While tremendous, there are some other groups to throw in to the mix. Perhaps, taking it from the angle of 'why' opposition:

Religious Extremist: Humanity is too insignificant to impact G-d's creation. Question what nuclear warfare might have done to the planetary system and, cautiously, see whether they will engage in 'creation care' conversation.

Libertarian ideologue. Global Warming is simply an ideological creation to support government intrusion into people's lives.

And ...

In any event, thanks for this. Shared with others.

So I guess I am an Avenger then?

:) I'm not naming names! But, no I didn't have you in mind...but now that you mention it....! ;-)

GOLD!

You forgot the anti-wind conspiracy theorists. In Australia we have some who have discovered, using their own research, that infrasound sickness waves travel 100km from wind turbines and cause instant sickness, leading to death.

This is a masterwork coby -- you crack me up!!!

Hilarious. Superb self-satire. Such genius combined with 2001 Nobel Laureates, the deniers can take it easy.

Next you'll be telling us the .05C increase over the past 15 years, with NO signs of 'accelration,' was somehow consistent with the models. Even the IPCC claimed '95%' confidence that it would never happen.

You ahve a slightly roundabout way of doing it, but thanks for those links to what look like excellent blogs about the climate controversy.

Despite fitting Avenger, my favourite topic doesn't include anti-vaxx autism scare other than to go "duh, we need a cogent mechanism first, dude".

PS Latest AGW Troll: What are the error bars on that 0.05C trendline? You DO know how to produce the RMS variance and turn that into 95% confidence levels, right? Or did you just parrot a phrase you heard without understanding?

"Even the IPCC claimed ’95%’ confidence that it would never happen."

So how many 15 year periods do we have on record?

1880-1895
1881-1896
...

Hmmm. with 95% confidence you'd expect that occurring only 1 in 20 such periods.

That would make a cherry pick to give this effect over the past 130 years something around 6 times.

You've found one.

I love the smell of bitter angry warmists in the morning! It is so gratifying as a skeptic to see the warmist cult become the punchline we always knew you were. Reduced to petulant tantrums on your obscure blogs and comment sections of news articles in a world where relevant politicians worldwide are running away from the global warming scam as fast as they can - while it collapses like the proverbial straw house blown down by the skeptic wolf (trying to keep with your theme here!!!). You can bitterly blame skeptics for the rest of your miserable lives but it was your complete lack of ethics that eventually brought you down. Never questioning each other, your data manipulation, your ridiculous catastrophic projections, your laughable computer models that were never right about any projections, your "hiding the decline", your refusal to comply with FOIA requests, your refusal to engage in any debate (the science is settled...LOL)...no, you never questioned any ethical or logical lapse as long as it somehow supported and enriched the cult. People will be laughing about you for generations but those of us who lived through it and fought you every step of the way know how close you were to destroying our future. Congratulations, I don't think anybody will ever trust "scientists" again. Let's hope a real crisis doesn't come along because the parable of the little boy who cried wolf gives us a glimpse of your guaranteed failure.

Oh. My. It's going to take me a few minutes to catch my breath - from laughing far too hard.

Perhaps I should start a "Troll-watching journal", like the bird or train enthusiasts keep...

Agreed with Oakwood:

I suggest you need to stop going down the up escalator.

I might also add that, since global heat content has continued to rise since 1997 and the other indicators of ongoing warming (shifting animal & plant distributions, melting cryosphere, sea level rise) have also been ongoing, you don't have much of a case if all you have is an insignificant, illusory pause in the temperature trend of a thin band of the lower atmosphere.

It's always good when you can fight with a smile.

;) thank you for all that! It made an old man's slog through the swamp of idiocy a little easier. My daily review of what passes for news and information these days leaves a lot of troll *stuff* stuck to me.

I *am* surprised that the trolls didn't get to the comments first... it would have been even more entertaining to have your points proven with zero delay :)

Keep up the good work... if you have a few more left in you please share! :)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-agai…

Cooke: Sorry. I’m trying to look for some information about previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Nobel Committee: Which one?
Cooke: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Nobel Committee: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.
Cooke: He’s never won it?
Nobel Committee: No.
Cooke: Oh, it says on his-
Nobel Committee: The organization won it. It’s not a personal prize to people belonging to an organization.
Cooke: Okay. So if I were to write that he’d won it, that would be incorrect?
Nobel Committee: That is incorrect, yes. Is it you that sent me an email today? I got an e-mail from our Stockholm office regarding Michael Mann.
Cooke: Oh. No, I didn’t send you an e-mail.
Nobel Committee: Oh. So what’s your name?
Cooke: My name is Charles Cooke.
Nobel Committee: And you work for?
Cooke: I write for National Review.
Nobel Committee: Okay, because I’ve got something from Boston and NY Envirionmental Examiner that asked about the same thing.
Cooke: Oh, okay. Well maybe this is a big question. Okay, but he hasn’t won it. That is the answer.
Nobel Committee: No, he has not won it at all.
Cooke: Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.
Nobel Committee: Thank you. You’re welcome. Bye bye.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50598

So, you forgot one category, the False Nobel.....

So Steven Adams is a faux sceptic.

Next!

I believe we have a shoe-in for Ed Brayton's Bryan Fischer award.

Breakthrough Boys are probably right. The best intervention against AGW is base load power that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Fission reactors using liquid fuels can do it. Widespread deployment will be hard and maybe too late in the West, unless regulators and greens stop sandbagging fission.

Excellent job... :)

Obama, the greenest president ever, did not say a word about climate during the debates. Did he mention "climate" at all during his campaign?

So much for the world caring about climate alarmist's opinion. Therefore, please replace all titles "How the world sees them" by "How we, the alarmists see them (but the world does not care about our opinions) " That would make the whole post more authentic.

You may even try to submit this article to PNAS. There is a chance they publish it.

Yes, you are correct Mike. It was wrong of Mann to claim on his indictment that he and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Prize.

Any incorrect or fraudulent statement by anyone on this - or any issue - should be condemned. So I am perfectly happy to act with integrity and say that was wrong.

Now, while we are at it, can you think of anyone else who has claimed to have won that very same Nobel Prize?

I hope you will act with equal integrity and condemn that person as well.

The only other people who have claimed that Nobel who were not global warming alarmists were doing so in complete jest.

Uh Uh. No.

Integrity - fail! Typical for a denier. Not sure why I would have expected anything different really. You see, the evidence is right here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_…

Right there, it says:

His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table
inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace
Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented
to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.

So now that you have been shown the evidence, will you act with even a scintilla of integrity and admit your error, or will you continue to act as the complete lying asshole that we know all deniers are?

Faux Skeptics are no match for Avengers! ;-)

Hulk smashing!

Best counter[to Faux Skeptics]: Try to expose the hypocrisy of pretending to be a skeptic about everything except anything that goes against the scientific consensus

Regarding the Wattzis at Wattsup, this is *way* to optimistic. They just censor you rather than admit that Adolf Wattler does not even read his own sources before shooting off his fat mouth.

However, I have learned this about faux skeptic dogmatists: They cannot be convinced, but they can be tormented. And that is great fun. I visit Wattsup a couple of times a year, watch the fools implode, and wait for the Wattzi censorship gauntlet to run its course. It is truly futile as means of convincing buffoons, but it is entertaining, and that is its own form of profit.

Aye, the "try to expose the hyocrisy" is only effective for anyone watching the faux skeptics and think they might have something going on upstairs.

Count Nukem: the world is bigger than the USA.

Steven Adams and Count Nukem are THE ONLY commenters with reason on this topic. the rest of you, mandas and all the other idiots, are only plain, mean, low educated and low intelligence mainstream insane agw hysteric co2 church members who take their rotten green leftist climate hallucinations FOR THE REAL WORLD.

coby, you have no glimpse of how terribly primitive your mis-conceived claim of superority of your instable climate stance is. in only a short time from now you will hope that nobody ever will remember what kind of bullshit you have adhered to, have thought and written in a way of utter self-complacency. you are really a poor pig as being a slave of your climate gurus. btw, who is paying your salary? green piss, world false fond, kim il sung, ipcc fraudulents, al gore himself, social security institutions, ..., ... ????

your guide "how to attack a skeptic" reminds me of the argumentation bibles of fundamentalists of whatever direction of mentally insane extremisms (communists, nazis, religious fundamentalsists of any church, agw church associates, etc. etc.).

the only thing you don't consider possible is that you and your fellow climate idiots are wrong and your biggest mistake is that you think you are close to science. no, no, you climate church idiots, you are very far away from real science, you poor pigs.

So, kai, you offered a bet about Arctic sea ice, I accept and proposed the details, you went silent for a couple of days. So how about it?

Should there be a separate entry in the bestiary for the likes of kai--the one shot wonder drive-by blog vandals?

How about the Graffiti Goblin?

I would think "The Joker" would be more appropos.

I.e. all his bollocks about how EVERYONE ELSE is a ignorant poopyhead nazi gayboy communist idiot traitor (etc etc etc...) is exactly like The Jokers' continual bullshit about how everyone else is a crazy psychopath.

Mind you, I don't think that's how kai sees himself. Probably more the "Captain America" bollocks, wheras everyone else sees him as Joker.

You forgot another one.Chicken little. I'll give you a bit of history and then let you judge from there.
In the 80's there was a concerted effort to show that the next ice age was on the way. The winters were getting increasingly bad for broad swaths of the US. One of the proponents of this theory is now solidly behind the global warming prediction.
My question is what values or changes in the weather data in the next ten years could show the global warming theory invalid? All theories rely on data and just as data can support a theory it can also work against it. IF there is no possible future data that the climatologists can state that refutes global warming it's not a theory it's a faith. Now I'm asking for absolute empirical data no generalities. I'm looking for a serious answer no fluff. Please no straw dog impossible data sets please!

Hi roger,

Sorry, you are regurgitating a standard falsehood, please see here. There was no "concerted effort" to show an ice age was on the way, and there was no scientific consensus that it was even a likelihood (you mean the 70's by the way). There were some conjectures, even scientific ones, about possibilities related to global dimming from air pollution and the observed moderate cooling over the preceding couple of decades. You should approach claims such as your with a bit more skepticism (as you should my statement to the contrary - but please check the article I linked to first).

As for your question, a couple of points to consider: the theory of AGW was first proposed over 150 yrs ago and has gathered theoretical and empirical evidence in tremendous abundance over that time, so it is not unreasonable to remain cautiously invested in it even in the face of a decade of contradictory data, especially if it comes with no new theoretical explanations. (BTW, who is this individual you have in mind as formerly predicting an ice age, now predicting a hot-house? I would like citations if possible too.)

However, I personally would expect some serious back-to-the-drawing-board research to occur if we saw global average temperatures return to 1980's, or even 1990's levels while CO2 levels stayed the same or rose with no observed cause in any of the known major forcings (eg volcanic, solar, anthropogenic aerosols, other GH gas changes, albedo etc).

How about you roger? What would you need to observe to accept the scientific consensus that the world is experiencing a multi-decadal warming trend caused primarily by the accumulation of anthropogenic CO2?

Steven Adams:

a world where relevant politicians worldwide are running away from the global warming scam as fast as they can

Sure Steve. You're totally right.

roger:

I’ll give you a bit of history

More like a lot of fiction.

" What would you need to observe to accept the scientific consensus that the world is experiencing a multi-decadal warming trend caused primarily by the accumulation of anthropogenic CO2"

They've been seeing the exact thing that would make a skeptic concur with the IPCC for the past 20 years.

That they haven't merely proves they have nothing other than denial of the evidence, which, "luckily" for them, can continue indefinitely.

Then when they get raped over some weather disaster, they'll blame the scientists (pretending that their posts were "someone else, not me") for not telling them clearly enough about the danger.

Money and Power, that's all the Anthropogenic Global Warmig Scam was ever about...

"...Seventy-one percent of those Energy Department green energy grants and loans have gone to projects involving major presidential campaign money bundlers including members of his National Finance Committee, or those who contributed to the Democratic Party… donors who raised $457,000, then received taxpayer-supplied project grants or loans totaling nearly $11.35 billion...the Energy Department’s inspector general is launching more than 100 criminal investigations into its own green energy program awards..."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/10/28/election-campaigns-pro…

...and before you warmists have your predictable "hissy fit" over this being a Forbes article, try finding any FACT that is incorrect in the article. There are only three types of people who still believe in the AGW scam; liars, thieves and the ignorant --which are you?

Well, as an example, lets compare the annual salary of the Head of Greenpeace and the CEO of Exxon....

Oh, doesn't look like the big money is in Green issues after all...

Typo alert: pray --> prey

Steven: Please explain to me where I have it wrong:
CO2 is transparent to much of the energy arriving from the sun.
CO2 is not transparent to much of the energy leaving Earth' surface.
Human activity is resulting in an increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Therefore less energy will leave Earth and global temperatures will increase.
All this has been known for 50 years yet somehow denialists seem to think that if a few people are using the information to make money it negates the physics.

And anyway, what does Steven have against capitalism?

If there's money to be made fixing a problem, then The Free Market MUST, by its stated nature, fill that need and profit from it.

Apparently, the deniers like Steven don't like companies making a profit...

After over a decade of fighting the warmist cult normally I don't bother responding to any of you because it is meets Einstein's definition of insanity. Members of the cult never read or learn anything because the minute it begins to contradict their faith there is some kind of psychological disconnect that stops them from going any further and actually accepting that they are wrong, even when the facts are absolutely conclusive (they usually resort to attacking the source when they can't refute facts). This is why warmists will never debate and so desperately cling to the anti-science "the science is settled" and "consensus" lies.

Warmists so desperately want to believe this scam it's like trying to talk someone out of their religion. They LOVE this scam because it confirms everything they ever learned and wanted to believe about EVIL mankind and EVIL fossil fuel companies RAPING the planet and only the environmentalist HERO's (themselves of course) can SAVE THE PLANET by telling the rest of you ignorant dolts how to live! "You skeptics" are too ignorant on this complex scientific topic but trust them THEY have figured it all out and all you have to do is do everything THEY say and THE WORLD WILL BE SAVED!!! Ignore all of the lies and deception, ignore facts, history, and the scientific process, ignore the massive financial incentives (billions in taxpayer money, trillions if Wall Street gets cap-and-trade) being thrown at scientists, environmental organizations and governments, forget that it is the useless and self-serving corrupt United Nations IPCC and two-bit third world dictatorships desperately seeking global wealth redistribution that is truly driving this scam -- everything will be fine! Even though they have never accomplished anything of significance and have a track record of incompetence and corruption you can trust them THIS TIME!...continued

...continued

Warmists love the idea of AGW and most of all they love themselves for being "smart" enough to have figured it out. This is there one chance in their otherwise insignificant lives to play HERO for their family and friends and save the world!...and by "Gaia" -- nobody is going to stop them! Sorry...ROFLMAO!

However you both raise valid questions and you actually managed to do it without the pervasive narcissist/superman/superiority complex attitude infecting most warmist comments (hence the juvenile accusation that "Republicans" and "conservatives" are "anti-science") so I will make an exception. But you have to promise to learn something!

Anyway...the answers to your questions are simple. In a simple closed theoretical atmospheric system you are correct about CO2 increasing temperature - no educated skeptic disagrees with the basic scientific concept. However the CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are way too small to have any kind of major or catastrophic impact AND in our complex (currently impossible to accurately model with a computer program which is why their forecasts have always been wrong) climate system there are hundreds/thousands of other interrelated factors, particularly NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS that render CO2 concentrations completely irrelevant (within the margin of error) to our PERCEIVED temperature changes. I emphasize negative feedbacks because the entire CATASTROPHIC portion of the global warming scam is predicated on the concept of (unproven, unscientific) POSITIVE FEEDBACKS built into computer models which are quite possibly the #1 fallacy of this scam. Unethical ACTIVIST scientists introduced these positive feedbacks solely to try and adjust their failing computer models (that never got anything right) and induce the models to forecast climate catastrophes -- and therefore increase their notoriety and the flow of grant money.

The second question is far simpler. Government money is NOT capitalism. When you steal money from one group in order to give it to another group you create no economic value for the economy or the people. Please Google "broken window theory" and try to comprehend the fallacy and how it relates to the anthropogenic global warming scam. The simplistic comparison of a CEO's salary vs the salary of the scam artist running Greenpeace is a completely irrelevant warmist troll appeal to emotion and is beneath response.

Have a great day~

OK, a whole wall of text with bugger all content.

I guess you just hate capitalism, right? If someone making money at something is proof it's a scam, then you must think that the entire capitalist system is a scam.

Or you're deluded.

Heck, I'll meet you half way: you could be both!

I've brazenly stolen your Hockey Goon (no links since Tumblr seems to trigger the spam filter), although a reference to **Slapshot** would have been better, since it's the best hockey movie ever.

+1 on your Avenger, too.

wow, the thing is, that Steven is 100% correct and you 100% for sure a total idiot, and as you are an idiot do don't even realize that you are an idiot, you poor agw climate hysteric pig

ts ts ts, what incredible kind of unemployed social security network fraudulents hang around here and think they are great. a perfect subject for ethnological studies

In what? He said NOTHING, just proclaimed something.

Oh, I get it: you agree with him, ergo he's right.

Got it. Back to the infants school level of proof...

Looks like Mike Lorrey has taken his bat and ball and gone home in a hissy fit. It's amazing isn't it? Deniers want to put their point of view and criticise people who know and accept science, but as soon as their errors are shown to them, the run and hide. Not a lot of integrity with that lot.

So, I guess I will now have to focus on the next zombie to arise from under a rock, Steven Adams.

Now I know someone like SA is completely immune to evidence, so let’s just have a look at some of his claims to see how they stack up:

”However the CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are way too small to have any kind of major or catastrophic impact…..”

Steve, you do know that this way too small concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is the only thing keeping use from freezing to death, right? I mean, that has been know for so long that not even the most ardent denier like yourself could suggest otherwise. So, given that, on what basis do you claim that changes in that concentration cannot possibly affect temperature? Please provide evidence for your answer.

”….. AND in our complex (currently impossible to accurately model with a computer program which is why their forecasts have always been wrong) climate system there are hundreds/thousands of other interrelated factors, particularly NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS that render CO2 concentrations completely irrelevant (within the margin of error) to our PERCEIVED temperature changes.”

So ummmm, if the climate models are always wrong, how do you know that there are negative feedbacks? What are you basing that answer on? Please provide evidence for your answer.

”I emphasize negative feedbacks because the entire CATASTROPHIC portion of the global warming scam is predicated on the concept of (unproven, unscientific) POSITIVE FEEDBACKS built into computer models which are quite possibly the #1 fallacy of this scam”

So you think there are negative feedbacks (evidence please), yet you completely dismiss the possibility that there could be positive feedbacks. Why is that? What is your evidence for both positions?

You see Steve, this is the problem. Science requires that you provide evidence to support your view. It also requires that any hypothesis or theory that you produce be both internally consistent (ie there are no contradictions between one part of the theory and another) and that it be consistent with known principles of science (such as the radiative properties of gases). Unfortunately, not only is your long diatribe nothing more than an collection of ad homs and zombie denier memes completely lacking in any evidentiary support, it is also internally contradictory and at odds with known laws of physics.

Perhaps if you had paid attention during high school science classes you might have been aware of that. But as it is, you are nothing more than a sad and moronic individual living in your mother’s basement, looking at porn all day and occasionally filling the time between masturbatory sessions by trolling on science blogs. You need to get out more.

mandas: "Science requires that you provide evidence to support your view"

mandas what a nasty arrogant brat you really are: didn't you underperformer know that the level of scientific understanding in the AR4 was described as low to very low for practically all feedback mechanisms including the one fundamental to your religious warming belief, the water vapour feedback. therefore ipcc admitted that there is no real convincing evidence of positive feedbacks. but you insane bollocks producer behave as if your religious warming belief were based on robust facts. no, that's not true, and you better shut up with such a poor standing.

Warmist troll mandas quickly confirms much of what I said about the warmist cult with his rabid response (hit a little too close to home there didn't I goober). You brought my mother and porn into your diatribe but you neglected to mention Fox News or Rush Limbaugh...maybe next time!

Let's take a look at his 1st attempt at refuting my statements: QUOTE: "...this way too small concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is the only thing keeping use from freezing to death..."

FACTS: "...The gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light primarily are water (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (NO2) and methane (CH4). The gases act as a sort of insulating blanket for the earth, in the same way they would act to lessen heat loss from a greenhouse, hence the name 'greenhouse effect'. It is estimated that the mean global surface temperature of the earth would be -25°C (-13°F) if not for the absorption of energy by carbon dioxide and water.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher than that of carbon dioxide. Consequently, most of this energy conservation is attributable to water..."

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/greenhouse.htm

My suggestion for rational educated people who aren't closed-minded warmist cult members is that once you discover that your foul mouthed warmist "hero" has lied about one thing their credibility is gone. The probability that they are lying (or misinformed) about other things too is extremely high. Ignore them and interract with credible ethical people.

Don't take my word for things either. As I've shown with MINIMAL effort you can easily discredit almost every warmist cult member and expose their true agenda...propaganda.

Nullius in Verba!!!

Less than 0.5% of earth’s atmosphere is responsible for 100% of the natural greenhouse effect that keeps earth from being a frozen over slush ball. The other 99.5% of the atmosphere—the nitrogen, oxygen, argon and a host of truly trace gases—acts only as a heat reservoir for the warming caused by that 0.5%.

That means by volume CO2 comprises slightly less than 10% of the greenhouse gases in earth’s atmosphere—far more than the usual 0.04% figure would suggest; or 400 ppm if you prefer.

But even that 10% figure doesn’t give a true measure of how much of the greenhouse effect CO2 accounts for. Because CO2 absorbs so effectively at the very peak of earth’s radiating spectrum, it actually accounts for around 20% of the greenhouse effect, with H2O doing most of the rest, with a little help from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and a slew of man-made gases present in truly minute amounts.

The effect of the greenhouse breaks down this way:

50% water vapor (H2O)
25% cloud coverage (made of H2O)
20% carbon dioxide (CO2)
5% other minor greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, O3, etc.)

So, by adding a bit of perspective we’ve gone from 0.04% of the total atmosphere to 20% of the total greenhouse effect.

The problem with molecules like H2O is they don’t have any effect alone because of their very short residency time in the atmosphere – they can only amplify the effects of some other molecule (i.e. CO2) that controls the initial temperature set point. The set point then dials in a certain amount of atmospheric H2O as water vapour. It might add warming via cloud effects too. Another problem is H2O molecules are also largely concentrated in the lower 20% of the atmosphere muting their global warming potential further.

H2O, while causing the greater effect, is not driving the climate. CO2 is, therefore it is the most important greenhouse gas. H20 is not even considered a forcing agent behind climate change, just a feedback.

The best science on the efficacy and actual forcing of all the different factors that affected climate since 1750 is this famous IPCC chart:

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-5.html

You have to wonder about the intellectual capacity of someone like Steven Adams. Not only is he a denialist troll, he demonstrates that other remarkably dishonest trait of all deniers - cherry picking.

Thanks for those links Steven. Did you actually read them? If so, why didn't you post the rest of the information at the second link? You know, this bit:

"Although the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is low (~375 ppm in 2005), it has been increasing appreciably over time. A century ago, the carbon dioxide concentration was less than 300 ppm. Human activites are accountable for this increase, including consumption of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of land (less carbon dioxide can be consumed by photosynthesis). Changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are associated with changes in the earth's climate."

Any comment on that? No need to respond, perhaps this quote from your last post is response enough:

"Don’t take my word for things either. As I’ve shown with MINIMAL effort you can easily discredit almost every warmist cult member and expose their true agenda…propaganda."

I NEVER take anyone's word for it (I am a sceptic). Which is why I checked your link. And with only MINIMAL effort you managed to discredit yourself so easily! Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot, is there Steven?

However the CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere are way too small to have any kind of major or catastrophic impact

Hang on! The presence of 285 ppm CO2 is enough to increase Earth's temperature by about 25C compared to that of the moon, but increasing it by 50% will have no discernible effect? Are you sure you have that right?

there are hundreds/thousands of other interrelated factors, particularly NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS that render CO2 concentrations completely irrelevant

Could you give links to just a couple of these negative feedbacks as I am not aware of any that are remotely close to being large enough to have any meaningful effect.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher than that of carbon dioxide. Consequently, most of this energy conservation is attributable to water

Please explain to us your understanding of the difference between driving variables and response variables in relation to positive feedback.

Unethical ACTIVIST scientists introduced these positive feedbacks solely to try and adjust their failing computer models (that never got anything right) and induce the models to forecast climate catastrophes — and therefore increase their notoriety and the flow of grant money.

Arrhenius, around 1900, was amongst the earliest scientists to include water vapour as a positive feedback. Which computer model was he using and how did it affect his flow of grant money? Before you make wild accusations, you need to make sure you are not making an ass of yourself.

mandas and richard, the ipcc ar4 admitted that the level of scientific understanding regarding water vapour and cloud feedback is low. hence all your statements regarding this are rubbish

"Nullius in Verba!!!"

SA listens to Screaming Mad Lord Monkfish.

Stick a fork in the tool, he's done.

I love reading this.

kai, SA:

Do either of you read books--ever?

skip: approx. 1000000 times more than you, you illiterate mean agw hysteric

droppings from kai the dishonest ignoramus:

ipcc ar4 admitted that the level of scientific understanding regarding water vapour and cloud feedback is low

Because, you know, science never advances in 5 years. Amirite? /sarc

Epilogue: censorship is the only way believers can win. Herr Goebbels would be proud of you. SA has been blocked from posting.

SA

Good job blocking my posts, exactly what I expect from the warmist cult -- but you and I both know what a gutless piece of human filth you are!!!!!

Herr Goebbels would be so proud!

None of Steve Adams posts have been blocked, I don't know if anything at all happened or if he is just cresting a fake alibi.

I'm going with the fake alibi.

SA is similar to IC. The sum total of his capacity to argue his case is to cut and paste dogma from denier blogs and to make evidence free assertions as if they are fact.

When you point out the contradictions in their position, they just make ad hom comments, or move on to the next gish gallop without ever having the integrity to acknowledge their previous point was wrong.

Oh well, what would you expect?

SA, how would you know SA has been blocked unless you're SA?

PS Ask Bradley Manning how free speech is. It gets blocked EVERYWHERE. ***SANE*** people don't compare free speech being bloked with naziism.

Only the hitler boys do that. So they don't feel as alone.

Anyway, since this is a private blog run by Coby, Free Speech doesn't apply. It only applies to governments from USA dogma on the subject.

Wow - I can't imagine Coby blocking anything.

That is the thing I like about the blog - you can write virtually anything and it will not be blocked or deleted. I have seen posts which are off topic moved to the appropriate thread, but I have never seen anything other than bots or threats of violence being removed (sorry about that coby!).

Even obvious trolls like kai don't get deleted.

It doesn't matter if he did.

a) we have apparently a third party claiming it.
b) if it wasn't a third party, then we already have evidence they will lie
c) even if it were some form of mental power a la Prof X and even if they were telling the truth, so what? It's not censorship as far as the USA defines Free Speech.

(solicitors when refuting a case take mutliple inconsistent stands in case any statement cannot be proven in a court of law, which can happen even if the claims are bogus: how would it be proven? It can't. But it doesn't matter for those reasons.)

wow, it would be helpful if you could improve your writing skills so that everyone could follow what you tried to say

this thread is about trolls, right? you call me a troll, right? do you think that trolls should be allowed to contribute to the troll topic?

ps: i would appreciate your support in the endeavor to improve the poor german primary school language skills of jan, just for the sake to make his questionable contributions in clumsy english better understandable to a wider audience.

Do either of you read books–ever?

--skip

skip: approx. 1000000 times more than you, you illiterate mean agw hysteric

--kai

Really? LOL.

That's an impressive number.

This, I take it, is your decisive argument? LOL.

I think you have a fairly compelling claim here. Why don't you submit it to the next IPCC AR editorial board.

LOL.

. . . just for the sake to make his questionable contributions in clumsy english better understandable . . . .--kai

The above is priceless.

Hey skip

I don't know, kai may be correct about the fact that he reads more books that us.

For example, I hardly read any books; preferring to read journals and articles. And we know that kai is reading 'The Cat in the Hat' and "One Fish Two Fish", so we have to give him credit for that.

. . . kai is reading ‘The Cat in the Hat’ and “One Fish Two Fish”, so we have to give him credit for that.

A million times, at that. But does he really deserve credit for repeats? A philosophical question . . . . I mean I have read both of the aforementioned Dr. Seuss standards to my twins approximately a million times. I doubt that by itself gives me any particular credibility on the climate debate.

But let's watch this fool continue to post. It's just a matter of time before we see zombie links to Watts . . . .

God help me but I love it so . . .

Please Coby, avengers are not like weedy trap door spiders. They are like the far more formidable funnel web spiders.

"it would be helpful if you could improve your writing skills so that everyone could follow what you tried to say"

I'm afraid I don't speak fluent idiot, kai.

"this thread is about trolls, right? you call me a troll, right? do you think that trolls should be allowed to contribute to the troll topic?"

So since this latest whining is SA being blocked, and you are saying that you should be allowed, you are SA and the other SA.

Sockpuppets galore!

You read Dr Suess skip?

I bet you have been brainwashed by 'The Lorax'.

I bet you have been brainwashed by ‘The Lorax’.

I know what you need.
What you need is a Thneed.

The responses from the "skeptics" here are an elegant confirmation that the bestiary is an accurate description of the denialist zoo.

Wil the various SA's/kai et al all move over to Steve Goddard's blog for this travesty in their eyes:

tonylearns said…
Could someone go over to Goddard’s blog for me ( I have been banned three times most recently for having the gall to suggest he was wrong in ridiculing the possibility of a new record minimum SIE this year. ) and ask for his apology to Hansen for ridiculing the possibility of the West Side Highway being underwater. I just saw a video showing the West Side Highway underwater.

(someone being banned on a blog! Go my pretties! Fly!".

I cannot decide which is more amusing - the troll bestiary or the kind trolls that came around to illustrate a few of the beasts in person. Delightful.

Ah, Kai, here you are.

Coby's already confronted you about your challenge, but I'd like to point out that I'm itching to get in on the action too.

Please respond at your earliest convenience. I'm keen to increase my gold stocks, and your generous offer to engage in a wager is a sure way for me to do so.

Clock's ticking.

I'm curious, after reading through the various posts here, a question crossed my mind.

Are any of you familiar with the term "sock puppet" as used on the Internet? Specifically, this sort of usage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#cite_note-guard-23

After my review of the positions appearing in the comments here, the CentCom procurement of persona management software came to mind: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-socia…

After all, "On the Internet no one knows you're a dog." I wonder if you're all truly different individuals :)

But are you really someone different from me, merely sowing doubt about the different identities of my other identities!

Yeh Coby, but where is your climate science proving that we are all gonna get fried up bvecause of an increase of 0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2, and of which onlt 3 in 100 is anthropogenic? Where's your science? It's science that I want not clown-jokes.

I was a warmist once, until I went back to my science, physics and chenistry and climate reports which convinced me that I should not worry too much, except that the sun is approaching a Maunder-like minimum with the scientifically based probabilitty of an onset of another Little Ice Age same as we had every 1000 years. And each one ebeing colder than the one before... check it out

Go on, call me a denier and I call you a cimate-change denier. You and your warmist friends deny that the planet's climate had changed in the past, at times even more than today. Our planet has, amiong others, 1000 year cycles being the direct effect of solar cycles. Go on, deny that...

Alex,

Your brain broke.

Sorry to inform you.

Coby, I think you need another category.

Einstein/Cat-in-the-Hat

When a hypothesis is found to have not been supported by observation, hat hyothesis is snet back to the drawing board.

the sun is approaching a Maunder-like minimum:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

with the scientifically based probabilitty of an onset of another Little Ice Age same as we had every 1000 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

(1000 years?)

And each one ebeing colder than the one before… check it out:

(see above. checked it out: false)

"When a hypothesis is found to have not been supported by observation, hat hyothesis is snet back to the drawing board."

Indeed. Which is why deniers are not scientists or skeptics. They do not change their conclusion, even when the observations do not support those claims.

Alex of the Poor Sentence Structure, Flawed Logic and False Data:

0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2, and of [sic] which onlt [sic] 3 in 100 is anthropogenic?

1) There has been a ~41% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to around 395 ppm today. Count your fingers and toes and work it out for yourself if you don't believe me.

2) The increase is due to human activities in clearing land and burning fossil fuels.

Your understanding of "science, physics and chenistry and climate [sic] reports" is woefully inadequate.

And yes, you are a denier. You deny fact in the face of scientific evidence. And no, scientists do not deny historic climate change - in fact, they understand it and know how it puts into context the current human-caused changing of climate.

Silly boy, go back to your sand pit and let leave science and higher thinking to the grown ups - your betters who are much more able to engage the intellectual rigour required to understand these matters.

@bernard, for your instruction from an infinitely superior intellect, compared to yours'

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Instead of data, you have computer models, which as far as the lay person is concerned, come with their very own specious authority. Even if you don’t understand the physics of clouds or have not yet even begun to invent the math to handle turbulence, by simply programming a computer using nothing better than that basis of ignorance, the result is somehow supposed to be legitimate and beyond question. If you consider climate to be an interaction between an unknown set of non-linear complex systems, which I do, the idea of predicting what it’ll be doing next year, never mind next century, is scientifically ignorant beyond all belief. It’s also totally dishonest.

I have fine combed through the world of climate science and found what I would consider to be two big intellects and an army of pygmies, masquerading as saviours of the world, but at the end of the day, all they know how to do is pursue grant money, a bit of notoriety or both. They interact with each other over the science, and though it can get a bit bitchy at times, the grand consensus is never questioned. Mediocrity breeds and promotes nothing better than mediocrity, if only to protect itself. Anyone who questions the consensus is soon marginalised, so not many people on the inside do, though they might entertain some grave doubts. It’s equivalent to an organisation that’s lost the ability to question itself.

The whole point about science is to deliver some measure of certainty about the real world, not a probabilistic and unverifiable guesstimate of how it might work. When scientists fall back on talking about a consensus, then as the late Michael Crichton observed, it means they simply don’t know.

The big bright shining lie at the very heart of climate science was always their proclaimed certainty and all they can do now is defend that lie to the death, by whatever means possible.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

do you now better understand your own insignificance based on lies and fraud?

"Instead of data"

???

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleoclimate-data

@Wow,

please don't feed the troll, otherwise he'll continue to be a pain in the neck.

He does not qualify for a serious argument.

I'm putting in far less effort, Jan.

Mind you, the vacuity of this eight-year-old is so nearly total, there's not a lot of effort needed to uncover the bonkers idiocy.

wow, paleo-climate data, hahahaha, hahahaha, hahahahaha

did your grand parents tell you that, stupid??

ps: german climate troll jan: please improve your german grammar school english that everybody here has a chance - at least a tiny one - to understand of what you are trying to crap out

Yes. Data.

You claimed none.

Again, you're wrong.

coby, are you going to be a timourous fuckwit or will you man up and ban that twat kai?

i would rather ban wow, mandas, debunker and jan, instead of kai, for incredibly stupid and offending "contributions"

wow, you have no knowledge at all about weather and climate and suffer so much from your cultural deficiencies. so please calm down and swallow your anger

you would, but you're a irritating little pissant.

I didn't realise that Kai was so profoundly brain-damaged.

Perhaps Jan's right - feeding the lobotomised troll will only encourage his attempts to communicate with higher intelligences, with the only positive outcome being the possible shorting-out of his saliva-drenched keyboard.

Kai, if you want me to talk to you again, you're either going to have to man up and accept my wager, or put forward an evidenced argument to back up your vomitus.

wow and bernard, don't you really understand how infinitely primitive you are in argueing, thinking. your climate church superiors may soon punish you because you throw such a terribly bad light on your co2 religion and do such painful harm in your rotten catastrophe alarmism

i cannot talk about jan, since i absolutely cannot follow his bollocks in german misformed pseudo-english

Wow, your question is a false dichotomy. Besides, you must like his presence here, because you are feeding him copious amounts of attention. I don't think he would last long if you and Jan declined to address him again.

No, it's two sides of the coin.

You're pretty quiet when others get this little turdstain slagging them off.

An hour after reading you getting called a coward, you appear...

PS you must like there presence here because you haven't asked them to fuck off.

(see how if you want to see something you can find some method of "proving" it as long as you get to pretend you're in someone else's head)

Yes, your insult got my attention, what does that show? Trolling works I guess. Plus, I did in fact ask kai to get lost and unlike you, I am not encouraging his continued posting.

Look, banning people is easy, I don't know why you think it requires "manning up" what ever that is supposed to imply. I moderate as little as possible because a) people can take care of themselves by ignoring trolls and understanding that internet vitriol is not actually dangerous and b) moderating well is difficult and requires a level of attention I can't always spare.

That said, it would be relatively easy to ban vulgarity and gratuitous insults and if enough people indicate they would like that I will do my best to oblige. I think you might find a good deal of your postings lying on the cutting room floor though.

I like the unmoderated Usenet group model even though it is vulnerable as the descent of sci.environment into unusability shows. On blogs, there is no killfile mechanism which increases the danger of conversing becoming impossible, but so far around here the noise is not so overwhelming. Until it is, I don't see that the heavy hand of dictating who you are allowed to read and reply to is necessary.

If you don't want trolls around, don't feed them. If trolls post on new threads, it is a good policy to reply once or twice because non-regulars and passers-by don't have the historical context, but after that what is the point?

What does it show?

That you don't mind kai insulting everyone else here, but wouldn't like it if he did it to you.

Since you have the power to get that to cut out, that makes kai's insults your problem too.

If you didn't want trolls around, you'd tell them to clean up their act. Warn them they're getting banned, warn them again and then, if it doesn't seem to be working just warning them, banning them.

And what's happened to all that reason for free speech in the face of hatred's dogma: bad reasoning should be countered by words, not by shutting down the speaker?

Seems if you counter the bad reasoning, you get claimed that you're helping the trolls.

Seems that the dogma of free speech is prettly malleable. It can get shoehorned into any shape needed to blame others for your spinelessness.

kia is not the only one throwing insults around, why are you only concerned about controlling him, and not for example yourself? If you want to post somewhere where everyone is controlled, that is not here so you can feel free to get lost.

The best approach to a useless dialogue is to stop contributing to it, watch me demonstrate now how that is done.

Why are you only concerned about insults to you, coby?

No problems with others being slagged off and their time wasted.

Talk about useless dialogue. See above..!

by far the most offending underperformer here is the climate ignorant wow. he is of a such primitive stature that he even cannot recognize when he violates normal educated behavior.

when i would list what he called me here every normal person would be ashamed for a whole lifetime

Terrific post, but man, these comments got progressively more depressing as I read. You guys getting into this little slapfight with kai got trolled pretty hard. You had him on all the facts at every turn but really sank to his level with all the insults when you had a pretty obvious win in hand.

Well where were you, DW, when it came to departing kai, hmm?

I see. Easier to complain than do something.

I think DW's point is that the best way to deal with trolls like kai is to ignore them

That's one theory.

Then again, The Big Lie can only be countered by action and for the success of evil, good only has to do nothing, etc all point to a different idea.

Then again, since DW has only turned up to complain about others, is that indication of trolling again? Seems like.

kai didn't require responses, only things to be said. Therefore not responding to kai would require abandoning this blog.

Lest categories be drawn too broadly, this comment may seem to be from or be from an instance of The Auditor.

The sorry state of public science and policy discussion regarding climate should nevertheless not excuse climate research, reports, and publications from pursuing the best statistical practices, whether regarding treatment of time series, or doing inference. In particular, just as in medical research there is WAY WAY too much reliance on p-values and hypothesis testing in climate research, meteorology, and geophysics, and on uncritical applications of things like bootstrap estimates.

With that reservation stated, a very fine set of characterizations!

What do we call trolls who never address arguments and only attack the people making the arguments instead? (Kind of like . . . this whole post?) How about . . .

The Ad Hom King.
favorite blog: :)

Puerumque scholasticae fecit, aunque domus affiducit oleum malum. AGW hysteria cools significantly down since the IPCC admitted that the climate cannot be foreseen as it is a non-linear chaotic, not calculabe, virtual construct.

This article is absolute genius!

Climate is a boundary problem, freddykaiboristroll.

It's as answerable, in theory, as an honest hand at poker's odds. And it's easy to forsee climate. Summer warmer than Winter. Job done.