What caused this Climate skepticism uptick ?

[IanC]

Google Trends

and the entire 100% search interest volume for "climate skepticism comes from California.

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
After that the rest of the "main stream" media copied & echoed the NYT story...as usual.
Noting that California was the only region that freaked out in response and the rest of the US where Trump won all his electoral votes registered a zero response makes a good case for the idea the founding fathers had when they enshrined the electoral college method of choosing a president in the constitution.
If one would subtract the votes H.Clinton got in California she would not have won the popular vote.
That quite revealing difference in response to this or any other political change in attitude makes it pretty clear how a narrow region of the US could dictate their (irrational) agenda to the rest of the US citizens who live in "fly over country"

Enough with the Trolls - Back to the OP..

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge. When Trump exposed that AGW was a scam, this was something they have never been told and they began to seek out the truth.. Brown is pissed that his state is waking up and the lie is exposed.. I look for a huge throw'em out election in two years.. Most Californians are dealing with 46% taxation... and Brown wants more.. Now he must counter the truth and keep his rubes stupid.

Yup. Californians are suckers for 'progressive' ideas. Brown was told that sea level rise was imminent so he assumed that LAX would soon be under water. There is no reality filter in California, they actually get increased status for believing unbelievable ideas.

 

[Fenton Lum]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln

Every State deserves representation. The wants and needs of one area are not the same for every area. Oppression of the majority is a real danger, high population centres are prone to fads and paradigms, similar to disease outbreaks.

The only entities with representation are the well heeled. All else is a ruse, an illusion.

I agree with you. A very simplified explanation is that the upper class can afford to pay taxes to support the lower class but they insist that the middle class pays as well. The lower class supports the upper class that pays them, and the middle class grumbles. Roughly half of the American population are net negative taxpayers who want the goodies to continue or even increase.

Half a century of societal wealth redistribution out of society toward the top is more like it, the predation is unsustainable in terms of social cohesiveness.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Google Trends

and the entire 100% search interest volume for "climate skepticism comes from California.

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
After that the rest of the "main stream" media copied & echoed the NYT story...as usual.
Noting that California was the only region that freaked out in response and the rest of the US where Trump won all his electoral votes registered a zero response makes a good case for the idea the founding fathers had when they enshrined the electoral college method of choosing a president in the constitution.
If one would subtract the votes H.Clinton got in California she would not have won the popular vote.
That quite revealing difference in response to this or any other political change in attitude makes it pretty clear how a narrow region of the US could dictate their (irrational) agenda to the rest of the US citizens who live in "fly over country"

Enough with the Trolls - Back to the OP..

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge. When Trump exposed that AGW was a scam, this was something they have never been told and they began to seek out the truth.. Brown is pissed that his state is waking up and the lie is exposed.. I look for a huge throw'em out election in two years.. Most Californians are dealing with 46% taxation... and Brown wants more.. Now he must counter the truth and keep his rubes stupid.

Yup. Californians are suckers for 'progressive' ideas. Brown was told that sea level rise was imminent so he assumed that LAX would soon be under water. There is no reality filter in California, they actually get increased status for believing unbelievable ideas.

There is no reality filter in america, so we just seethe at one another. And the power structure floats on the division and madness.

 

[polarbear]

Google Trends

and the entire 100% search interest volume for "climate skepticism comes from California.

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
After that the rest of the "main stream" media copied & echoed the NYT story...as usual.
Noting that California was the only region that freaked out in response and the rest of the US where Trump won all his electoral votes registered a zero response makes a good case for the idea the founding fathers had when they enshrined the electoral college method of choosing a president in the constitution.
If one would subtract the votes H.Clinton got in California she would not have won the popular vote.
That quite revealing difference in response to this or any other political change in attitude makes it pretty clear how a narrow region of the US could dictate their (irrational) agenda to the rest of the US citizens who live in "fly over country"

Enough with the Trolls - Back to the OP..

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge. When Trump exposed that AGW was a scam, this was something they have never been told and they began to seek out the truth.. Brown is pissed that his state is waking up and the lie is exposed.. I look for a huge throw'em out election in two years.. Most Californians are dealing with 46% taxation... and Brown wants more.. Now he must counter the truth and keep his rubes stupid.

The best thing that could happen is if this asymmetric funding of AGW "research" which amounts to nothing more than politically motivated propaganda at the tax payer`s expense is countered with some real research.
Starting with the release of the raw data Hansen, Mann etc refuse to disclose.
That may not even cost the US taxpayer anything because all these people would be free to offer their findings without having to fear that their lives and careers will be trashed in retaliation by those who want to silence them:
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
• Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
• • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[75][76]
  • Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[77][78][79]
  • Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[80][81][82]
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[83][84]
  • Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[85][86]
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[87][88]
  • Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[89][90]
  • William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[91][92]
  • Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[93][94]
  • Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[95][96]
  • William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[97][98]
  • David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[99][100]
  • Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[101][102]
  • Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[103][104]
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[105][106]
  • Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[107][108]
  • Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[109][110]
  • Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[111][112]
  • Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[113][114][115]
  • Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[116][117]
  • Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[118][119]
  • Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[120][121][122][123]
  • Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[124][125]
  • Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[126][127]
  • Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[128][129]
  • George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[130][131]
  • Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[132][133]
• 
  
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
• These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
  
  • Indur M. Goklany science and technology policy analyst for the United States
  • • Department of the Interior[156][157][158]
  • Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [159][160]
  • Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[161][162]
  • Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[163][164]
• • 
    This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.
    
    • August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[165]
    • Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[166]
    • Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[167][168]
    • William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[169][170]
    • Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[171][172][173]
    • Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[174]
    • Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[166][175]

 

[IanC]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln

Every State deserves representation. The wants and needs of one area are not the same for every area. Oppression of the majority is a real danger, high population centres are prone to fads and paradigms, similar to disease outbreaks.

The only entities with representation are the well heeled. All else is a ruse, an illusion.

I agree with you. A very simplified explanation is that the upper class can afford to pay taxes to support the lower class but they insist that the middle class pays as well. The lower class supports the upper class that pays them, and the middle class grumbles. Roughly half of the American population are net negative taxpayers who want the goodies to continue or even increase.

Half a century of societal wealth redistribution out of society toward the top is more like it, the predation is unsustainable in terms of social cohesiveness.

Sure. Democracy and Capitalism are terrible systems. but they are better than the alternatives.

 

[IanC]

Google Trends

and the entire 100% search interest volume for "climate skepticism comes from California.

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
After that the rest of the "main stream" media copied & echoed the NYT story...as usual.
Noting that California was the only region that freaked out in response and the rest of the US where Trump won all his electoral votes registered a zero response makes a good case for the idea the founding fathers had when they enshrined the electoral college method of choosing a president in the constitution.
If one would subtract the votes H.Clinton got in California she would not have won the popular vote.
That quite revealing difference in response to this or any other political change in attitude makes it pretty clear how a narrow region of the US could dictate their (irrational) agenda to the rest of the US citizens who live in "fly over country"

Enough with the Trolls - Back to the OP..

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge. When Trump exposed that AGW was a scam, this was something they have never been told and they began to seek out the truth.. Brown is pissed that his state is waking up and the lie is exposed.. I look for a huge throw'em out election in two years.. Most Californians are dealing with 46% taxation... and Brown wants more.. Now he must counter the truth and keep his rubes stupid.

The best thing that could happen is if this asymmetric funding of AGW "research" which amounts to nothing more than politically motivated propaganda at the tax payer`s expense is countered with some real research.
Starting with the release of the raw data Hansen, Mann etc refuse to disclose.
That may not even cost the US taxpayer anything because all these people would be free to offer their findings without having to fear that their lives and careers will be trashed in retaliation by those who want to silence them:
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

• David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
• Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
• • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[75][76]
  • Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[77][78][79]
  • Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[80][81][82]
  • Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[83][84]
  • Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[85][86]
  • David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[87][88]
  • Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[89][90]
  • William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[91][92]
  • Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[93][94]
  • Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[95][96]
  • William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[97][98]
  • David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[99][100]
  • Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[101][102]
  • Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[103][104]
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[105][106]
  • Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[107][108]
  • Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[109][110]
  • Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[111][112]
  • Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[113][114][115]
  • Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[116][117]
  • Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[118][119]
  • Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[120][121][122][123]
  • Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[124][125]
  • Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[126][127]
  • Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[128][129]
  • George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[130][131]
  • Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[132][133]
• 
  
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• 
  
• Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
• • Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[134][135]
  • Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[136][137]
  • Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[138][139]
  • Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[140][141]
  • John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[142][143][144]
  • Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[145][146]
  • David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[147][148]
  • Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[149][150]
  • Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[151][152]
  • Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[153][154]
  • Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[155]
• Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
• These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
  • Indur M. Goklany science and technology policy analyst for the United States
  • • Department of the Interior[156][157][158]
  • Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [159][160]
  • Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[161][162]
  • Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[163][164]
• • 
    This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.
    • August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[165]
    • Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[166]
    • Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[167][168]
    • William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[169][170]
    • Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[171][172][173]
    • Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[174]
    • Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[166][175]

I hope the new administration looks at climate change with an open mind. Let the opposing sides debate. I would be just as upset if the warmers' side was simply silenced like the skeptics' side has been.

Of course the mainstream media plays a huge part as well. there are already large amounts of dissenting scientific papers out there but they arent 'news'.

NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin . Links to hundreds of papers

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Google Trends

and the entire 100% search interest volume for "climate skepticism comes from California.

If you check again with Google what was in the news just before that huge uptick in climate skepticism it turns out there was a New York Times article about Pres. elect calling climate change a hoax and that he would dismantle the EPA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0
After that the rest of the "main stream" media copied & echoed the NYT story...as usual.
Noting that California was the only region that freaked out in response and the rest of the US where Trump won all his electoral votes registered a zero response makes a good case for the idea the founding fathers had when they enshrined the electoral college method of choosing a president in the constitution.
If one would subtract the votes H.Clinton got in California she would not have won the popular vote.
That quite revealing difference in response to this or any other political change in attitude makes it pretty clear how a narrow region of the US could dictate their (irrational) agenda to the rest of the US citizens who live in "fly over country"

Enough with the Trolls - Back to the OP..

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge. When Trump exposed that AGW was a scam, this was something they have never been told and they began to seek out the truth.. Brown is pissed that his state is waking up and the lie is exposed.. I look for a huge throw'em out election in two years.. Most Californians are dealing with 46% taxation... and Brown wants more.. Now he must counter the truth and keep his rubes stupid.

Yup. Californians are suckers for 'progressive' ideas. Brown was told that sea level rise was imminent so he assumed that LAX would soon be under water. There is no reality filter in California, they actually get increased status for believing unbelievable ideas.

Ideology Is a Spitball Fight at a Prep School

Those with unearned status, such as Jerry Brown being the son of a Governor, can get away with unrealistic ideas and are driven to preach them just to show that from their pre-assigned perches, they can get away with anything. No one is allowed to challenge their birth privileges; most opposition is to submissively support some other aristocrat's unearned privileges. This decadent century started with criticizing Gore's sheltered background while ignoring Bush's

 

[mamooth]

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge.

California has a booming economy and a budget surplus. That happened once the Democrats took complete control. It's not a coincidence. Hence, your butthurt jealousy. You understand just how corrupt and incompetent California makes your clown party look.

As another example, let's look at two adjacent states.

Minnesota. Liberal policies. Booming economy, surpluses.

Wisconsin. Conservative policies. Cratered economy, deficits.

Nothing fails as reliably as conservative policy, across the board.

Oh, the liberal states have a lot more freedom as well. I think that's what really burns up many of the deniers here.

 

[mamooth]

I hope the new administration looks at climate change with an open mind. Let the opposing sides debate. I would be just as upset if the warmers' side was simply silenced like the skeptics' side has been.

Except the denier side hasn't been silenced. That's a paranoid conspiracy fable. By your standards, flat earthers, creationists and anti-vaxxers are also being "silenced", because everyone keeps pointing out how that their science stinks.

Of course the mainstream media plays a huge part as well. there are already large amounts of dissenting scientific papers out there but they arent 'news'.

"Dissenting" papers also said tobacco was harmless. Junk science like that and denialism will always be with us. That's not news.

 

[mamooth]

Starting with the release of the raw data Hansen, Mann etc refuse to disclose.

Fable. Who fed you that tall tale? All data is available.

That may not even cost the US taxpayer anything because all these people would be free to offer their findings without having to fear that their lives and careers will be trashed in retaliation by those who want to silence them:

There have been no such threats by the rational side to lives or careers. If you disagree, please show us some examples.

In reality, it's your side that has done 100% of the persecution. And every denier on this board enthusiastically supports it. If you say you don't, then prove it. Simply condemn the Republicans attempts to jail Dr. Mann and other climate scientists. So far, not a single denier on this board has been willing to do so, despite being asked over and over.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

That was a big appeal-to-authority fallacy.

I have better qualifications in the field than most of them. And that's a tiny slice of the world's scientists, with many of them not even being scientists. And most of them are just demonstrably wrong when they discuss climate science. Namedropping is meaningless when your names are babbling nonsense.

 

[ding]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

The electoral college is used to represent the population of each state. The voters who voted in each state represent the total population of that state. The electoral college assures that no state has more weight in the outcome of the election than the share they are entitled to. It is a great system and it is here to stay. Deal with it.

 

[ding]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/15/celebrities-beg-electors-to-be-heroes-and-vote-against-trump/
Gee why not go totally retard and just let them decide who is going to be the next president.

yes, let's. an amoeba would be better than the complete moron who has one foot over the threshold now.

I really could not be happier that you are upset over the outcome of the election. You should consider leaving the country. That would show us.

 

[ding]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.
.

Ah, so basically YOU want to decide who is an idiot.

no. facts and reality decide who are the idiots. for example, someone who doesn't believe in climate change is in fact in valuable need of some elementary education

Why? Because you say so? What makes you believe you are an expert on science anyway? Who made you the final arbiter? I sure didn't. The reality is that you are proponent of uniformity of thought. Those are the most dangerous people alive. I love diversity of thought. I love debate. You don't. You want to squelch debate.

 

[ding]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln

Every State deserves representation. The wants and needs of one area are not the same for every area. Oppression of the majority is a real danger, high population centres are prone to fads and paradigms, similar to disease outbreaks.

The only entities with representation are the well heeled. All else is a ruse, an illusion.

Sure. So what? That's the way it is. Your problem is that your self righteousness is selective. That's a problem.

 

[ding]

I hope the new administration looks at climate change with an open mind. Let the opposing sides debate. I would be just as upset if the warmers' side was simply silenced like the skeptics' side has been.

Except the denier side hasn't been silenced. That's a paranoid conspiracy fable. By your standards, flat earthers, creationists and anti-vaxxers are also being "silenced", because everyone keeps pointing out how that their science stinks.

Of course the mainstream media plays a huge part as well. there are already large amounts of dissenting scientific papers out there but they arent 'news'.

"Dissenting" papers also said tobacco was harmless. Junk science like that and denialism will always be with us. That's not news.

That is one emotional and full of shit argument you have there, kitty. Time is on my side, too bad you will be too much of a coward to stick around to see the worm turn. No... you will be one of those people who will claim that you knew all along that the science was wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

California has been feed a huge sack of manure by the idiots in charge.

California has a booming economy and a budget surplus. That happened once the Democrats took complete control. It's not a coincidence. Hence, your butthurt jealousy. You understand just how corrupt and incompetent California makes your clown party look.

As another example, let's look at two adjacent states.

Minnesota. Liberal policies. Booming economy, surpluses.

Wisconsin. Conservative policies. Cratered economy, deficits.

Nothing fails as reliably as conservative policy, across the board.

Oh, the liberal states have a lot more freedom as well. I think that's what really burns up many of the deniers here.

That is one load of hilarious shit... A budget deficit of 127 billion this year alone is some how magically a budget surplus? Who the fuck do you think your lying too?

 

[polarbear]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln

Every State deserves representation. The wants and needs of one area are not the same for every area. Oppression of the majority is a real danger, high population centres are prone to fads and paradigms, similar to disease outbreaks.

The only entities with representation are the well heeled. All else is a ruse, an illusion.

Sure. So what? That's the way it is. Your problem is that your self righteousness is selective. That's a problem.

Time is not the only thing on your side. It`s getting rather obvious that the internet is as well.
There is another huge up-tick around the same time as the one was for the term "climate skepticism"
This one is what Google has for "global warming hoax" :

This combination of search terms leaves no doubt what all these people were looking for.
This time besides California the map lights up also for Florida & New York and surprisingly also for Texas.
The other surprise was that the same huge spike is also there when you request Google to display the world wide use of that search term instead of just the US.

But then again the entire world sat bolt upright every time Donald Trump tweeted
All over sudden there is a world wide interest in "global warming hoax".
And they no longer care what the media says about it they are looking on their own in the world wide web

 

[Crick]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/15/celebrities-beg-electors-to-be-heroes-and-vote-against-trump/
Gee why not go totally retard and just let them decide who is going to be the next president.
Your response made it quite clear that they and the likes of the NYT do the thinking for you.

The American PEOPLE selected Hillary Clinton by a large margin. The success of Trump with the Electoral college is due entirely to the influence of winner-take-all states.. state's rights. Trump has been made the president of the American people by the power of a collection of abstract entities.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln

Every State deserves representation. The wants and needs of one area are not the same for every area. Oppression of the majority is a real danger, high population centres are prone to fads and paradigms, similar to disease outbreaks.

The only entities with representation are the well heeled. All else is a ruse, an illusion.

Sure. So what? That's the way it is. Your problem is that your self righteousness is selective. That's a problem.

Time is not the only thing at your side. It`s getting rather obvious that the internet is as well.
There is another huge up-tick around the same time as the one was for the term "climate skepticism"
This one is what Google has for "global warming hoax" :

This combination of search terms leaves no doubt what all these people were looking for.
This time besides California the map lights up also for Florida & New York and surprisingly also for Texas.
The other surprise was that the same huge spike is also there when you request Google to display the world wide use of that search term instead of just the US.

But then again the entire world sat bolt upright every time Donald Trump tweeted
All over sudden there is a world wide interest in "global warming hoax".

Even WUWT has taken a huge spike in interest as have many other skeptical blogs.

 

[Billy_Bob]

excuse me but your argument about the electoral college has zero ground to stand on. the electoral college is there for no reason at all in modern times. it was put in place as a safety net so that were The People to elect an idiot, the electors could vote otherwise and choose someone competent. but as we all know, many of them do not have the freedom to do this because they are bound by state laws. this idea that the EC is there as a balance system is ludicrous considering the fact that the majority is being held hostage by a minority of people who voted for an utter fool. 50 years from now, this will go down as one of the most significant blunders in election history.

And people like you get to decide who is an idiot...most of the idiots live in California and that can be narrowed down to Hollywood.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/15/celebrities-beg-electors-to-be-heroes-and-vote-against-trump/
Gee why not go totally retard and just let them decide who is going to be the next president.
Your response made it quite clear that they and the likes of the NYT do the thinking for you.

The American PEOPLE selected Hillary Clinton by a large margin. The success of Trump with the Electoral college is due entirely to the influence of winner-take-all states.. state's rights. Trump has been made the president of the American people by the power of a collection of abstract entities.

And if it had gone Hillarys way you would have been OK with it... But its a matter of YOUR AGENDA.. hypocrite!