know the positions of some minor competitors, so I limited the statement). This makes it pretty clear that this is a pretty mainstream position for Democrats. Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004, when Gore and Kerry were people who were extremely strong on this issue?

As to wearing out our welcome here, the user names I've seen on this thread and elsewhere supporting dealing with climate change are people who I have seen arguing as liberals, progressives and Democrats on many issues. Whether I have usually agreed or not with them, I never had any cause to doubt that they were Democrats or members of this community. You, on the other hand, seem to have few comments on any Democratic politicians or even on most issues. You seem to have build up a number of posts mainly in the economics forum - where you wrote like Rush Limbaugh that the economy was crashing. I have actually had questions that you were a troll, but have no proof.

As to shutting factories, Kerry/Boxer will CREATE more jobs than it will eliminate. Kerry's staff produced a report that showed the impact on jobs by state as produced by 5 or 6 different think tanks and the CBO. At the Finance committee hearing, The chief economist of an organization that accepted a large grant from ExxonMobile produced numbers that showed job losses. Under questioning, even Baucus found her assumptions unrealistic. She also responded to Kerry that her model included nothing to reflect the impact of efficiencies in technologies - even though many companies have found the gains to be very significant. (It's on 11/10 you can watch it if you want. http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm )

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabatha]

32. I think you're nuts.

No-one, repeat no-one would deliberately choose the word denier for that association on this board.
I certainly did not. (By the way, I have Jewish blood as well.)

[notesdev]

36. Feeling is mutual

That word wasn't chosen by this board. It was chosen by AGW propagandists, and those who simply believe what they are told without looking behind the curtain are unthinkingly parroting it. It's a completely dishonest characterization and violates Godwin's Law as a discussion opener. It's a method of shutting down conversation before it starts. Anyone can see it is a mere quarter-step from calling those who do not agree with the AGW position Nazis.

If you doubt this, find me one other context besides AGW and Holocaust denial in which the word "denier" is commonly used.

[karynnj]

40. I have actually heard the "flat earth caucus" more often

You have created this outrage out of whole cloth. The fact is that it is simple English - you are denying that AGW is occurring. It is the most logical word to use. Critic and skeptic have broader interpretations.

Not to mention, that you hide behind this false outrage rather than considering what you are doing in spreading lies to smear the reputations of a large group of dedicated scientists. You are acting as a swiftboater.

* edited because notesdev had a problem with just calling it climate change.

[notesdev]

42. I have said no such thing.

As I always state and restate (since you Warmers seem to be afflicted by a collective learning disability), climate change has always been occurring and always will; the Earth is not a static system and never has been.

What I dispute is AGW, because its basis is contrived and fraudulent.

Just because your Church has issued a decree to pull a bait-and-switch of terminology doesn't mean I'm going to fall for such a simple ruse.

[karynnj]

46. I will edit my post to say AGW - as that is what I meant

But the fact is that:

Collective learning disability

and

"church" are likely both violations of both respectful discussion and DU rules.

[karynnj]

34. No

I never thought of the Holocaust when I saw that phrased used - I simply thought it sounded right to me.

As to my religion, are you the new arbiter on who is a Jew? Do you need notes from rabbis and synagogue Presidents? The fact is that no one here would have any reason to falsely say they are Jewish. So, it is rather silly to say "if you're actually Jewish". Now, if I wanted to really anger you, I could mention that one synagogue event I attended was watching Al Gore's movie then discussing it in a discussion led by someone trained by Gore's organization. My rabbi was 100% behind it -- so I guess my rabbi's Jewishness is in question too.

[MH1]

61. Wow, it's almost a shame that was deleted

but the responses are telling. About what kind of person that poster is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. I don't see the problem.

The Holocaust killed millions of people. Some folks say it didn't happen.

Global warming will kill millions of people. Some folks say it isn't happening.

They're the same sort of people, when you get right down to it.

[tabatha]

29. Spot on.

[tabatha]

28. When I used the word denier, the Holocaust was furthest from my mind.

You just make stuff up left and right, don't you?

Our crowd is "ferociously trying to shut down the factories" - what planet do you live on?

Did not the greatest exit of manufacturing jobs from the US occur in the last eight years under Bush.

Have you not heard Thom Hartmann say over and over again, that America needs to get back to manufacturing?

Have you not heard of Obama's plans to start old factories up to make clean-energy equipment parts? And Biden and all the other Dems support that, too.

Good grief - you believe what you want, despite facts staring you in the face - no wonder you don't believe in AGW.

And by the way, most Dems believe in AGW. Are you perhaps not on the wrong board?

And you don't answer questions - you just find some completely inappropriate mud to sling at someone instead.

[notesdev]

39. You realize you just made two consecutive contradictory posts?

Thank you for helping me to establish my case.

[karynnj]

43. What's the contradiction

She says that it wasn't something she thought of when she wrote it. In the other post she said that someone else's way of explaining that both instances were denying the truth of something. Both can be true at the same time.

[notesdev]

45. OK you got me

at my limit for tolerance of mind-bending doublespeak for one day.

Thank you for the exchange, it has been wonderful and I encourage everyone to read through this thread in its entirety.

[tabatha]

48. When I wrote the post it did not occur to me.

When I read the other person's post I was made to think of it.

Your logic escapes me.

[karynnj]

50. I was saying the say thing you said far more clearly - his comment was strange

[tabatha]

52. Yep, I saw your post after I wrote mine.

I had to go out for a short while.

All of his comments are strange.
I have never associated Holocaust and denial --- ever.
If it is a problem, I would happily say Climate Change disbeliever, doubter, or whatever.

Thanks!

[karynnj]

63. same here

It seemed like he wanted to shift from the real topic and hide behind his self generated outrage. The scary thing is that elsewhere - there are so many that are apparently swayed by the Rush Limbaugh clones into believing that it is a hoax. As evil as I thought their swiftboating of John Kerry was this really is likely worse if they manage to stop the world from taking action. What I don't get are the people smart enough to know that it is very possible that the scientists are right - and are willing to risk the world.

[MH1]

58. You are so full of shit.

"your crowd is ferociously trying to shut down the factories"

actually "my crowd" is trying to get the wind turbine and solar cell factories HERE before China has the market cornered.

Oops, too late. Your crowd "won" again, I guess.

[karynnj]

9. If you doubt that they would use it just look at the comments this Hill article got

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/70207-kerry-sees-definite-republican-votes-for-climate-legislation-?page=2#comments

The article itself is vaguely optimistic, but these comments really make me wonder what has happened to my country.

[amborin]

68. climate change is real; decades of rising temps prove it; emails were discussing "tree ring" evidenc

the East Anglia types were discussing records using tree ring dating, as one way to determine global temps

tree ring methods showed decades of rising temps, but oddly, showed a slight dip for a 3-yr period

BUT---other methods---importantly, temperature records using themometers, show consistently rising temps.....

of course global climate change is real, but deniers are cherry picking and leaping on this to try to make their point

but they are ignorant, uninformed and dangerous

[JonQ]

69. This article is long on accusations

short on evidence as to why it doesn't matter.

This conspiracy you've uncovered about claims that we've supported has no merit, so there. The issue is done.

Um no, sorry but it isn't going to disappear after a few op eds saying it is unimportant. And to disprove claims against them they site the very people who are accused of making up data!

I imagine in the next few years global warming hysteria will become recognized as a legitimate mental disorder.