Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website

2 views
Skip to first unread message

AGW Facts

unread,
May 4, 2011, 6:59:55 PM5/4/11
to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science

How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
website

Posted by John Cook Thursday 28 April 2011 12.53 BST

What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration
that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming
evidence they refuse to accept.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-change-faq


My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough –
namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members.
This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one
wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I
knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging
online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make
sense of it all?

At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began
constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to
the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the
ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based
research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously
scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the
various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.

The case for human-caused global warming is robust. It's based on
many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
consistent answer. This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
consensus among scientists. It's not about tree-hugging or secret
plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements
and the laws of physics.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

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

Patterns in the 'sceptic' arguments began to emerge. Instead of
considering all the evidence in their search for the truth,
climate 'sceptics' refuse to accept evidence that humans are
causing global warming. This is not scepticism but denial. To deny
a scientific consensus based on so much evidence, you have to deny
the scientific evidence.

There are a number of methods to deny evidence and believe me,
I've seen them all. The simplest method is to avoid the evidence
altogether by smearing climate scientists or indulging in
conspiracy theories. This is what "climategate", the theft or
leaking of scientists' emails, was all about. A smattering of
quotes taken out of context from a handful of emails does nothing
to change the vast weight of evidence showing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

The most common denial technique is cherry picking. If the full
body of evidence doesn't give you the answer you want, carefully
select the bits and pieces that give the desired impression and
sweep the rest of the evidence off the table. Deniers post
pictures of weather stations positioned near car parks and
tarmacs, convinced global warming is an artefact of poor
measurements. This line of thinking denies the thousands of
natural thermometers that also indicate warming – rising sea
levels, shifting seasons, retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets,
even tree lines are moving.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temperature-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/advancing-spring-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ice-Sheet-mass-loss-melting.htm

Greenland is not losing hundreds of billion of tonnes of ice every
year because someone placed a thermometer near an air conditioner.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm

So I started the Skeptical Science website, with the 'sceptics''
arguments collected together as the website's backbone. The
systematic database, and more importantly, the rebuttals built on
a foundation of peer-reviewed science, inspired Melbourne company
Shine Technologies to create a hugely popular iPhone app of it,
making the science easily accessible (and cool). While Shine were
developing the app, I was contacted by environmental scientist
Haydn Washington, who proposed co-authoring a book, Climate Change
Denial: Heads in the Sand.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.earthscan.co.uk/denial

I had always focused on the external aspects of climate change
denial – the how. Washington was interested in the why. What
drives climate denial? If only there was a simple answer. Human
psychology is not rocket science – it's much more complicated.
Many factors are involved, including conservative ideology,
misinformation campaigns (often funded by the fossil fuel
companies whose profits are threatened by climate action), fear of
change, failure in values and the media itself.

When climate deniers are given equal prominence with the
overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, the public could be
forgiven for thinking the science is in doubt – when it is not.

How do we roll back climate change denial? We need to look the
evidence full in the face and accept reality. Global warming is
happening. We're causing it. Just as important, we also need to
stop denying climate action. We can solve climate change – we have
the plans to cut our pollution and the technology to switch to
cleaner energy. To achieve this, we must abandon denial and demand
climate action, from both ourselves and our leaders.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm

o) Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand by Haydn Washington
and John Cook is published on Thursday, 30 April, by Earthscan.
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/tabid/102760/Default.aspx

James

unread,
May 4, 2011, 8:17:16 PM5/4/11
to
"AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:30m3s61ko3ib25r9h...@4ax.com

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science
>
> How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> website
>
> Posted by John Cook Thursday 28 April 2011 12.53 BST
>
> What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration
> that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming
> evidence they refuse to accept.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-change-faq
>
>
> My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough -

> namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members.
> This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one
> wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I
> knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging
> online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make
> sense of it all?
>
> At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began
> constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to
> the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the
> ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based
> research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously
> scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the
> various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.
>
> The case for human-caused global warming is robust. It's based on
> many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
> consistent answer. This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
> consensus among scientists. It's not about tree-hugging or secret
> plans to control the world - it's rooted in empirical measurements

> and the laws of physics.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
>
> Patterns in the 'sceptic' arguments began to emerge. Instead of
> considering all the evidence in their search for the truth,
> climate 'sceptics' refuse to accept evidence that humans are
> causing global warming. This is not scepticism but denial. To deny
> a scientific consensus based on so much evidence, you have to deny
> the scientific evidence.
>
> There are a number of methods to deny evidence and believe me,
> I've seen them all. The simplest method is to avoid the evidence
> altogether by smearing climate scientists or indulging in
> conspiracy theories. This is what "climategate", the theft or
> leaking of scientists' emails, was all about. A smattering of
> quotes taken out of context from a handful of emails does nothing
> to change the vast weight of evidence showing global warming.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
>
> The most common denial technique is cherry picking. If the full
> body of evidence doesn't give you the answer you want, carefully
> select the bits and pieces that give the desired impression and
> sweep the rest of the evidence off the table. Deniers post
> pictures of weather stations positioned near car parks and
> tarmacs, convinced global warming is an artefact of poor
> measurements. This line of thinking denies the thousands of
> natural thermometers that also indicate warming - rising sea

> levels, shifting seasons, retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets,
> even tree lines are moving.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temperature-intermediate.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/advancing-spring-global-warming.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ice-Sheet-mass-loss-melting.htm
>
> Greenland is not losing hundreds of billion of tonnes of ice every
> year because someone placed a thermometer near an air conditioner.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
>
> So I started the Skeptical Science website, with the 'sceptics''
> arguments collected together as the website's backbone. The
> systematic database, and more importantly, the rebuttals built on
> a foundation of peer-reviewed science, inspired Melbourne company
> Shine Technologies to create a hugely popular iPhone app of it,
> making the science easily accessible (and cool). While Shine were
> developing the app, I was contacted by environmental scientist
> Haydn Washington, who proposed co-authoring a book, Climate Change
> Denial: Heads in the Sand.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> http://www.earthscan.co.uk/denial
>
> I had always focused on the external aspects of climate change
> denial - the how. Washington was interested in the why. What

> drives climate denial? If only there was a simple answer. Human
> psychology is not rocket science - it's much more complicated.

> Many factors are involved, including conservative ideology,
> misinformation campaigns (often funded by the fossil fuel
> companies whose profits are threatened by climate action), fear of
> change, failure in values and the media itself.
>
> When climate deniers are given equal prominence with the
> overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, the public could be
> forgiven for thinking the science is in doubt - when it is not.

>
> How do we roll back climate change denial? We need to look the
> evidence full in the face and accept reality. Global warming is
> happening. We're causing it. Just as important, we also need to
> stop denying climate action. We can solve climate change - we have

> the plans to cut our pollution and the technology to switch to
> cleaner energy. To achieve this, we must abandon denial and demand
> climate action, from both ourselves and our leaders.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm
>
> o) Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand by Haydn Washington
> and John Cook is published on Thursday, 30 April, by Earthscan.
> http://www.earthscan.co.uk/tabid/102760/Default.aspx

I don't think that because co2 is up and temps are up qualifies as any
legitimate kind of evidence other than co2 is up and temps are up. Those
types of evidence are immaterial to the question of 'human produced'
global warming'. Neither does glaciers are melting or Kilimanjarro is
losing it's snow cap. So tell us how co2 is killing us all.


Well Done

unread,
May 4, 2011, 8:45:39 PM5/4/11
to
AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science
>How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
>
Finding a lie all over the web doesn't make it true.
AGW is bunk. Science tells us that. The East Anglia CRU emails tell
us that. Repeated recants by the IPCC tell us that. Ridiculous lies
by AlGore tell us that. False temp readings published knowngly by
NASA and NOAA tell us that. My own butt walking outside in May when
it's 3 degrees tells ME that. WHAT is your PROBLEM, AGW?
---
--> "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" <--
--> Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net <--

Dawlish

unread,
May 5, 2011, 1:26:21 AM5/5/11
to
On May 5, 1:17 am, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "AGW Facts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:30m3s61ko3ib25r9h...@4ax.com
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change...

>
> > How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> > website
>
> > Posted by  John Cook Thursday 28 April 2011 12.53 BST
>
> > What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration
> > that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming
> > evidence they refuse to accept.
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-cha...
> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temper...
> losing it's snow cap. So tell us how co2 is killing us all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You wouldn't; but then again, you are stupid. Skeptical science
provides some awfully unanswerable arguments, based on published
science. Climate deniers hate it and daren't read if, because they
cannot cope with the arguments it gives. Can you jimmy?

Did something else say something else on the subject as well?

Giga2

unread,
May 5, 2011, 2:42:40 AM5/5/11
to

"AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:30m3s61ko3ib25r9h...@4ax.com...

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science
>
> How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> website
>
skepsci was clearly started as a pro-AGW propaganda excercise and this
article is part of that sophisticated campaign, as is this following book
presumably.


matt_sykes

unread,
May 5, 2011, 5:34:25 AM5/5/11
to
>  Did something else say something else on the subject as well?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Scepticalscience, as usual, uses half truths. When examined in depth
it is easilly refuted.

matt_sykes

unread,
May 5, 2011, 5:38:24 AM5/5/11
to
On May 5, 12:59 am, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change...

>
> How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> website
>
> Posted by  John Cook Thursday 28 April 2011 12.53 BST
>
> What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration
> that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming
> evidence they refuse to accept.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-cha...

>
> My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough –
> namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members.
> This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one
> wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I
> knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging
> online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make
> sense of it all?
>
> At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began
> constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to
> the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the
> ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based
> research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously
> scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the
> various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.
>
> The case for human-caused global warming is robust.

Wrong. Lack of warming for 15 years disproves the theory of
'AGW' (quotes mean its the alarmist kind)

> It's based on
> many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
> consistent answer.

Wrong. Many studies show a lot of conflicting evidence.

> This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
> consensus among scientists.

There isnt a concensus.

>It's not about tree-hugging or secret
> plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements

Measurements which show:

1) lack of warming for 15 years.
2) Post war cooling for 30 yerars.
3) Previous warming periods that equal the recent one in the absence
of CO2.
4) Lack of positive feedbacks.
5) No increase in storms, droughts, huricanes, tornados.
6) Increased crop yields.

> http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temper...

Blah blah blah, the usual assertions without evidence to back them up.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 5, 2011, 9:33:59 AM5/5/11
to
On May 4, 8:17 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "AGW Facts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:30m3s61ko3ib25r9h...@4ax.com
>
>
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change...

>
> > How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> > website
>
> > Posted by  John Cook Thursday 28 April 2011 12.53 BST
>
> > What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration
> > that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming
> > evidence they refuse to accept.
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-cha...
> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temper...

Well, if, say, radio broadcasts were up and temps were up, we'd be
right in dismissing that as merely a correlation. But since we know
CO2 causes temps to go up, and since we've ruled out all other causes
of temps going up, it's a logical assumption to make that the
increased CO2 is the cause of the increased temps.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 5, 2011, 9:34:26 AM5/5/11
to
On May 4, 8:45 pm, Well Done <WellD...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
> AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change...

> >How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
>
> Finding a lie all over the web doesn't make it true.
> AGW is bunk.  Science tells us that.

Eighth time I've asked you for scientific references on this.

Put up or shut up, coward.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 5, 2011, 9:34:54 AM5/5/11
to

Matt wouldn't know the truth if it bit him. Typical sociopath
behavior.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 5, 2011, 9:38:29 AM5/5/11
to

Lie. When the hottest decade on record is the most recent one, when
every decade for the past half-century has been hotter than the one
before it, when 8 of the 10 hottest years have been in the last
decade, it's not only stupid to say there's lack of warming, it's a
flat-out lie.


>
> > It's based on
> > many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
> > consistent answer.
>
> Wrong.  Many studies show a lot of conflicting evidence.

Then I'm sure you can cite them.

We'll wait.


>
> > This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
> > consensus among scientists.
>
> There isnt a concensus.

Really? 97% of scientific articles isn't a consensus? Every national
science academy isn't a consensus? Every scientific organization
isn't a consensus? What do you need, 200 % of all scientists before
you accept it as a consensus?


>
> >It's not about tree-hugging or secret
> > plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements
>
> Measurements which show:
>
> 1)  lack of warming for 15 years.

Lie.


> 2) Post war cooling for 30 yerars.

Warming for 150 years.


> 3) Previous warming periods that equal the recent one in the absence
> of CO2.

Lie.


> 4) Lack of positive feedbacks.

Lie.

> 5) No increase in storms, droughts, huricanes, tornados.

Lie.

> 6) Increased crop yields.

Lie.

>
> Blah blah blah, the usual assertions without evidence to back them up.

Skeptical science cites scientific articles. You cite nothing, twerp.

James

unread,
May 5, 2011, 10:08:13 AM5/5/11
to
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c74f6136-cf97-4764...@v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com

That seems to be the problem. You folks preach your fear based on an
assumption.

So the next time your doctor tells you that you have a cold, don't you
believe it. There may be tobacco smoke somewhere so that's why you are
coughng, sneezing and congested and you know better. It's logical enough
for science.

Glad you admit that AGW is based on assumptions.

RedAcer

unread,
May 5, 2011, 12:06:29 PM5/5/11
to
On 05/05/11 10:34, matt_sykes wrote:
> On May 5, 7:26 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 5, 1:17 am, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "AGW Facts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
......

>
> Scepticalscience, as usual, uses half truths. When examined in depth
> it is easilly refuted.

ok. If the arguments there are easily refuted please choose a few and
post your refutations here.

matt_sykes

unread,
May 5, 2011, 12:08:51 PM5/5/11
to
On May 5, 3:38 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

There hasnt been warming for 13 years.

>
>
>
> > > It's based on
> > > many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
> > > consistent answer.
>
> > Wrong.  Many studies show a lot of conflicting evidence.
>
> Then I'm sure you can cite them.
>
> We'll wait.

Have done many times.


>
>
>
> > > This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
> > > consensus among scientists.
>
> > There isnt a concensus.
>
> Really?  97% of scientific articles isn't a consensus?  Every national
> science academy isn't a consensus?  Every scientific organization
> isn't a consensus?  What do you need, 200 % of all scientists before
> you accept it as a consensus?
>

I have destroyed this argument many times.


>
>
> > >It's not about tree-hugging or secret
> > > plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements
>
> > Measurements which show:
>
> > 1)  lack of warming for 15 years.
>
> Lie.

Prove it.

>
> > 2) Post war cooling for 30 yerars.
>
> Warming for 150 years.

LIA recovery.


>
> > 3) Previous warming periods that equal the recent one in the absence
> > of CO2.
>
> Lie.

Wrong. Jones interview with BBC.


>
> > 4) Lack of positive feedbacks.
>
> Lie

Wrong. Current temps would be higher if feedbacks were in evidence.


>
> > 5) No increase in storms, droughts, huricanes, tornados.
>
> Lie.

Now you arwe being stupid


>
> > 6) Increased crop yields.
>
> Lie.

Really stupid


>
>
>
> > Blah blah blah, the usual assertions without evidence to back them up.
>
> Skeptical science cites scientific articles.  You cite nothing, twerp.

Lying fool.

Dawlish

unread,
May 5, 2011, 1:27:12 PM5/5/11
to
> Lying fool.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You are stupid, aren't you, half-brain?

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 5, 2011, 4:41:12 PM5/5/11
to

Try reading what you comment on.

Tell you what, you find a graph on a scientific site (not something
like "woodfortrees") that shows this.


>
>
>
> > > > It's based on
> > > > many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
> > > > consistent answer.
>
> > > Wrong.  Many studies show a lot of conflicting evidence.
>
> > Then I'm sure you can cite them.
>
> > We'll wait.
>
> Have done many times.

No, or we wouldn't keep asking you for them.


>
>
>
> > > > This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
> > > > consensus among scientists.
>
> > > There isnt a concensus.
>
> > Really?  97% of scientific articles isn't a consensus?  Every national
> > science academy isn't a consensus?  Every scientific organization
> > isn't a consensus?  What do you need, 200 % of all scientists before
> > you accept it as a consensus?
>
> I have destroyed this argument many times.

No, or we wouldn't keep bringing it up.


>
> > > >It's not about tree-hugging or secret
> > > > plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements
>
> > > Measurements which show:
>
> > > 1)  lack of warming for 15 years.
>
> > Lie.
>
> Prove it.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

"Around 2008 the deniers began to publicize a new claim: the world had
supposedly gotten no warmer in the decade since 1998. Indeed that had
been an extraordinarily warm year, for a "super El Niño" event, the
strongest of the century, had pumped some extra heat from the Pacific
Ocean into the atmosphere. No year since had been noticeably hotter
(although 2005, 2008 and 2010 roughly matched it). While the claim
excited comment among internet bloggers and a few politicians, the
actual scientific literature gave scant attention to such short-term
fluctuations, in this case probably caused by a sharp decline in solar
activity.(50a) Anyone who looked at the ten-year average of air
temperatures near the surface — which was what the weather statistics
measured — would see that the decade 1999-2008 was substantially
hotter than the decade before, which was in turn hotter than the
preceding decade, and so forth back to the 1970s. Indeed all of the
ten warmest years on record had come since 1997."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

"globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June
2009 to May 2010."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Look at the graph. Does it flatten out?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

"There is some very interesting background to that BBC interview of
Phil Jones. The Beeb were trying to be 'balanced', and so invited
(some) questions from prominent climate skeptics. That "Do you agree
that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-
significant global warming?" question in particular was in fact
carefully crafted by Lubos Motl (and Steve McIntyre may have had a
hand in there too, not sure) to paint Dr. Jones in a bad light. They
knew he had to answer it honestly, but it was a loaded question.

If you go back even *one year* to 1994, or in fact any year before
that, then the warming is statistically significant to the 95%
confidence level. As most of you know, you really can't consider
periods shorter than 22 years because of the influence of solar
cycles. 15 years is not nearly long enough. Motl and McIntyre know
this, of course. So this is what climate science is up against: clever
little deceptions and spin to score cheap points in the eyes of the
public. "

>
>
>
> > > 2) Post war cooling for 30 yerars.
>
> > Warming for 150 years.
>
> LIA recovery.

That's not a cause.


>
>
>
> > > 3) Previous warming periods that equal the recent one in the absence
> > > of CO2.
>
> > Lie.
>
> Wrong.  Jones interview with BBC.

He never said that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-sticks-unprecedented-warming-and-past-climate-change.html

>
>
>
> > > 4) Lack of positive feedbacks.
>
> > Lie
>
> Wrong.  Current temps would be higher if feedbacks were in evidence.
>
>

Wrong again. Care to cite a scientific study which says that?


>
> > > 5) No increase in storms, droughts, huricanes, tornados.
>
> > Lie.
>
> Now you arwe being stupid

Uh, tornado outbreak this year? Most ever?

Giga2

unread,
May 5, 2011, 4:51:50 PM5/5/11
to

"RedAcer" <red...@freddRed.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ipuhu2$pl7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

That has happened many many times.


matt_sykes

unread,
May 6, 2011, 8:03:43 AM5/6/11
to
On May 5, 10:41 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

So hang on, when looking at a temperature chart, we are supposed to
filter out el-nino effects?

Come on, say yes, this ones going to be publicised. :)


>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
>
> "globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June
> 2009 to May 2010."
>

> http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-tropos...


>
> Look at the graph.  Does it flatten out?

No, it goes into a steep decline post 2001.

>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-januar...


>
> "There is some very interesting background to that BBC interview of
> Phil Jones. The Beeb were trying to be 'balanced', and so invited
> (some) questions from prominent climate skeptics. That "Do you agree
> that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-
> significant global warming?" question in particular was in fact
> carefully crafted by Lubos Motl (and Steve McIntyre may have had a
> hand in there too, not sure) to paint Dr. Jones in a bad light. They
> knew he had to answer it honestly, but it was a loaded question.
>
> If you go back even *one year* to 1994, or in fact any year before
> that, then the warming is statistically significant to the 95%
> confidence level. As most of you know, you really can't consider
> periods shorter than 22 years because of the influence of solar
> cycles. 15 years is not nearly long enough. Motl and McIntyre know
> this, of course. So this is what climate science is up against: clever
> little deceptions and spin to score cheap points in the eyes of the
> public. "

22 years? I thought it was 30. Perhaps its any period that suits the
graph you are using eh?

>
>
>
> > > > 2) Post war cooling for 30 yerars.
>
> > > Warming for 150 years.
>
> > LIA recovery.
>
> That's not a cause.

Didnt say it was, but its a fact still.

>
>
>
> > > > 3) Previous warming periods that equal the recent one in the absence
> > > > of CO2.
>
> > > Lie.
>
> > Wrong.  Jones interview with BBC.
>
> He never said that.


He did. He said all four warming periods were stastically the same in
rate and extent.
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-sticks-unprecedented-warming-a...


>
>
>
> > > > 4) Lack of positive feedbacks.
>
> > > Lie
>
> > Wrong.  Current temps would be higher if feedbacks were in evidence.
>
> Wrong again.  Care to cite a scientific study which says that?

Why not rely on logic? Surely you have some.

>
>
>
> > > > 5) No increase in storms, droughts, huricanes, tornados.
>
> > > Lie.
>
> > Now you arwe being stupid
>
> Uh, tornado outbreak this year?  Most ever?

So? Track the f5s (because this illiminates reporting errors) and you
have no increase in tornado activity.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 6) Increased crop yields.
>
> > > Lie.
>
> > Really stupid
>
> > > > Blah blah blah, the usual assertions without evidence to back them up.
>
> > > Skeptical science cites scientific articles.  You cite nothing, twerp.
>

> > Lying fool.- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

matt_sykes

unread,
May 6, 2011, 8:04:18 AM5/6/11
to
> You are stupid, aren't you, half-brain?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If you are a measure of intelligence, I will be happy to be stupid.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:14:20 AM5/6/11
to

Really? The graph at that site?

You're either the balliest liar ever, or you're incredibly stupid.


>
>
>
>
> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-januar...
>
> > "There is some very interesting background to that BBC interview of
> > Phil Jones. The Beeb were trying to be 'balanced', and so invited
> > (some) questions from prominent climate skeptics. That "Do you agree
> > that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-
> > significant global warming?" question in particular was in fact
> > carefully crafted by Lubos Motl (and Steve McIntyre may have had a
> > hand in there too, not sure) to paint Dr. Jones in a bad light. They
> > knew he had to answer it honestly, but it was a loaded question.
>
> > If you go back even *one year* to 1994, or in fact any year before
> > that, then the warming is statistically significant to the 95%
> > confidence level. As most of you know, you really can't consider
> > periods shorter than 22 years because of the influence of solar
> > cycles. 15 years is not nearly long enough. Motl and McIntyre know
> > this, of course. So this is what climate science is up against: clever
> > little deceptions and spin to score cheap points in the eyes of the
> > public. "
>
> 22 years? I thought it was 30.  Perhaps its any period that suits the
> graph you are using eh?

How about years that you don't get to pick?


>
>
>
> > > > > 2) Post war cooling for 30 yerars.
>
> > > > Warming for 150 years.
>
> > > LIA recovery.
>
> > That's not a cause.
>
> Didnt say it was, but its a fact still.

Sure, and it's a fact taking ice out of the freezer makes it melt.
But so what? It doesn't tell us why the ice is melting.


>
>
>
> > > > > 3) Previous warming periods that equal the recent one in the absence
> > > > > of CO2.
>
> > > > Lie.
>
> > > Wrong.  Jones interview with BBC.
>
> > He never said that.
>
> He did.  He said all four warming periods were stastically the same in
> rate and extent.


Nope.

>
>
>
> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-sticks-unprecedented-warming-a...
>
> > > > > 4) Lack of positive feedbacks.
>
> > > > Lie
>
> > > Wrong.  Current temps would be higher if feedbacks were in evidence.
>
> > Wrong again.  Care to cite a scientific study which says that?
>
> Why not rely on logic?  Surely you have some.

But nobody believes you on matters of science.


>
>
>
> > > > > 5) No increase in storms, droughts, huricanes, tornados.
>
> > > > Lie.
>
> > > Now you arwe being stupid
>
> > Uh, tornado outbreak this year?  Most ever?
>
> So?  Track the f5s (because this illiminates reporting errors) and you
> have no increase in tornado activity.


You said "no increase in tornadoes." This year has seen a huge
increase.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:34:27 AM5/6/11
to
On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:17:16 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:

Nutter.

> Those
> types of evidence are immaterial to the question of 'human produced'
> global warming'.

Nobody claimed otherwise, nutter.

> Neither does glaciers are melting or Kilimanjarro is
> losing it's snow cap. So tell us how co2 is killing us all.

Nutter.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:35:55 AM5/6/11
to

> Scepticalscience, as usual, uses half truths. When examined in depth
> it is easilly refuted.

How very odd that nobody has even bothered trying to refute the
science skepticalscience.com references, eg? If it were easy as
you claim, why hasn't it been done?

AGW Facts

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:36:27 AM5/6/11
to

He means here in the real world, alarmist.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:38:53 AM5/6/11
to
On Wed, 04 May 2011 17:45:39 -0700, Well Done
<Well...@WellHoned.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:59:55 -0600, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science
> >
> > How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> > website
> >

> Finding a lie all over the web doesn't make it true.

Nutter.

> AGW is bunk.

It is of course an observed fact.

> Science tells us that.

The Bible tells you that.

> The East Anglia CRU emails tell us that.

Huh?

> Repeated recants by the IPCC tell us that.

In what universe?

> Ridiculous lies by AlGore tell us that. False temp readings published knowngly by
> NASA and NOAA tell us that. My own butt walking outside in May when
> it's 3 degrees tells ME that. WHAT is your PROBLEM, AGW?

Hysterical alarmist. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Try to control
youself.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:39:48 AM5/6/11
to
On Thu, 5 May 2011 07:42:40 +0100, "Giga2" <"Giga2"
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:59:55 -0600, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>

> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science
> >
> > How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> > website
> >

> skepsci was clearly started as a pro-AGW

There is no such thing as "pro-AGW." Only a homicidal sociopath
would be "pro-AGW."

> propaganda excercise and this
> article is part of that sophisticated campaign, as is this following book
> presumably.

"It's a conspiracy!" Nutter.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:42:53 AM5/6/11
to

Past ten years = hottest on record. Ooops!

> > It's based on
> > many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
> > consistent answer.

> Wrong. Many studies show a lot of conflicting evidence.

Why not provide the world with an example?

> > This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
> > consensus among scientists.

> There isnt a concensus.

Denial (n): An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by
refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

> > It's not about tree-hugging or secret
> > plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements

> Measurements which show:
>
> 1) lack of warming for 15 years.

Only in your imagination.

> 2) Post war cooling for 30 yerars.

Atmospheric aerosols.

> 3) Previous warming periods that equal the recent one in the absence
> of CO2.

The issue is the current global temperature anomaly,
shit-for-brains.

> 4) Lack of positive feedbacks.

Only in your imagination.

> 5) No increase in storms, droughts, huricanes, tornados.

Only in your imagination.

> 6) Increased crop yields.

You mean the decrease in crop yields.

Only in your imagination.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 6, 2011, 11:46:58 AM5/6/11
to

He believes that lying will get him into Free Market Heaven. But
that isn't all that is required: one must also kill an honest
economist.

Giga2

unread,
May 6, 2011, 12:15:16 PM5/6/11
to

"AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:fb58s616hbnf7lqce...@4ax.com...
Try back reading the group a bit.


Giga2

unread,
May 6, 2011, 12:15:48 PM5/6/11
to

"AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:b958s6trjgtaitit7...@4ax.com...
Do read a little bit before posting.


Giga2

unread,
May 6, 2011, 12:16:42 PM5/6/11
to

"AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:2758s6lcgssoj5qvb...@4ax.com...

AGW Facts is another name for Dawlish? Close enough, plonk.


Dawlish

unread,
May 6, 2011, 2:13:44 PM5/6/11
to
On May 6, 5:16 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "AGW Facts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
>
> news:2758s6lcgssoj5qvb...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 4 May 2011 20:17:16 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "AGW Facts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
> >>news:30m3s61ko3ib25r9h...@4ax.com
> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change...

>
> >> > How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> >> > website
>
> >> > Posted by  John Cook Thursday 28 April 2011 12.53 BST
>
> >> > What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration
> >> > that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming
> >> > evidence they refuse to accept.
>
> >> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-cha...
> >> >http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsite-influences-on-global-temper...
> AGW Facts is another name for Dawlish? Close enough, plonk.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

errrrrrrrrr......... Did someone else rattle your cage in a way with
which you couldn't cope? It's not difficult. I should know.

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 6, 2011, 8:57:32 PM5/6/11
to
On May 5, 9:33 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> increased CO2 is the cause of the increased temps.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So you deny deforestation causes GW.

And you deny plowing up the prairies to plant crops causes climate
change.

And you deny that pumping huge quantities of water on those fields for
irrigation causes climate change.

And you deny urban sprawl contributes to climate change.

And you deny that a change in the earth's albedo could cause GW.

Just to name a few things besides CO2 that real scientists know are
playing a part in GW.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,
May 6, 2011, 9:00:34 PM5/6/11
to
theOp's cite, that the Denierists are given equal footing
with teh Confirmerists of computer science, is not so,
of the Liberal Media, oWned by consWervatives,
as far as i have seen, which is a constant deluge
of the nonsequiter, oxymoron, or misnomer
of "gloabl" warming -- based u[pon a bad model
of Ahrrenius' g;ass house effect.

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 6, 2011, 9:22:38 PM5/6/11
to
On May 6, 12:16 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:

[snip]

> AGW Facts is another name for Dawlish? Close enough, plonk.

I think you will find he has a lot more in common with Desertphile.

James

unread,
May 6, 2011, 10:07:16 PM5/6/11
to

James

unread,
May 6, 2011, 10:23:53 PM5/6/11
to
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1406585a-c2ed-49b4...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com

I doubt 500% would do it. If it's that cut and dried, why is the world
not in a state of panic and on their knees praying to these science
gods.
--
Civilisation is the period between ice ages.

James

unread,
May 6, 2011, 10:54:51 PM5/6/11
to
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ebe35f4f-f411-4214...@e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com

Maybe it's his evil twin brother Skippy.

Giga2

unread,
May 7, 2011, 2:48:59 AM5/7/11
to

"Bruce Richmond" <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ebe35f4f-f411-4214...@e21g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

=Double plonk


Giga2

unread,
May 7, 2011, 2:50:09 AM5/7/11
to

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:4dc4a963$0$2423$d94e...@news.iglou.com...

>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> errrrrrrrrr......... Did someone else rattle your cage in a way with
>> which you couldn't cope? It's not difficult. I should know.
>
> Shame. Tsk
Yeah, any old time-wasting troll can do it.


matt_sykes

unread,
May 7, 2011, 4:18:07 AM5/7/11
to
On May 6, 5:14 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

One year isnt a trend,

Dawlish

unread,
May 7, 2011, 4:54:10 AM5/7/11
to
> Just to name a few things besides CO2 that **real scientists*** know are
> playing a part in GW.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Ooooops. Here we go again.

Where are the real scientists? We hear this term so many times, but
who are they?? Who are the real scientists who believe all of these
things, which, *undeniably may well be contributing to climate change*
(i/e. no-one would deny that possibility - just so you are clear on
that one), contribute *significantly* to climate change and more than
CO2 can? Where are they? You've said they exist, so who are they.

Really, where are they? Deniers, like you, do actually believe that
these "real scientists" exist somewhere. Last time I heard, they were
all hiding under tundy's bed (best not to climb on top, dirty sheets
and all that).

So come on then brucie. Same question to you. Where are these "real
scientists".........or have you lied for effect (again) about their
existence.

matt_sykes

unread,
May 7, 2011, 7:51:13 AM5/7/11
to

Playing with words again. Childish.

Dawlish

unread,
May 7, 2011, 8:24:13 AM5/7/11
to
> Playing with words again.  Childish.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe you've got the "real scientists" in your garden, half brain.
Would you be able to help us in finding them?

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,
May 7, 2011, 5:08:12 PM5/7/11
to
I see this assumption, all of the time,
that the very activities that create CO2 are less effective
than the mere ideal gas law theory and Ahrrenius' metaphor
of 1896. take, for instance, jet aircraft, subtract the CO2 but
retain the H2O in the exhuast, and what other factors
are there, that ought to effect the weather,
as well as the climate.

Dawlish

unread,
May 7, 2011, 5:19:37 PM5/7/11
to
> Would you be able to help us in finding them?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Still waiting for the "real scientists" to be unveiled.

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 7, 2011, 5:22:44 PM5/7/11
to

Yup, here we go agasin. Stinky is going to do his best to distract
everyone from the point being made.


erschroedinger wrote:
"But since we know CO2 causes temps to go up, and since we've ruled
out all other causes of temps going up, it's a logical assumption to
make that the increased CO2 is the cause of the increased temps."

Note in particular the part about, "and since we've ruled out all
other causes of temps going up".

Do you agree with that Stinky?

Do you deny deforestation causes GW?

Do you deny plowing up the prairies to plant crops causes climate
change?

Do you deny that pumping huge quantities of water on those fields for
irrigation causes climate change?

Do you deny urban sprawl contributes to climate change?

Do you deny that a change in the earth's albedo could cause GW?

If you don't deny any of the above then there's no need for me to
provide the references to make you look stupid. So tell us, which of
the above things do you deny?

[snip diversions]

Dawlish

unread,
May 7, 2011, 5:27:38 PM5/7/11
to
> [snip diversions]- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No-one thinks these things could have an effect, as I said before. Now
who supports yiour point of vies that any.or all, of these provide
sufficient warming to equal the probable warming due to CO2 and thus
explain the current warning?

Also, don't try to evade: where are the "real scientists"? You appear
to have avoided that question,

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 7, 2011, 6:43:15 PM5/7/11
to

Get this straight right now Stinky, you do not dictate my views. All
I have done here is questioned erschroedinger's statement that all
other causes of GW besides CO2 have been ruled out. Now one more
time, are you denying that the things I listed affect GW?

> Also, don't try to evade: where are the "real scientists"? You appear
> to have avoided that question,

You can find some listed in the IPCC reports. They do not claim that
CO2 is the only cause of GW.

Dawlish

unread,
May 8, 2011, 2:13:38 AM5/8/11
to

*No-one* claims that CO2 is the only cause of GW. Find me a single
scientist in the IPCC reports that claims that CO2 is the only cause
of GW. Go on. There aren't any. The IPCC certainly doesn't think that.
It is a sceptical organisation, attributing cause to many factors.

Now your lies are getting out of hand and your comments are just
getting sillier and sillier. You keep giving your views brucie. I'll
keep taking them to pieces. People would pay for the entertainment
that you provide.

Dawlish

unread,
May 8, 2011, 8:59:05 AM5/8/11
to
On May 8, 7:13 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 11:43 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:

<snipped; the rest is still all there above>

> > > > > > Just to name a few things besides CO2 that **real scientists*** know are
> > > > > > playing a part in GW.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Ooooops. Here we go again.

So where's these "real scientists" then brucie? You know, the one's
that believe that your list of GW change agents are greater than CO2?

I keep looking for these "real scientists", but I can never seem to
find them. brucie will know though. He knows these things.

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 8, 2011, 9:08:33 AM5/8/11
to

[snip]

That was my point Stinky. Erschroedinger claimed "all other causes"
were ruled out. I corrected him. It's nice that you can agree that
his statement was not correct.

Dawlish

unread,
May 8, 2011, 10:06:28 AM5/8/11
to
> make that the increased CO2 is the cause of the increased temps."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Typical denier obfuscation.

That statement of e's is correct. There are no other causes,
presently, which can have caused the current warming. There are many
things that can cause GW. You've listed a few and no-one, including e,
I'm sure, would say that they couldn't. However, if you have a cause,
or causes, that are *more likely* than CO2 to have caused the current
warming; let's hear about it. Your list above certainly couldn't and
you can't link to a single "real scientist" that thinks that, can you?

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 8, 2011, 11:16:48 AM5/8/11
to

Typical Stinky response. My statment was made in response to e's
statement, not your elaboration on his behalf. What's more my
statement did not contain the further elaboration you added on my
behalf. It's things like this that make you a stinking troll.

Dawlish

unread,
May 8, 2011, 12:18:49 PM5/8/11
to
On May 8, 4:16 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> > > erschroedinger wrote:
>
> > > "But since we know CO2 causes temps to go up, and since we've ruled
> > > out all other causes of temps going up, it's a logical assumption to
> > > make that the increased CO2 is the cause of the increased temps."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Typical denier obfuscation.
>
> > That statement of e's is correct. There are no other causes,
> > presently, which can have caused the current warming. There are many
> > things that can cause GW. You've listed a few and no-one, including e,
> > I'm sure, would say that they couldn't. However, if you have a cause,
> > or causes, that are *more likely* than CO2 to have caused the current
> > warming; let's hear about it. Your list above certainly couldn't and
> > you can't link to a single "real scientist" that thinks that, can you?

Easier to leave it as it is. Brucie lies *again*.

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 8, 2011, 1:07:04 PM5/8/11
to
> Easier to leave it as it is. Brucie lies *again*.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

IOW you have no defense against my last post so you just snip it.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5c677187948700aa?hl=en&

Dawlish

unread,
May 8, 2011, 1:39:05 PM5/8/11
to
> Easier to leave it as it is. Brucie lies *again*.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Same again.......

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 8, 2011, 2:03:50 PM5/8/11
to
> Same again.......- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, Stinky is still a lying troll. If he can't find a lie he will
rewrite what you wrote so that he can find one. Stupid troll.

Dawlish

unread,
May 8, 2011, 2:39:36 PM5/8/11
to
> Same again.......- Hide quoted text -

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 8, 2011, 3:02:45 PM5/8/11
to
> Same again.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What's the matter Stinky? Can't respond to my current posts? You
have to pick through old ones and agree with yourself?

Dawlish

unread,
May 8, 2011, 4:57:15 PM5/8/11
to
> rewrite what you wrote so that he can find one.  Stupid troll."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Fun this, liar isn't it? Where's the "real scientists" then?

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 8, 2011, 9:51:16 PM5/8/11
to
> Fun this, liar isn't it? Where's the "real scientists" then?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I told you there are some at the IPCC. You don't believe that? Go
ahead Stinky, try editing my answer. Or tell us what you think it
really means, which may be something that will surprise us all.

Dawlish

unread,
May 9, 2011, 2:45:30 AM5/9/11
to
> really means, which may be something that will surprise us all.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So who are they??? Who are these "real scientists" that you've
repeatedly said are there? Name "some". In fact, name *one* who
believes what you do. Just one. That's not much to ask is it? Very
fair. Name just *one* whose work shows that your list of causal agents
for global warming is likely to have more of an effect on warming the
climate than anthropgenic CO2. If you can't; you lied - see?

Just one. Don't flap this time and name call. Do as asked, or you
lied.

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 9, 2011, 7:48:07 AM5/9/11
to

Nope, because I never made that claim, you did on my behalf. To make
a liar out of me you need to provide a quote of where I made that
claim and a link to where it came from. We both know you can't do
that because I never wrote that.

> Just one. Don't flap this time and name call. Do as asked, or you

> lied.- Hide quoted text -

Dawlish

unread,
May 9, 2011, 7:55:34 AM5/9/11
to
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You never consider you have written anything after you've written it
brucie. brucie eraser; that's you. Whatever lies you write you simply
deny post-event. It's delusional.

That's where I come in. You write lies and I'll continue to expose
you. You'll hate it, of course and you'll squirm like the worm you
are, but it will make no difference. There are no "real scientists"
that share your view that your list of causal factors for GW are more
likely than CO2 to be the main driver of the current warming.

"real scientists"...........You have become a joke.

erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 9, 2011, 11:43:36 AM5/9/11
to
> > right in dismissing that as merely a correlation.  But since we know

> > CO2 causes temps to go up, and since we've ruled out all other causes
> > of temps going up, it's a logical assumption to make that the
> > increased CO2 is the cause of the increased temps.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So you deny deforestation causes GW.
>
> And you deny plowing up the prairies to plant crops causes climate
> change.


Wow, agriculature just started recently?


>
> And you deny that pumping huge quantities of water on those fields for
> irrigation causes climate change.
>
> And you deny urban sprawl contributes to climate change.

No, and I admit adding a drop of HCl to 1000 gallons of water
contributes to acidity as well. Not as much as adding 100 gallons of
nitric acid though.


>
> And you deny that a change in the earth's albedo could cause GW.

But what caused the change in the albedo?


>
> Just to name a few things besides CO2 that real scientists know are

AGW Facts

unread,
May 18, 2011, 2:34:23 PM5/18/11
to
On Fri, 6 May 2011 17:15:48 +0100, "Giga2" <"Giga2"
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:

>
> "AGW Facts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
> news:b958s6trjgtaitit7...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 5 May 2011 02:34:25 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
> > <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 5, 7:26 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> > > losing it's snow cap. So tell us how co2 is killing us all.- Hide

> >> > > quoted text -
> >> >
> >> > > - Show quoted text -
> >> >

> >> > You wouldn't; but then again, you are stupid. Skeptical science
> >> > provides some awfully unanswerable arguments, based on published
> >> > science. Climate deniers hate it and daren't read if, because they
> >> > cannot cope with the arguments it gives. Can you jimmy?
> >> >
> >> > Did something else say something else on the subject as well?- Hide
> >> > quoted text -

> >> Scepticalscience, as usual, uses half truths. When examined in depth
> >> it is easilly refuted.

> > How very odd that nobody has even bothered trying to refute the
> > science skepticalscience.com references, eg? If it were easy as
> > you claim, why hasn't it been done?

> Do read a little bit before posting.

I subscribe to and read six peer-reviewed science journals, two of
which are specifically related to climate.

If you see anything on skepticalscience.com that is wrong, do tell
them and get it corrected, m'kay? Thak you in advance.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 18, 2011, 2:36:38 PM5/18/11
to
On Fri, 6 May 2011 17:57:32 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Richmond
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> On May 5, 9:33 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > losing it's snow cap. So tell us how co2 is killing us all.
> >
> > Well, if, say, radio broadcasts were up and temps were up, we'd be
> > right in dismissing that as merely a correlation.  But since we know
> > CO2 causes temps to go up, and since we've ruled out all other causes
> > of temps going up, it's a logical assumption to make that the
> > increased CO2 is the cause of the increased temps.- Hide quoted text -

> So you deny deforestation causes GW.


>
> And you deny plowing up the prairies to plant crops causes climate
> change.
>

> And you deny that pumping huge quantities of water on those fields for
> irrigation causes climate change.
>
> And you deny urban sprawl contributes to climate change.
>

> And you deny that a change in the earth's albedo could cause GW.
>

> Just to name a few things besides CO2 that real scientists know are
> playing a part in GW.

Golly, I love it when anti-science nutters use the phrase "real
scientists."

AGW Facts

unread,
May 18, 2011, 2:43:07 PM5/18/11
to
On Sat, 7 May 2011 01:54:10 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 7, 1:57 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:

*CUTS*

> > Just to name a few things besides CO2 that **real scientists*** know are


> > playing a part in GW.

All of the experts agree CO2 is not the only cause of the current
global temperature anomaly. They have known this for =DECADES.-=

> Ooooops. Here we go again.

Yep. Bizarro World

> Where are the real scientists? We hear this term so many times, but
> who are they?? Who are the real scientists who believe all of these
> things, which, *undeniably may well be contributing to climate change*
> (i/e. no-one would deny that possibility - just so you are clear on
> that one), contribute *significantly* to climate change and more than
> CO2 can? Where are they? You've said they exist, so who are they.

The scientific consensus is from 60% to 80% was caused by and is
being caused by human-produced CO2. Dr. Hansen _et_al_
demonstrated this in January 1988; published 6 May 1988.

Bruce Richmond and his cult wishes people to believe otherwise.

> Really, where are they? Deniers, like you, do actually believe that
> these "real scientists" exist somewhere. Last time I heard, they were
> all hiding under tundy's bed (best not to climb on top, dirty sheets
> and all that).

FOX "News" is one of these "real scientists."

AGW Facts

unread,
May 18, 2011, 2:45:31 PM5/18/11
to
On Fri, 6 May 2011 22:23:53 -0400, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1406585a-c2ed-49b4...@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com
> > On May 5, 5:38 am, matt_sykes <zzeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> >> On May 5, 12:59 am, AGW Facts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change...
> >>
> >>> How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science
> >>> website
> >>
> >>> Posted by John Cook Thursday 28 April 2011 12.53 BST
> >>
> >>> What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration
> >>> that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming
> >>> evidence they refuse to accept.
> >>
> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-cha...
> >>

> >>> My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough –


> >>> namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members.
> >>> This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one
> >>> wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I
> >>> knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging
> >>> online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make
> >>> sense of it all?
> >>
> >>> At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began
> >>> constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to
> >>> the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the
> >>> ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based
> >>> research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously
> >>> scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the
> >>> various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.
> >>
> >>> The case for human-caused global warming is robust.
> >>

> >> Wrong. Lack of warming for 15 years disproves the theory of
> >> 'AGW' (quotes mean its the alarmist kind)
> >
> > Lie. When the hottest decade on record is the most recent one, when
> > every decade for the past half-century has been hotter than the one
> > before it, when 8 of the 10 hottest years have been in the last
> > decade, it's not only stupid to say there's lack of warming, it's a
> > flat-out lie.


> >
> >
> >>
> >>> It's based on
> >>> many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single,
> >>> consistent answer.
> >>

> >> Wrong. Many studies show a lot of conflicting evidence.
> >
> > Then I'm sure you can cite them.
> >
> > We'll wait.


> >
> >
> >>
> >>> This preponderance of evidence is why we have a
> >>> consensus among scientists.

> >> There isnt a concensus.

> > Really? 97% of scientific articles isn't a consensus? Every national
> > science academy isn't a consensus? Every scientific organization
> > isn't a consensus? What do you need, 200 % of all scientists before
> > you accept it as a consensus?

> I doubt 500% would do it.

Almost 98% of the experts say humans have caused and are causing
global warming because that's what 100% of the evidence shows. If
you believe the experts are wrong, your next step is to write a
paper on the subject and send it to a refereed peer-reviewed
science journal and tell them about it. It is your civic duty to
the world. What the hell are you waiting for?! Start here:
http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/jcli/

> If it's that cut and dried, why is the world not in a state of panic
> and on their knees praying to these science gods.

Nutter.

Dawlish

unread,
May 19, 2011, 2:08:09 AM5/19/11
to
> scientists."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It happens a lot. The "real scientists", strangely, always support the
denier's views too. However, the denier that uses the term can *never*
identify them. The levels of delusion about this, in this particular
lying nutcase's case stretch to saying they can be found at the IPCC.
Weird, but apparently true.

AGW Facts

unread,
May 19, 2011, 7:29:23 PM5/19/11
to
On Wed, 18 May 2011 12:34:23 -0600, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

That shut him up. LOL!

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 19, 2011, 8:58:43 PM5/19/11
to
> Weird, but apparently true.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So Stinky, which of these things do the IPCC scientists not believe?

Deforestation causes GW.

Plowing up the prairies to plant crops causes climate change.

Urban sprawl contributes to climate change.

A change in the earth's albedo could cause GW.

Large scale irrigation causes climate change.


Those are the claims I made.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3f119a7ecd4ba3c1?hl=en


Dawlish

unread,
May 20, 2011, 1:58:01 AM5/20/11
to
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3f119a7ecd4ba3c...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yup and then you said there are real scientists out there, working for
the IPCC, who agree with you. You then started squirming when asked to
back it up (there aren't any, of course) and you have been desperately
squirming ever since. You snipped that part, of course.

You lie. You lie because you have nothing else to back your views. You
lie and you hate being caught and exposed for it. Tough.

Bruce Richmond

unread,
May 20, 2011, 8:42:33 AM5/20/11
to
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/3f119a7ecd4ba3c...Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yup and then you said there are real scientists out there, working for
> the IPCC, who agree with you.

Yup

> You then started squirming when asked to
> back it up (there aren't any, of course) and you have been desperately
> squirming ever since. You snipped that part, of course.

On May 7 Bruce wrote:
"You can find some listed in the IPCC reports. They do not claim that
CO2 is the only cause of GW."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/4bd67251f1bf1d44?hl=en&

On May 8 Dawlish snipped that from the quoted text and wrote:
"So where's these "real scientists" then brucie? You know, the one's
that believe that your list of GW change agents are greater than
CO2?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/6cb746dec878bb94?hl=en

Who was squirming? Pretending I hadn't responded and rewriting what I
had claimed to suit yourself. You are a lying troll Dawlish.

0 new messages