[wrbwrbwrb]

Can't be bothered reading the whole thing. Have seen a lot of those arguments before and generally after some research you can find out why they are wrong, mistaken assumptions, or why they don't matter. As soon as you point that out to the climate change deniers they just trot out another argument "but what about..." and it gets boring.

In general for those arguments:

Don't you think it's odd they think that every experimental error increases warming? Across a wide range of scientific fields and thousands of scientists?

And they complain both about data being 'manipulated' and also about data not being manipulated when things like where the weather stations are changes, or because of the altitude discrepancies? You can't have it both ways.

As for the idea it's some conspiracy there are plenty of people with vested interests in industry who'd benefit from not making any compromises with climate change, but who benefits really from forcing us to cut stuff to help prevent climate change? Who's more likely to put the disinformation out there?

[kilibry]

climate change deniers

How about you use the English language with a little more delicacy?

[FrassyLap]

How about you use the English language with a little more delicacy?

Huh? It's not exactly an uncommon phrase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

[Gilowero]

Huh? It's not exactly an uncommon phrase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

He's hung up by the thought of you painting opponents as something akin to Holocaust deniers. Skeptic would probably by the prefered term among people with delicate feelings.

[mp3 free]

He's hung up by the thought of you painting opponents as something akin to Holocaust deniers. Skeptic would probably by the prefered term among people with delicate feelings.

Nothing to do with the holocaust, obviously, but sceptic doesn't fully convey the wrongness. It suggests there's some validity to the scepticism.

[JonDopl]

I wasn't the one who objected to the term I was using.

[CsFLhGNp]

It's not a question of belief or not.

Like with gravity, there are still questions about some of the mechanisms by which it acts and the accuracy of the measured value of G etc. but that doesn't stop anyone who says they can step off a tall building and not fall to the ground being dead wrong.

Sure, there are questions about a lot of areas of climate change, especially in prediction models. But to suggest the entire thing is a co-ordinated hoax as in the OP is denialism IMO.

It's just like, we might not currently be able to predict exactly what life forms would evolve over time in a given environment.

[kictainiSot]

Sure, there are questions about a lot of areas of climate change, especially in prediction models. But to suggest the entire thing is a co-ordinated hoax as in the OP is denialism IMO.

I'm on the skeptic side of this but even I will admit that there is some and man had some impact on it. But that's about it. The thing that trips my BS meter the most is the prediction models. And what we're supposed to do about it is up for grabs.

[GZFL2tDA]

Oh, come on. Don't be obtuse.

[JosephNF]

Here's another bit of BS from the AGW crowd (it aint climate change denial, Mike, its AGW skepticism), the notion that man is causing some unprecedented or unusual increase in temperature is false. Ice cores from Greenland show an 18 degree F rise in temperatures within a decade 11.5 kya. We've supposedly "contributed" to a 1-2 degree F rise over the last 100-150 years. Corals from Florida show sea levels were 20 ft higher 125 kya and temperatures were 8-10 degrees F warmer then. That peak was 5-6,000 years into the corresponding interglacial period, today we're 12,000 years into our interglacial period. We're cooling down, if ghgs are doin anything, they're slowing the cooling.

[paulaglober]

IPCC's credibility is in the toilet. I don't think True Believers can trot out the "thousands of scientists" line (which was always a suspect statement) to good effect anymore.

[extessarere]

Actually he's refering to them quoting Climbing magazine and a student thesis to support thier conclusions.

[banditorfv]

All of those have been debunked several times yet here they are being trotted out again. It's like dealing with creationists.

[Poowssnople]

All of those have been debunked several times yet here they are being trotted out again. It's like dealing with creationists.

True, but those darn alarmists won't shut up even when proven wrong

[MiniBoy]

[Q=Oerdin;5745194]All of those have been debunked several times yet here they are being trotted out again. It's like dealing with creationists.[/Q] You mean "All those things have been denied by the people with a vested interest in not having their methods and motivations subjected to honest scrutiny, yet here they are being inquisitive about the facts again."

The glaciologist from India who was grossly misquoted and misattributed as a source for completely fictitious assertions would disagree that criticisms have been "debunked" by the AGW hacks.

[beth]

it aint climate change denial, Mike, its AGW skepticism

Exactly, Berz. As if anyone actually denies that the climate is changing - which is what the label makes it sound like.

[infelconi]

The sad part is that you truly believe there is no legitimate reason to question the AGW theory, and that therefore anyone who does is morally inferior.

[pavelChe]

Not morally inferior, just less well informed or mislead. Which, considering the amount of disinformation out there is not really surprising.

[6Rexw51X]

Not morally inferior, just less well informed or mislead. Which, considering the amount of disinformation out there is not really surprising.

This doesn't seem to square with your earlier comments about your desire to convey the "wrongness" of AGW skeptics by using the "denier" term.

[gfkasjhfg]

The term is chosen generally precisely because of the meaning that is not in the dictionary.

You are being way too cute on this. I never took you as somebody that is easy with propaganda.