Bruce_Currie- So, dailykos and comments from it- and a reference to a UC Berkeley course I cite above- so, you think these are "denier websites"!! ?? wow. I guess just about anything and everything could be called a "denier" website?
I no longer consider it a hoax, which in some ways trivializes it. It is fraud.
And yes, the criminal fraud has not been proven in a court of law - yet. There is this, though- http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/12/17/surreal-epas-leading-climate-change-expert-pleads-guilty-to-elaborate-fraud-n1764063 The fraud committed by the leading climate scientist at the EPA is not directly climate related, and I suppose we could say that just because he was a great blooming fraud in one area of his professional life he would not be a fraud in other parts of it. Yeah, sure.
As far as wanting a video-conference rally- it would seem the sensible thing to do if the CAGW people were sensible. They are not. ...(full comment)
Several lead authors for the IPCC have repeatedly seen first hand politicization in climate science. Climate science is indisputably political.
Climate researcher and IPCC co-author Eduardo Zorita calls for Climategate scientists Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf to be barred from the IPCC processes:
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files …
I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere – and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now – editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’.
And what does it say about the disgraceful politicisation of climate science that Zorita warns:
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.
Chris Landsea leaves IPCC
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html “ I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.”
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/an-author-of-the-2007-ipcc-report-claims-global-warming-politicized/ Prof. Richard Lindzen, former lead author of IPCC responds to political machinations used to support the failing CAGW thesis.
So, you don't think there are conspiracies- wait, you do- aren't oil companies all working together, secretly funding skeptics? And any money, even if it is hundreds of millions- is just greenwash? And how about all that Koch money? Wasn't one of the first bats out of the box in the "voice of reason" thread the accusation that I must be funded by oil? Is that how you greet everybody new coming to this topic who is not a sworn alarmist- with paranoia? Once again, I am not funded by oil- that is paranoid thinking coming from alarmists. To be fair, I do not think you, Bruce_Currie, or Walter said it- I don't care to go back over that long thread to check. I expect a lot of individuals questioning CAGW just don't want to be crushed by fuel bills or freeze to death. That is what is now happening in the EU. But no, the default alarmist view says we either are in the employ of Big Oil, or are some other thing that is a pejorative. We cannot be treated by CAGW adherents as people who have questions that are worthy of respect. ...(full comment)
If there is any good comes out of the dramatic rate increases, it is that the NIMBYists, tree huggers and other assorted environuts will have to pay also. When no one can afford to live in New England, no one will. Thank you, Obozo for your war on coal, and his three rubber stamping minions for allowing him to get away with it. I plan to remember their actions on November 4th, and I will remind everyone I know. ...(full comment)
You are just so blind to your own prejudices you can't see the forest through the trees. And for your information if you think this President is "tolerant" Then you really are blind. Trust me when I tell you that the US military has lost many good Commanders due to his being so "tolerant". And it's not because they disagreed with him!
Sometimes I feel you are just a lost cause. But then again I think that you just might get some sanity someday. You seem to be intelligent and that is what truly bothers me that you can't see just how hateful you truly are.
You have had nothing good to say about this President since he was elected and you have done nothing but promote the hardline conservative agenda. You constantly stated in this forum that any liberal is unknowing and does everything wrong, while any conservative can do no wrong, even in the face of the evidence provided. You have gone so far as calling people "liberal" when they disagree with your position. You have blindly accepted anything certain people state on here as 100% gospel, when in fact most of us know those "facts" are made up. You will have much more credibility when you quit spouting the company line and be more reasonable with your replies. "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" ...(full comment)
No, you stepped in it. You were clearly not referring to Mr. Harvey, but instead were referring to my post and accusing me of "historical revisionism". You're attempting to weasel out of your "error" by claiming you were referring to Mr. Harvey, when the evidence is there in print for all to see. My post affirmed that the Mises Institute- a hotbed of modern-day Republican and libertarian "ideas", has 'scholars" on its staff who revile Abraham Lincoln-whom most scholars and most Americans regard as our first or second greatest president, regard him as a dictator and tyrant, and blame Lincoln--not slavery, for starting the Civil War. Your response was: "Are parents aware of your historical revisionism." ...(full comment)
Hey Larry; I hope you'll give us a blow by blow. After all the noise about this, I'm sure you'll be going. I would, except I have to be elsewhere. Good luck to Fournier, and let's hope the Concord PB discounts the NIMBYists. ...(full comment)
As opposed to someone who fails to even grasp the simplest of concepts science, history or math. The problem with any climate related issues is you can't politicize it in a debate. Science is not political, it is based on predictions using all available data, theory and facts wherever possible. You can't base an argument on cost or economic impact. When push comes to shove that is the deniers bread and butter. Climate change is not something you feel until it is too late. Climate change happens naturally regardless of the human species desire to ravage the whole planet. What we can effect is the speeding up of the process. ...(full comment)
You make my case. As I said, if you want to have a discussion, discourse, conversation, exchange of opinion I am open to that. But now, you are doing exactly what you accused me of....intimidation. The different is that yours is neither subtle nor adult. I hope when I retire I don't devolve into the kind of childishness I see above. ...(full comment)