An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[Old Rocks]

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Really? Mann WON a Nobel? Do tell... When exactly did he win it and for what?

Mr. Westwall, I have been asking you for the last five years, when are you going to present the evidence that will demolish AGW Theory at the annual AGU Conference in San Francisco? You claim to be a Phd Geologist, and a member of the AGU as well as the Royal Society. So that should be easy for you. Care to share when your time will be at the convention?

 

[Old Rocks]

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection

Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park (US) showing recession since 1850 of 1.1 km USGS

Glacier retreat is one of the most important topics in the field of glaciology. Worldwide there has been a general reduction in size of glaciers, especially in mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the Andes as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. Since accurate measurement techniques and the ability to record changes photographically became widespread in the mid-19th century, glaciers have been in a state of recession in almost every region of the Earth. The demise of glaciers in arid regions has potential widespred impacts on water supplies during droughts and dryer seasonal periods in locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia. Since the end of the last glacial maximum 14,000 years ago, glaciers across the world have been retreating, but the more recent trend since the end of the Little ice age around the year 1850, has been for a much faster general retreat of glaciers worldwide. This glacier retreat has become much more significantly pronounced since 1980.

In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed. Glacial retreat declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However since 1980, glacial retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and sub-tropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative support to the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century. Also of great importance is the substantial retreat and acceleration since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet that may foreshadow a rise in sea level.



Europe have been among some of the most photographed and studied on Earth, especially in the Alps. Since the dawn of photography we have visible conclusive evidence that since the mid 19 century, all of the glaciers of Europe have been in a general state of retreat.


Alps

click on link for more information.

Glacier retreat

Glacier Retreat in Alaska








The Dead and the Dying - through the glaciers of Tutka Valley
READ ARTICLE

Last winter's meager snowfall was followed by volcanic ash, then a warm sunny spring, melting the mountains back to bare ice and rock. Even amongst high peaks, the usual snow slopes were boulders and scree, bare rock fields with barely a hint of vegetation. Some of the dime-sized patches of moss might not have seen sun in years. Some of the rock might never have seen sun at all. It was a good time to visit the dead and the dying - the glaciers not long for this world.

Across the globe, glaciers are retreating. This melting has accelerated dramatically in the past few decades. Alaska is no exception, with 98% of the state's glaciers shrinking, losing over 20 cubic miles of ice each year. Globally, the melting of glaciers contributes to sea level rise. Locally, glacial retreat can change river and ecosystem dynamics.



Read more: Glacier Retreat in Alaska

Read more: Glacier Retreat in Alaska

I can and have also posted USGS photos of glaciers taken a hundred years ago and those taken at present. Are you claiming that those are computer constructs, Mr. Westwall?

 

[westwall]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

Mr. Westwall, as has been pointed out to you before, real scientists have shown your statement to be false many times in many ways. Here is one of them from one of the leading glaciologists in the world.

Ohh lookey here olfraud can't comprehend what he's spewing. Color me unsurprised.

 

[westwall]

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Really? Mann WON a Nobel? Do tell... When exactly did he win it and for what?

Mr. Westwall, I have been asking you for the last five years, when are you going to present the evidence that will demolish AGW Theory at the annual AGU Conference in San Francisco? You claim to be a Phd Geologist, and a member of the AGU as well as the Royal Society. So that should be easy for you. Care to share when your time will be at the convention?

As soon as they decide to not deny papers that refute their preconceived positions.

 

[Boston1]

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,

Seriously?

He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

What was the reason? When did he win?

As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue

Any luck in your search?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

 

[Boston1]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

 

[Vigilante]

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,

Seriously?

He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

What was the reason? When did he win?

As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue

Any luck in your search?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

And the Obomanation won the Nobel Peace prize 14 days into office....that award is USELESS!

 

[Boston1]

Nobody denies the climate changes or that humans, just like every species, impacts all elements of the environment, including the weather.

None of that gives you the right to impose your progressive nonsense on others. If you're so sure the glaciers are melting, move inland.

I wasn't aware other species drill for oil.

Any chance you can send us a photo of say, chipmunks, all standing around an oil rig waiting for that next big strike ?????

 

[Boston1]

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Really? Mann WON a Nobel? Do tell... When exactly did he win it and for what?

2007 co author IPCC. No he was not named but what it the IPCC but its authors ? Actually the two that were named along with the IPCC weren't even authors. So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,

Seriously?

He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

What was the reason? When did he win?

As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue

Any luck in your search?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Really? Mann WON a Nobel? Do tell... When exactly did he win it and for what?

2007 co author IPCC. No he was not named but what it the IPCC but its authors ? Actually the two that were named along with the IPCC weren't even authors. So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize

So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize

But if he said he won, he'd be lying.

 

[Boston1]

Personal attacks are a sure s

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

Mr. Westwall, as has been pointed out to you before, real scientists have shown your statement to be false many times in many ways. Here is one of them from one of the leading glaciologists in the world.

Ohh lookey here olfraud can't comprehend what he's spewing. Color me unsurprised.

Really, a climate denier in charge of the climate thread. Thats entertaining

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Boston1]

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,

Seriously?

He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

What was the reason? When did he win?

As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue

Any luck in your search?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.

He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.

If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.

the facts are that if you add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every day for decades, your going to eventually alter the atmospheric chemistry

 

[Boston1]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

 

[Vigilante]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

I fear you LIE about this, as much as you do about man made climate change! If they weren't making a DECENT living off of it, do you really think they would be doing it?

 

[westwall]

Personal attacks are a sure s

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

Mr. Westwall, as has been pointed out to you before, real scientists have shown your statement to be false many times in many ways. Here is one of them from one of the leading glaciologists in the world.

Ohh lookey here olfraud can't comprehend what he's spewing. Color me unsurprised.

Really, a climate denier in charge of the climate thread. Thats entertaining

What's a "climate denier"? Anybody with a brain KNOWS that climate is always changing. What's hilarious is people thinking that it doesn't.

 

[westwall]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?

 

[westwall]

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Really? Mann WON a Nobel? Do tell... When exactly did he win it and for what?

2007 co author IPCC. No he was not named but what it the IPCC but its authors ? Actually the two that were named along with the IPCC weren't even authors. So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize

Wow. You almost sound like good old mikey. Here's the reality.... This is just another example of the unethical behavior exhibited by the climatologists at the heart of the CLIMATEGATE scandal. Over, and over, and over again it has been shown that they used shoddy methodology, made catastrophic errors in calculations, and falsified data. And people like you ignore that completely. Why? Why do you ignore obvious ethical violations?

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown


"Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Thanks to a tip off from respected climate researcher, Dr. Klaus Kaiser, myself and Tom Richard (who scooped the original Nobel story) obtained “before and after” copy images from PSU websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below)."

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

 

[Muhammed]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

Do you have some kind of straw man fetish, Chicken Little?