The harder the Alarmists try ...

[Sunny and Warm]

good ****ing grief.

Watts, a known provocateur, posted an out of context section from a poll which seems to show that Americans don't care about global warming.

if anyone in this thread knows ONE thing about polling, it has to be that questions in that format are always TOPICAL and have a context. my God, look at it again in the first post: all of a sudden the Gulf oil spill fell off the radar. why is that do you think? why do you think the economy and jobs are suddenly high priority issues for Americans in general, open-ended polling?

either the OP is entirely ignorant about polling or he is 100% troll.

Nice selective posting Trix. I guess the question specific to AGW didn't catch your eye? The poll was conducted by CBS and the NYT, both liberal bastions. So, I think I fairly selected a poll from the other side of the political spectrum from me to present the point. The question shows declining interest in AGW. End of story. If you can't deal with those facts, then that points to the reason why the whole AGW movement is near its end.

[Sunny and Warm]

the question clearly shows that other items, like the economy and jobs, have taken precedence in the public's opinion. it's a pretty normal result, given the current state of the economy.

Watts tricked all of you b/c he knows his readers know zero about polling methodology.

Please keep your eye on the bouncing ball Trix. The poll question about AGW was simple enough, and written by liberals. That question had nothing to do with the economy and jobs.

[WeatherRusty]

well said. The AGW crowd made this political when they allowed Al Gore to become the face of their cause. The AGW crowd made this political when they refused to condemn James Hansen's calls for civil disobedience and destruction of property. Where were you Rusty and Skier and Friv when your voices should have been heard?? You failed to prevent the demonization of AGW by some of your own supporters and now cry about the low public poll numbers. Only you can manage your own perception, and frankly as many have said, your arrogance and absolute-ism is stunning at times.

So it's arrogance to fall in line with the majority thinking? I don't make anything up with regard to the science, I discuss peer-reviewed science. I don't accept unsubstantiated claims as factual or even probable. Unsubstantiated claims by skeptics are "maybe, we'll see when more data comes in" type arguments. That type of argumentation only serves to confuse and increase the level of PERCEIVED uncertainty.

As a follower of science in general, I understand fully well the position you term "absolute-ism". If you think it is rigid to agree with the very large consensus of science on the basic principles underlying AGW that is because you fail to understand that those principles are rock solid tenets of science and one reason the science is settled.

I and no one else is responsible for Al Gore other than Al Gore. He produced a documentary. I was not asked to approve it. You make it sound like a bunch of people gathered in a hall and plotted out a strategy on how to dupe the world into believing we need to transition away from fossil fuels to make Al Gore rich. Likewise, I and no one else I know controls Jim Hansen. He is his own person. I didn't elect him as one of my leaders.

[OHSnow]

I feel the 'skeptics' are hurting their cause, too. Why? Because for many of them it's no longer about the science of it, but the politics of it. I've seen way too many skeptics do the following:

1. Claim that the Earth is cooling (which is patently false)
2. Claim that CO2 level increases are not by man
3. Make fun of Al Gore (he has nothing to do with the actual science)
4. Claim that "because it was cold or snowed" there is no Global Warming
5. Claim that "because the US is cold" there is no Global Warming
6. Claim that scientists said there was an Ice Age coming in the 70s (which isn't true)
7. Claim that GCR are responsible for the current warming (when no conclusive evidence has been found and none will be for 5-10 years either way)
8. Claim that man has zero net impact on the climate because the Earth is so big (which cannot be true because we emit things into the atmosphere)
9. Claim that trillions are spent on AGW government funding (which is not true)
10. Claim that the money is clearly being made on the AGW side (which is not true)
11. Claim that there is no consensus (which is not true)
12. Claim that because x scientist said y, there is no consensus
13. Claim that because x scientists signed petition y, there is no consensus
14. Claim that 'climategate' proved AGW was a hoax (which is not true)
15. Claim that 'hide the decline' referred to global cooling, when it referred to northern hemisphere tree ring data
16. Claim that because natural cycles exist, there cannot be man made changes (I'm not sure how this makes sense)
17. Claim that it's all part of a natural cycle, when no known natural cycle exists that works on this time scale
18. Cite scientific papers claiming they say one thing, when in fact they say something else (the paper about the North Atlantic Current, The 'NASA' Paper fiasco, the paper cited by GraceToYou in this thread, etc.)
19. Start blogs and write news articles instead of going to school and going into climate science
20. Listen to blogs and news articles instead of listening to climate scientists

Once skeptics stop doing the above, it'll help their cause, too.

After all, AGW could be wrong, but for it to be wrong the skeptics need to know what the arguments are, what they aren't, what science says, what it doesn't say, what the consensus actually is, and how to actually research to find out what is going on.

Oh, and they have to do one thing I've never seen then own up to - they have to openly admit that there is a possibility that they are wrong.

You may say that these things are hurting their cause, but this type of rhetoric resonates with a lot of people. Keep in mind there are many out there who don't really follow climate science -- or any science for that matter. And half of the population has IQs AOB 100. No amount of logic or data may be sufficient to convince these people. Better just to say "LULZ, Al Gore is such a douche. We just experienced Snowmaggedon, and Al's still blabbering on about global warming. GB/2 creating the internet, Al."

[WeatherRusty]

Please keep your eye on the bouncing ball Trix. The poll question about AGW was simple enough, and written by liberals. That question had nothing to do with the economy and jobs.

Of course favorable public opinion on AGW has been eroded. The misinformation machine is in high gear and being very effective. Your side is winning the PR campaign. To bad you can't change the actual science.

[Strongbad]

The Bolded shows you have never spent a moment reading about "the amo".

I think we are all pretty annoyed with the length of your posts, as well as the font sizes and incessant usage of Bold.

As for my statements regarding the AMO, you really need to explain in detail how I was wrong regarding its affects on global temperatures. Thanks and for future reference, it's always best to keep it simple.

[Sunny and Warm]

I and no one else is responsible for Al Gore other than Al Gore. He produced a documentary. I was not asked to approve it. You make it sound like a bunch of people gathered in a hall and plotted out a strategy on how to dupe the world into believing we need to transition away from fossil fuels to make Al Gore rich. Likewise, I and no one else I know controls Jim Hansen. He is his own person. I didn't elect him as one of my leaders.

A failure to criticize actions is tantamount to approving them. Do you approve of Mann trying to block every FOIA request that comes his way? Or East Anglia?? How about Climate gate? Do you approve of emails among that group that suggests that anti-AGW papers be kept out of the peer-reviewed science? You support all that, and still claim that the science is settled? To me, a settled science is confident enough of the underlying theory, facts, and outcomes that it wishes to be tested out in the open.

[Sunny and Warm]

the question directly asking about global warming shows that only 12% of Americans believe it doesn't exist.

the other, open-ended question is pretty much what you'd expect for responses from a population in a long, deep recession.

there's no story here unless it's that people who read WUWT aren't savvy enough to understand how polling works. and that's not really a story either.

Even I believe warming has taken place since 1850. What does that have to do with AGW? I believe it is caused from other sources, and the amount of warming has also been embellished.

[Strongbad]

A failure to criticize actions is tantamount to approving them. Do you approve of Mann trying to block every FOIA request that comes his way? Or East Anglia?? How about Climate gate? Do you approve of emails among that group that suggests that anti-AGW papers be kept out of the peer-reviewed science? You support all that, and still claim that the science is settled? To me, a settled science is confident enough of the underlying theory, facts, and outcomes that it wishes to be tested out in the open.

These are all very inconvenient truths for them. When men like Gore and Hansen had higher pedigrees, you could bet your life that AGW campers were more likely to reference them. I am really entertained by the divide we have here. As our climate-related technology advances, what will be really interesting to see is whether or not the AGW camp, or Natural Forces camp, will admit they were wrong or continue to steer the course.

Statements like "the science is settled" are the epitome of anti-scientific statements. Now for some eye candy:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147203/Fewer-Americans-Europeans-View-Global-Warming-Threat.aspx#2

[VAwxman]

1. CO2 causes a net warming effect ceterus parabus. This is pretty much established science, and has been for over 100 years. It's basic physics.
2. The Earth is getting warmer. This is also undisputed among climate scientists.
3. CO2 is increasing. This will cause a net warming effect ceterus parabus.
4. Ergo, for the Earth to be cooling (which it is not) then something has to outweigh the increase in CO2.
5. But, the Earth is not cooling, so IN ADDITION to CO2 causing a net warming effect, something else either has to cause additional warming or cooling
6. Regardless, it would be independent of CO2 acting as a net warming effect

The argument is pretty simple.

Simplistic, yet dead on. I don't see how anyone can disagree with these points. We know CO2 does cause warming. The questions in my mind lie in points 4-5. Have natural cycles been responsible for a higher percentage of the observed warming, and thus can outweigh the CO2 factor going forward? Or is CO2 the dominant factor, and at best we can only hope to flatline? I honestly don't know, and I personally don't think many do, but that's really where the questions lie.

[WeatherRusty]

A failure to criticize actions is tantamount to approving them. Do you approve of Mann trying to block every FOIA request that comes his way? Or East Anglia?? How about Climate gate? Do you approve of emails among that group that suggests that anti-AGW papers be kept out of the peer-reviewed science? You support all that, and still claim that the science is settled? To me, a settled science is confident enough of the underlying theory, facts, and outcomes that it wishes to be tested out in the open.

It is out in the open.

Anyone can enter the field of radiative transfer theory.

Anyone can study paleoclimate.

Private e-mails are...private. On principle I don't want to grant anyone access to anyones private conversation. The East Anglia e-mails were stolen. That's a crime. You are on the side of criminals.

I agree with Hansen and Gore, why would I criticize them for putting themselves out there subject to this harassment? They have balls.

A particular paper by Baliunas and Soon was singled out as not worthy of publication because it was crap then and is crap now.

The settled science has nothing to do with the temperature record which you think has been tampered with. It's all about physics and the range of past climate change.

[Strongbad]

Simplistic, yet dead on. I don't see how anyone can disagree with these points. We know CO2 does cause warming. The questions in my mind lie in points 4-5. Have natural cycles been responsible for a higher percentage of the observed warming, and thus can outweigh the CO2 factor going forward? Or is CO2 the dominant factor, and at best we can only hope to flatline? I honestly don't know, and I personally don't think many do, but that's really where the questions lie.

Well said. I agree that we can not flat out say that our activities do not have an impact on the global climate. Dogmatic statements are by nature anti-scientific. But like Richard Lindzen, I believe natural factors are simply too dominant, thereby making overreaching or overreacting to AGW null and void.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think we are all pretty annoyed with the length of your posts, as well as the font sizes and incessant usage of Bold.

As for my statements regarding the AMO, you really need to explain in detail how I was wrong regarding its affects on global temperatures. Thanks and for future reference, it's always best to keep it simple.

So you can't talk about science?

[Sunny and Warm]

Simplistic, yet dead on. I don't see how anyone can disagree with these points. We know CO2 does cause warming. The questions in my mind lie in points 4-5. Have natural cycles been responsible for a higher percentage of the observed warming, and thus can outweigh the CO2 factor going forward? Or is CO2 the dominant factor, and at best we can only hope to flatline? I honestly don't know, and I personally don't think many do, but that's really where the questions lie.

I agree with your post. The questions lie with 4 and 5. As such, the science isn't settled. CO2 science is settled, but that is a far cry from the statement that CO2 has caused all or most of the warming since 1850. That science isn't settled to me, and it is an honest disagreement.

[WeatherRusty]

Well said. I agree that we can not flat out say that our activities do not have an impact on the global climate. Dogmatic statements are by nature anti-scientific. But like Richard Lindzen, I believe natural factors are simply too dominant, thereby making overreaching or overreacting to AGW null and void.

You believe natural factors are simply too dominant? Why do you believe that? Is it just a gut feeling?

[Sunny and Warm]

It is out in the open.

Anyone can enter the field of radiative transfer theory.

Anyone can study paleoclimate.

Private e-mails are...private. On principle I don't want to grant anyone access to anyones private conversation. The East Anglia e-mails were stolen. That's a crime. You are on the side of criminals.

I agree with Hansen and Gore, why would I criticize them for putting themselves out there subject to this harassment? They have balls.

A particular paper by Baliunas and Soon was singled out as not worthy of publication because it was crap then and is crap now.

The settled science has nothing to do with the temperature record which you think has been tampered with. It's all about physics and the range of past climate change.

You say stolen while many others say leaked. Nice try.

GISS has a particular habit of cooling records from 100 years ago and warming records in recent times to show a greater warming trend. They do this with reasons that are in conflict with that station's siting, data, or history. I call that tampering. I ONLY use satellite data.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree with your post. The questions lie with 4 and 5. As such, the science isn't settled. CO2 science is settled, but that is a far cry from the statement that CO2 has caused all or most of the warming since 1850. That science isn't settled to me, and it is an honest disagreement.

Do you understand what is settled? What part of the question do you think is not settled?

[Strongbad]

You believe natural factors are simply too dominant? Why do you believe that? Is it just a gut feeling?

I referenced Mr. Lindzen. I am a fan of his writings. If you would like to know more, rather than asking me to do all the work for you, be my guest and look him up online. You are guaranteed to find his various climate writings.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I referenced Mr. Lindzen. I am a fan of his writings. If you would like to know more, rather than asking me to do all the work for you, be my guest and look him up online. You are guaranteed to find his various climate writings.

If you have read the work. Why not give us a brief summary of his work?

[WeatherRusty]

You say stolen while many others say leaked. Nice try.

GISS has a particular habit of cooling records from 100 years ago and warming records in recent times to show a greater warming trend. They do this with reasons that are in conflict with that station's siting, data, or history. I call that tampering. I ONLY use satellite data.

The science I adhere to is not the least bit dependent on the temperature record of the past 150 years. So you don't believe the surface global temp has risen by about 0.8C over the period of instrumental record?

[Sunny and Warm]

Do you understand what is settled? What part of the question do you think is not settled?

As I've stated repeatedly, the attribution of warming to natural and manmade causes.

[Sunny and Warm]

The science I adhere to is not the least bit dependent on the temperature record of the past 150 years. So you don't believe the surface global temp has risen by about 0.8C over the period of instrumental record?

I don't believe anything GISS and Hansen have touched. Period! They are the center for the politicalization of this issue, and as such, have no standing on this issue to me.

[WeatherRusty]

I referenced Mr. Lindzen. I am a fan of his writings. If you would like to know more, rather than asking me to do all the work for you, be my guest and look him up online. You are guaranteed to find his various climate writings.

I prefer the peer-reviewed work done by thousands of scientist as opposed to the little done by Lindzen and Spencer.

You don't have to do anything for me, I'm miles ahead of you already.

You do know that Lindzen argues that second hand smoke is not harmful, don't you?

You do know that Spencer is a devout "Creation Scientist, Intelligent Design" adherant?

[WeatherRusty]

I don't believe anything GISS and Hansen have touched. Period! They are the center for the politicalization of this issue, and as such, have no standing on this issue to me.

Where do you turn to for an estimate of global surface temperature anomaly? Hadley Center (East Anglia)? Extrapolate 16,000' down to the ground (RSS UAH)?

[Sunny and Warm]

I prefer the peer-reviewed work done by thousands of scientist as opposed to the little done by Lindzen and Spencer.

You don't have to do anything for me, I'm miles ahead of you already.

You do know that Lindzen argues that second hand smoke is not harmful, don't you?

You do know that Spencer is a devout "Creation Scientist, Intelligent Design" adherant?

See, these sort of statements inserted into an argument only hurts your body of work on here. Stick to the point instead of trying to drag someone into the muck. Second hand smoke and creationism have absolutely, positively nothing to do with this thread or the value of their positions on AGW.

[Sunny and Warm]

Where do you turn to for an estimate of global surface temperature anomaly? Hadley Center (East Anglia)? Extrapolate 16,000' down to the ground (RSS UAH)?

RSS and UAH. Hadley is better than GISS, but I prefer my data massaged by as few people as possible.

[WeatherRusty]

As I've stated repeatedly, the attribution of warming to natural and manmade causes.

You are talking about past warming, which is accounted for by the inclusion of both natural and human induced factors. Roughly 20% natural, 80% human activities.

Solar TSI accounts for about 10% early in the period of record.

[Strongbad]

See, these sort of statements inserted into an argument only hurts your body of work on here. Stick to the point instead of trying to drag someone into the muck. Second hand smoke and creationism have absolutely, positively nothing to do with this thread or the value of their positions on AGW.

Ah, but you see that it is easier to refute someone via ad hominem and lazy insults, than it is to bring up specific statements he has made. What I find funny is that you would think Lindzen's position and title would be something most AGW'ers would salivate over if he were completely in their camp.

[WeatherRusty]

See, these sort of statements inserted into an argument only hurts your body of work on here. Stick to the point instead of trying to drag someone into the muck. Second hand smoke and creationism have absolutely, positively nothing to do with this thread or the value of their positions on AGW.

Fair enough, but I was just indicating that I know a little about those people and where they are coming from. I don't need you to teach me about them.

[Sunny and Warm]

You are talking about past warming, which is accounted for by the inclusion of both natural and human induced factors. Roughly 20% natural, 80% human activities.

Solar TSI accounts for about 10% early in the period of record.

If you believe those papers. I do not.