Solar v Anthropogenic Causes of Global Warming

[RollingThunder]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

Just more moldy old denier cult bullshit.

Scientists can directly measure solar irradiance - the amount of energy from the sun that reaches out planet, measured in Watts per square meter - with satellite instrumentation above the top of the atmosphere. There have been no increases in solar output. In fact, it has declined slightly.

The world science community is quite clear that it is the 45% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is causing the rapid abrupt global temperature increases, not the sun.

The George Marshall Institute was a rightwing front group for corporate interests, including a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry to deny human caused global warming. They were funded by EXXON, the Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, and a host of far-rightwing foundations with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In addition to working to prevent or delay any meaningful steps to deal with the climate change crisis, the Marshall Institute also worked hard to create a "false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." One of the techniques these corporate sponsored denialist groups use is to find some fringe scientists that none of the real scientists agree with and tout them as some kind of idiotic rebuttal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on human caused global warming. Their aim is to create doubt and paralyze policy making.

Here's a little more about them from the link.

In 1989, at the same time the George C. Marshall Institute initiated its “Climate Change Policy Program,” the GMI released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):
“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [4]

Newsweek has described the George C. Marshall Institute as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [5] [22]

Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy documents revealed the George C. Marshall Institute as a creditor, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [56]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [57]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [58]

The Guardian also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [59]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?

How idiotically ingenuous!

The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths.

You are obviously one of them too, with your denier cult label "Warmers" for the sane people who accept the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of human caused global warming....so tough shit if you feel all butt-hurt over being called a 'denier'.....you are one!

In the real world....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia


Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

The temperature record of the past 2000 years from several different proxy methods.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

For all of the words you typed, and accusations you threw out, you still have yet to answer the question.

Now, tell us again why it is that merely questioning the "consensus" makes one a "science denier".

Ah, but I did....you are just too stupid to understand the answer.

As I said before....

"The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

 

[oldsoul]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

Just more moldy old denier cult bullshit.

Scientists can directly measure solar irradiance - the amount of energy from the sun that reaches out planet, measured in Watts per square meter - with satellite instrumentation above the top of the atmosphere. There have been no increases in solar output. In fact, it has declined slightly.

The world science community is quite clear that it is the 45% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is causing the rapid abrupt global temperature increases, not the sun.

The George Marshall Institute was a rightwing front group for corporate interests, including a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry to deny human caused global warming. They were funded by EXXON, the Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, and a host of far-rightwing foundations with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In addition to working to prevent or delay any meaningful steps to deal with the climate change crisis, the Marshall Institute also worked hard to create a "false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." One of the techniques these corporate sponsored denialist groups use is to find some fringe scientists that none of the real scientists agree with and tout them as some kind of idiotic rebuttal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on human caused global warming. Their aim is to create doubt and paralyze policy making.

Here's a little more about them from the link.

In 1989, at the same time the George C. Marshall Institute initiated its “Climate Change Policy Program,” the GMI released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):
“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [4]

Newsweek has described the George C. Marshall Institute as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [5] [22]

Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy documents revealed the George C. Marshall Institute as a creditor, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [56]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [57]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [58]

The Guardian also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [59]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?

How idiotically ingenuous!

The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths.

You are obviously one of them too, with your denier cult label "Warmers" for the sane people who accept the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of human caused global warming....so tough shit if you feel all butt-hurt over being called a 'denier'.....you are one!

In the real world....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia


Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

The temperature record of the past 2000 years from several different proxy methods.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

For all of the words you typed, and accusations you threw out, you still have yet to answer the question.

Now, tell us again why it is that merely questioning the "consensus" makes one a "science denier".

Ah, but I did....you are just too stupid to understand the answer.

As I said before....

"The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

Ah, but it is YOU who are too stupid to realise that by your own words, you are not answering my question. I'll simplify it.



I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!


I'm talking about people, such as myself, who actually are merely questioning the "science". Seeing as you have such difficulty separating the two, I'll clarify further. I am NOT denying the possibility that you are correct. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, but, then you already made up your mind that I'm a "science denier", so this is likely futile.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ah, but it is YOU who are too stupid to realise that by your own words, you are not answering my question. I'll simplify it.

I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!

I'm talking about people, such as myself, who actually are merely questioning the "science". Seeing as you have such difficulty separating the two, I'll clarify further. I am NOT denying the possibility that you are correct. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, but, then you already made up your mind that I'm a "science denier", so this is likely futile.

You really are a retard, aren't you?

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

So you reply: "I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!"

Idiot! As I showed you in the previous post, "human caused global warming" is a scientific reality that is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.
Scientific opinion on climate change

If you are supposedly "not talking about people who are actively denying science", then you are not referring to any of the people on this forum who are "questioning" human caused global warming because they, very definitely, are quite "actively denying science". And so are you, no matter what BS you try to spin.

 

[oldsoul]

Ah, but it is YOU who are too stupid to realise that by your own words, you are not answering my question. I'll simplify it.

I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!

I'm talking about people, such as myself, who actually are merely questioning the "science". Seeing as you have such difficulty separating the two, I'll clarify further. I am NOT denying the possibility that you are correct. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, but, then you already made up your mind that I'm a "science denier", so this is likely futile.

You really are a retard, aren't you?

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

So you reply: "I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!"

Idiot! As I showed you in the previous post, "human caused global warming" is a scientific reality that is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.
Scientific opinion on climate change

If you are supposedly "not talking about people who are actively denying science", then you are not referring to any of the people on this forum who are "questioning" human caused global warming because they, very definitely, are quite "actively denying science". And so are you, no matter what BS you try to spin.

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."
I took the liberty of highlighting the operative word here for you. If you still do not understand what I am asking, I cannot help you. Additionally, it was you who made this only about posters on this forum, I was referring to people in general. The fact that you want to limit this to one specific group, then resort to name calling to attempt to reinforce your "credibility" is all the response I need. As I stated before, I am not denying ANYTHING, I am simply saying that I am not convinced. It may be that it is because of lack of information, something you could attempt, at least, to remedy with your own words. I really don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. Calling me names and linking to other people's' work is, at best, disingenuous. If you continue with this I will have little choice but to assume you lack the fortitude and/or knowledge to formulate a reasonable argument.
However, to get back to my original question, "Why do you attack instead of attempt to inform?" To inform someone who you see as uniformed would be the height of enlightenment, IMHO.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, but it is YOU who are too stupid to realise that by your own words, you are not answering my question. I'll simplify it.

I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!

I'm talking about people, such as myself, who actually are merely questioning the "science". Seeing as you have such difficulty separating the two, I'll clarify further. I am NOT denying the possibility that you are correct. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, but, then you already made up your mind that I'm a "science denier", so this is likely futile.

You really are a retard, aren't you?

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

So you reply: "I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!"

Idiot! As I showed you in the previous post, "human caused global warming" is a scientific reality that is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.
Scientific opinion on climate change

If you are supposedly "not talking about people who are actively denying science", then you are not referring to any of the people on this forum who are "questioning" human caused global warming because they, very definitely, are quite "actively denying science". And so are you, no matter what BS you try to spin.

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."
I took the liberty of highlighting the operative word here for you. If you still do not understand what I am asking, I cannot help you. Additionally, it was you who made this only about posters on this forum, I was referring to people in general. The fact that you want to limit this to one specific group, then resort to name calling to attempt to reinforce your "credibility" is all the response I need. As I stated before, I am not denying ANYTHING, I am simply saying that I am not convinced. It may be that it is because of lack of information, something you could attempt, at least, to remedy with your own words. I really don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. Calling me names and linking to other people's' work is, at best, disingenuous. If you continue with this I will have little choice but to assume you lack the fortitude and/or knowledge to formulate a reasonable argument.
However, to get back to my original question, "Why do you attack instead of attempt to inform?" To inform someone who you see as uniformed would be the height of enlightenment, IMHO.

OK, here is information from the largest Scientific Society on earth, the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[oldsoul]

Ah, but it is YOU who are too stupid to realise that by your own words, you are not answering my question. I'll simplify it.

I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!

I'm talking about people, such as myself, who actually are merely questioning the "science". Seeing as you have such difficulty separating the two, I'll clarify further. I am NOT denying the possibility that you are correct. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, but, then you already made up your mind that I'm a "science denier", so this is likely futile.

You really are a retard, aren't you?

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

So you reply: "I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!"

Idiot! As I showed you in the previous post, "human caused global warming" is a scientific reality that is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.
Scientific opinion on climate change

If you are supposedly "not talking about people who are actively denying science", then you are not referring to any of the people on this forum who are "questioning" human caused global warming because they, very definitely, are quite "actively denying science". And so are you, no matter what BS you try to spin.

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."
I took the liberty of highlighting the operative word here for you. If you still do not understand what I am asking, I cannot help you. Additionally, it was you who made this only about posters on this forum, I was referring to people in general. The fact that you want to limit this to one specific group, then resort to name calling to attempt to reinforce your "credibility" is all the response I need. As I stated before, I am not denying ANYTHING, I am simply saying that I am not convinced. It may be that it is because of lack of information, something you could attempt, at least, to remedy with your own words. I really don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. Calling me names and linking to other people's' work is, at best, disingenuous. If you continue with this I will have little choice but to assume you lack the fortitude and/or knowledge to formulate a reasonable argument.
However, to get back to my original question, "Why do you attack instead of attempt to inform?" To inform someone who you see as uniformed would be the height of enlightenment, IMHO.

OK, here is information from the largest Scientific Society on earth, the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I have no doubt it is an informative, and accurate work. However, your continued refusal to make YOUR OWN ARGUMENT indicates to me that you are not informed enough to do so. Additionally, your continued refusal to answer my questions, unrelated to whether human caused global warming is fact or not, is all the evidence I need that this conversation is a futile effort on my part. Therefore, unless you are willing to address my previously stated inquiries, I have nothing further to discuss with you.

 

[edthecynic]

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Except of course, sunspot activity is the LOWEST its been in 100 years and we have set record warm instrument measured yearly highs 3 years in a row!!! Your argument just went poof!

 

[edthecynic]

If the earths rotational speed slowed it would have a massive impact on the day/night temperature differential..

The Earth's rotational speed IS slowing down, that is why they add a leap second every few years, the last one was 2012 and before that it was 2008. At the time of the dinosaurs a solar day was 23 hours.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ah, but it is YOU who are too stupid to realise that by your own words, you are not answering my question. I'll simplify it.

I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!

I'm talking about people, such as myself, who actually are merely questioning the "science". Seeing as you have such difficulty separating the two, I'll clarify further. I am NOT denying the possibility that you are correct. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, but, then you already made up your mind that I'm a "science denier", so this is likely futile.

You really are a retard, aren't you?

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

So you reply: "I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!"

Idiot! As I showed you in the previous post, "human caused global warming" is a scientific reality that is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.
Scientific opinion on climate change

If you are supposedly "not talking about people who are actively denying science", then you are not referring to any of the people on this forum who are "questioning" human caused global warming because they, very definitely, are quite "actively denying science". And so are you, no matter what BS you try to spin.

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"
I took the liberty of highlighting the operative word here for you.

And your extremely delusional "operative word" is completely inappropriate to the reality of the situation. It would have probably greatly helped your comprehension if you had instead "highlighted" the "operative words" in my reply to your nonsense, dude. Like these: "The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying the consensus...AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

it was you who made this only about posters on this forum, I was referring to people in general.

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?".....which is total BS! Whether it is about "people in general" or the denier cult retards on this forum.

As has happened many, many times on this forum in my direct experience, people who genuinely are MERELY "questioning" how climate scientists reached their conclusions on human caused global warming are shown the evidence and the scientific research that led to those conclusions.....and that fact makes your question deluded nonsense!

There is a big difference between having 'questions' about the science involved in this AGW matter, and actively and very ignorantly DENYING climate science and then denying even the validity of science itself as a tool for human understanding of the universe around us.

I am not denying ANYTHING, I am simply saying that I am not convinced. It may be that it is because of lack of information, something you could attempt, at least, to remedy with your own words.

I have my doubts about your honesty on this point, but OK then....go ahead and ask for the information you say you lack, and I will try to provide the info you seek. First though, I would ask you why, if you feel you need more information, you ignored all of the info in post #57?

Of course, your demand for me to explain everything "in my own words" is a typical denier cult BS type demand.....as if showing you the scientific evidence from the source is somehow cheating....so, get real, and actually LOOK at the evidence supporting the conclusions of the climate scientists. If you fail at that, then I'll know you were just another denier cult dimwit from the beginning, no matter what you just claimed: "I am not denying ANYTHING".

 

[Billy_Bob]

(A) you cannot defend this behaviour, or B) you realise how ridiculous the behaviour is, and therefore must deflect instead of addressing it

All of the above...

 

[Crick]

If the earths rotational speed slowed it would have a massive impact on the day/night temperature differential..

The Earth's rotational speed IS slowing down, that is why they add a leap second every few years, the last one was 2012 and before that it was 2008. At the time of the dinosaurs a solar day was 23 hours.

We lose a leap second about every 18 months (1.5 years). And so in the last 150 years it has slowed approximately 100 seconds, or 0.116%. Do you think that's enough to have caused the warmng?

However, if we go back 65,000,000 years, to the end of the dinosaurs, the Earth's rotation should have been reduced by (65,000,000/1.5) seconds. That is not one hour, as you stated, but 42,333,333 seconds or slightly over 501 days. So, the rate of change has not been constant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, but it is YOU who are too stupid to realise that by your own words, you are not answering my question. I'll simplify it.

I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!

I'm talking about people, such as myself, who actually are merely questioning the "science". Seeing as you have such difficulty separating the two, I'll clarify further. I am NOT denying the possibility that you are correct. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, but, then you already made up your mind that I'm a "science denier", so this is likely futile.

You really are a retard, aren't you?

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."

So you reply: "I'm not talking about people who are actively denying science!!!!"

Idiot! As I showed you in the previous post, "human caused global warming" is a scientific reality that is affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community.
Scientific opinion on climate change

If you are supposedly "not talking about people who are actively denying science", then you are not referring to any of the people on this forum who are "questioning" human caused global warming because they, very definitely, are quite "actively denying science". And so are you, no matter what BS you try to spin.

You asked: "Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?"

I told you: "How idiotically ingenuous! The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths."
I took the liberty of highlighting the operative word here for you. If you still do not understand what I am asking, I cannot help you. Additionally, it was you who made this only about posters on this forum, I was referring to people in general. The fact that you want to limit this to one specific group, then resort to name calling to attempt to reinforce your "credibility" is all the response I need. As I stated before, I am not denying ANYTHING, I am simply saying that I am not convinced. It may be that it is because of lack of information, something you could attempt, at least, to remedy with your own words. I really don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. Calling me names and linking to other people's' work is, at best, disingenuous. If you continue with this I will have little choice but to assume you lack the fortitude and/or knowledge to formulate a reasonable argument.
However, to get back to my original question, "Why do you attack instead of attempt to inform?" To inform someone who you see as uniformed would be the height of enlightenment, IMHO.

OK, here is information from the largest Scientific Society on earth, the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I have no doubt it is an informative, and accurate work. However, your continued refusal to make YOUR OWN ARGUMENT indicates to me that you are not informed enough to do so. Additionally, your continued refusal to answer my questions, unrelated to whether human caused global warming is fact or not, is all the evidence I need that this conversation is a futile effort on my part. Therefore, unless you are willing to address my previously stated inquiries, I have nothing further to discuss with you.

Ah shit, another willfully ignorant asshole to damned lazy to do the simplest research. Look, numbnuts, the men and women that wrote the information on that site are Phd physicists. I am just a millwright. To get an education, one should go to the most knowledgable in that subject.

Of course, your refusal to do that simply indicates that you are willfully ignorant, and are not going to change. You are simply contemptible.

 

[oldsoul]

You are simply contemptible.

And yet you refuse to answer a simple question I posed at the beginning of all this. I asked a simple question, and you jumped to the conclusion that I am a "science denier" and attacked me on a very personal level for that which you had no evidence. Thus, anything you post after that, to me at least, becomes suspect, as you failed the original test of intellectual honesty. I am done attempting to debate with you, until you answer the original question, as you seem adamant in debating something that is not the point of my original question.

 

[Crick]

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"? Why can one not merely be a skeptic, without being labeled as a cultist? Seems to me the only cult here is the "Warmers" and anyone who disagrees with them, is chastised as some dimwit, or other such label. Looks alot like the Spanish Inquisition: Thou shalt not disagree, lest thee be struck down as a heretic.

Well, the point regarding whether or not humans are responsible for global warming is one of the central arguments between "the warmers" and "the deniers" here. Many a bucket of vitriol has been spilt , in all directions, over that very point. I realize you were unwaware, but there was a great deal of history taken place before you got here.

Although healthy skepticism is almost always a good thing, there is very little room left for it on that particular question. It has been accepted by just about every single climate scientist on the planet and a very high majority of scientists in all other fields as well. It was said very well just yesterday by the head of American Meteorological Society (AMS)

The American Meteorological Society said the evidence is clear – and “mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue,” in a letter to Pruitt dated today.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” writes Keith Seitter, the AMS’s executive director. “This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world.

“We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion,” he adds.

The letter ended with an open offer to work with Pruitt and his staff to better understand the science.

Another comment from the former EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, was similar:

“When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high,” said McCarthy, in a statement. “Preventing the greatest consequences of climate change is imperative to the health and well-being of all of us who call Earth home… I cannot imagine what additional information the Administrator might want from scientists for him to understand that.”

 

[oldsoul]

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"? Why can one not merely be a skeptic, without being labeled as a cultist? Seems to me the only cult here is the "Warmers" and anyone who disagrees with them, is chastised as some dimwit, or other such label. Looks alot like the Spanish Inquisition: Thou shalt not disagree, lest thee be struck down as a heretic.

Well, the point regarding whether or not humans are responsible for global warming is one of the central arguments between "the warmers" and "the deniers" here. Many a bucket of vitriol has been spilt , in all directions, over that very point. I realize you were unwaware, but there was a great deal of history taken place before you got here.

Although healthy skepticism is almost always a good thing, there is very little room left for it on that particular question. It has been accepted by just about every single climate scientist on the planet and a very high majority of scientists in all other fields as well. It was said very well just yesterday by the head of American Meteorological Society (AMS)

The American Meteorological Society said the evidence is clear – and “mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue,” in a letter to Pruitt dated today.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” writes Keith Seitter, the AMS’s executive director. “This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world.

“We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion,” he adds.

The letter ended with an open offer to work with Pruitt and his staff to better understand the science.

Another comment from the former EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, was similar:

“When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high,” said McCarthy, in a statement. “Preventing the greatest consequences of climate change is imperative to the health and well-being of all of us who call Earth home… I cannot imagine what additional information the Administrator might want from scientists for him to understand that.”

While informative, it still does not answer the question. If someone is..."uninformed" enough to to still be a skeptic, why attack them? Why not simply attempt to inform them?

For my part, I do not have the expertise to have a fully developed opinion on the matter, something that has been made quite clear to me since joining this forum. I have seen a substantial amount of evidence to be skeptical of several of the organisations supporting the theory that global climate change is due, at least in some part, to human activity. That is not to say that I am a skeptic of the science it's self, just the organisations. However, this does not mean that I am a "science denier", merely that I am skeptical of ANY organisation that has been shown to "cook the books" in an effort to advance an agenda.

So, the question remains. Why are people who are skeptics, and question the authenticity of findings so often vilified? Yes, I know, My wording has toned down from my first post. I used the original wording on purpose to elicit the exact reaction that I got, thus illustrating my point. Underhanded? Yes, but I felt it was necessary for the illustration of what happens, one person takes a hardline stance against the "consensus" and they are immediately attacked, just as was shown here. No debate, just personal attacks. Why is that?

 

[RollingThunder]

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"? Why can one not merely be a skeptic, without being labeled as a cultist? Seems to me the only cult here is the "Warmers" and anyone who disagrees with them, is chastised as some dimwit, or other such label. Looks alot like the Spanish Inquisition: Thou shalt not disagree, lest thee be struck down as a heretic.

Well, the point regarding whether or not humans are responsible for global warming is one of the central arguments between "the warmers" and "the deniers" here. Many a bucket of vitriol has been spilt , in all directions, over that very point. I realize you were unwaware, but there was a great deal of history taken place before you got here.

Although healthy skepticism is almost always a good thing, there is very little room left for it on that particular question. It has been accepted by just about every single climate scientist on the planet and a very high majority of scientists in all other fields as well. It was said very well just yesterday by the head of American Meteorological Society (AMS)

The American Meteorological Society said the evidence is clear – and “mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue,” in a letter to Pruitt dated today.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” writes Keith Seitter, the AMS’s executive director. “This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world.

“We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion,” he adds.

The letter ended with an open offer to work with Pruitt and his staff to better understand the science.

Another comment from the former EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, was similar:

“When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high,” said McCarthy, in a statement. “Preventing the greatest consequences of climate change is imperative to the health and well-being of all of us who call Earth home… I cannot imagine what additional information the Administrator might want from scientists for him to understand that.”

While informative, it still does not answer the question. If someone is..."uninformed" enough to to still be a skeptic, why attack them? Why not simply attempt to inform them?

For my part, I do not have the expertise to have a fully developed opinion on the matter, something that has been made quite clear to me since joining this forum. I have seen a substantial amount of evidence to be skeptical of several of the organisations supporting the theory that global climate change is due, at least in some part, to human activity. That is not to say that I am a skeptic of the science it's self, just the organisations. However, this does not mean that I am a "science denier", merely that I am skeptical of ANY organisation that has been shown to "cook the books" in an effort to advance an agenda.

So, the question remains. Why are people who are skeptics, and question the authenticity of findings so often vilified? Yes, I know, My wording has toned down from my first post. I used the original wording on purpose to elicit the exact reaction that I got, thus illustrating my point. Underhanded? Yes, but I felt it was necessary for the illustration of what happens, one person takes a hardline stance against the "consensus" and they are immediately attacked, just as was shown here. No debate, just personal attacks. Why is that?

What utter BULLSHIT!

You came on this forum and you were stupid enough to parrot a bunch of denier cult lies. In fact, you WERE shown a lot of evidence that debunked those lies....which you again stupidly denied. If you got vilified, it was for being a really stupid liar....but now you want to whine about how you were supposedly 'really' vilified for just "questioning the consensus", which is just another lie about what you were actually doing....you poor confused deluded moron and denier cult troll!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Sun affect our climate? Madness!

The AGW Cult tell us that the Sun has no effect on Earth's climate, it's totally swamped by the 120PPM of CO2 that might have been added to the atmosphere these past 150 years

 

[oldsoul]

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"? Why can one not merely be a skeptic, without being labeled as a cultist? Seems to me the only cult here is the "Warmers" and anyone who disagrees with them, is chastised as some dimwit, or other such label. Looks alot like the Spanish Inquisition: Thou shalt not disagree, lest thee be struck down as a heretic.

Well, the point regarding whether or not humans are responsible for global warming is one of the central arguments between "the warmers" and "the deniers" here. Many a bucket of vitriol has been spilt , in all directions, over that very point. I realize you were unwaware, but there was a great deal of history taken place before you got here.

Although healthy skepticism is almost always a good thing, there is very little room left for it on that particular question. It has been accepted by just about every single climate scientist on the planet and a very high majority of scientists in all other fields as well. It was said very well just yesterday by the head of American Meteorological Society (AMS)

The American Meteorological Society said the evidence is clear – and “mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue,” in a letter to Pruitt dated today.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” writes Keith Seitter, the AMS’s executive director. “This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world.

“We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion,” he adds.

The letter ended with an open offer to work with Pruitt and his staff to better understand the science.

Another comment from the former EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, was similar:

“When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high,” said McCarthy, in a statement. “Preventing the greatest consequences of climate change is imperative to the health and well-being of all of us who call Earth home… I cannot imagine what additional information the Administrator might want from scientists for him to understand that.”

While informative, it still does not answer the question. If someone is..."uninformed" enough to to still be a skeptic, why attack them? Why not simply attempt to inform them?

For my part, I do not have the expertise to have a fully developed opinion on the matter, something that has been made quite clear to me since joining this forum. I have seen a substantial amount of evidence to be skeptical of several of the organisations supporting the theory that global climate change is due, at least in some part, to human activity. That is not to say that I am a skeptic of the science it's self, just the organisations. However, this does not mean that I am a "science denier", merely that I am skeptical of ANY organisation that has been shown to "cook the books" in an effort to advance an agenda.

So, the question remains. Why are people who are skeptics, and question the authenticity of findings so often vilified? Yes, I know, My wording has toned down from my first post. I used the original wording on purpose to elicit the exact reaction that I got, thus illustrating my point. Underhanded? Yes, but I felt it was necessary for the illustration of what happens, one person takes a hardline stance against the "consensus" and they are immediately attacked, just as was shown here. No debate, just personal attacks. Why is that?

What utter BULLSHIT!

You came on this forum and you were stupid enough to parrot a bunch of denier cult lies. In fact, you WERE shown a lot of evidence that debunked those lies....which you again stupidly denied. If you got vilified, it was for being a really stupid liar....but now you want to whine about how you were supposedly 'really' vilified for just "questioning the consensus", which is just another lie about what you were actually doing....you poor confused deluded moron and denier cult troll!

The post that got us started on this..."debate":

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"? Why can one not merely be a skeptic, without being labeled as a cultist? Seems to me the only cult here is the "Warmers" and anyone who disagrees with them, is chastised as some dimwit, or other such label. Looks alot like the Spanish Inquisition: Thou shalt not disagree, lest thee be struck down as a heretic.

To which you responded, in part with:

How idiotically ingenuous!

The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths.

You are obviously one of them too, with your denier cult label "Warmers" for the sane people who accept the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of human caused global warming....so tough shit if you feel all butt-hurt over being called a 'denier'.....you are one!

And now you are calling me a:

poor confused deluded moron and denier cult troll!

How ironic!

BTW, thanks for proving my point. I still don't understand why you insist on such behaviour, but then I suppose I never will understand it.

 

[RollingThunder]

The Sun affect our climate? Madness!

The AGW Cult tell us that the Sun has no effect on Earth's climate, it's totally swamped by the 120PPM of CO2 that might have been added to the atmosphere these past 150 years

The CrazyFruitcake is parroting his usual denier cult insanity and lies.

In reality, scientists tell us that the sun is the primary energy source for the planet Earth and that the sun's irradiance has definitely not increased....leaving the over 46% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last century or so, which resulted from human activities, as the new factor affecting the temperatures and climate on our planet, with CO2 holding more of the sun's energy inside the atmosphere preventing it from escaping into outer space, thus causing the surface, atmosphere and oceans of the Earth to get hotter, which is causing the Earth's ice to melt and sea levels to rise. Observed reality!

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"? Why can one not merely be a skeptic, without being labeled as a cultist? Seems to me the only cult here is the "Warmers" and anyone who disagrees with them, is chastised as some dimwit, or other such label. Looks alot like the Spanish Inquisition: Thou shalt not disagree, lest thee be struck down as a heretic.

Well, the point regarding whether or not humans are responsible for global warming is one of the central arguments between "the warmers" and "the deniers" here. Many a bucket of vitriol has been spilt , in all directions, over that very point. I realize you were unwaware, but there was a great deal of history taken place before you got here.

Although healthy skepticism is almost always a good thing, there is very little room left for it on that particular question. It has been accepted by just about every single climate scientist on the planet and a very high majority of scientists in all other fields as well. It was said very well just yesterday by the head of American Meteorological Society (AMS)

The American Meteorological Society said the evidence is clear – and “mischaracterizing the science is not the best starting point for a constructive dialogue,” in a letter to Pruitt dated today.

“In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause,” writes Keith Seitter, the AMS’s executive director. “This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world.

“We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion,” he adds.

The letter ended with an open offer to work with Pruitt and his staff to better understand the science.

Another comment from the former EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, was similar:

“When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high,” said McCarthy, in a statement. “Preventing the greatest consequences of climate change is imperative to the health and well-being of all of us who call Earth home… I cannot imagine what additional information the Administrator might want from scientists for him to understand that.”

While informative, it still does not answer the question. If someone is..."uninformed" enough to to still be a skeptic, why attack them? Why not simply attempt to inform them?

For my part, I do not have the expertise to have a fully developed opinion on the matter, something that has been made quite clear to me since joining this forum. I have seen a substantial amount of evidence to be skeptical of several of the organisations supporting the theory that global climate change is due, at least in some part, to human activity. That is not to say that I am a skeptic of the science it's self, just the organisations. However, this does not mean that I am a "science denier", merely that I am skeptical of ANY organisation that has been shown to "cook the books" in an effort to advance an agenda.

So, the question remains. Why are people who are skeptics, and question the authenticity of findings so often vilified? Yes, I know, My wording has toned down from my first post. I used the original wording on purpose to elicit the exact reaction that I got, thus illustrating my point. Underhanded? Yes, but I felt it was necessary for the illustration of what happens, one person takes a hardline stance against the "consensus" and they are immediately attacked, just as was shown here. No debate, just personal attacks. Why is that?

Look, fellow, you have been given real information with which to make an informed decision. Instead, you choose to claim that the links are useless because the person giving them to you did not do a personal presentation. That is the typical MO of a denier. Then you state that 'organizations' have been altering data. Without a single link to show why you said that, or even a reference indicating which organizations you are referring to. Maybe the Danish Meteorlogical Agency? Or any one of the various European agencies? Perhaps some Australian ones? After all, they are all showing the same thing as NASA, NOAA, and the USGS.