Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[RichardC]

I'm afraid you're misreading, or misinterpreting, what I wrote. There is nothing inconsistent in saying that you don't know much about one subject (climate change) but that you have a belief that something happens as a general rule with another subject (nature). I don't know how you can read a denial of climate change into a sentence that begins with an affirmation that I don't deny it. Again, though, I didn't mean to get into a discussion about things that I don't have expertise in. As I said in my earlier post, I incorrectly assumed that this was a discussion of the interaction between a belief in climate change and support for the Tesla product.

Eclectic, I had misread your statement that: "Nature is a lot more powerful than any of us" as suggesting that manmade AGW could not be true because "nature is a lot more powerful" than humans and therefore couldn't be affected by human activity.

That said, I believe your statement to be definitively wrong, as a matter of fact. By any reasonable measure, nature is clearly subordinate to mankind and our technology. For example:

http://www.livescience.com/45964-extinction-rates-1000-times-normal.htmlSee:

Species on Earth are going extinct at least 1,000 times faster than they would be without human influence, new research finds.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

Food production takes up almost half of the planet's land surface and threatens to consume the fertile land that still remains, scientists warn.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature."From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

The current and future consequences of global change
Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.
Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. ...
Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third National Climate Assessment Report[SUP] 2[/SUP], released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.
Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.
Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.
Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
Southwest. Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

Do you believe that the earth circles the sun? If not why not? Our everyday experience would suggest the opposite. In my life I have seem much clearer and more compelling evidence of climate change, than evidence that the earth orbits the sun.

Why is there no skepticism about the structure of the solar system? The scientific consensus prevails, only because there is no money to be made by denying the science.

Contrast climate change, for which the science is equally clear and convincing, but threatens the future profitability of a multi-trillion dollar industry. Hence, the multi-billion dollar climate change "denial" industry and widespread public confusion.

The public is being played. The fact that this thread even exists, is a testament to the pervasive effectiveness of the denial industry.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Why is there no skepticism about the structure of the solar system? The scientific consensus prevails, only because there is no money to be made by denying the science.

The structure of the solar system can be directly observed, most of our concern over climate change is based on the very logical concept of temperature always following CO2 concentrations and here we are with record CO2 concentration levels.

But climate change is a very long game and the real damage will come decades or centuries down the line if and when the atmosphere and oceans can't deal with the CO2 anymore. Temps are still trending upwards, but 2014 was a cooler year in the US than 1921.

I believe climate change is the biggest single problem facing mankind and an immediate quadrupling of effort should be taken to wean off fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean the accepted climate science of today is anywhere near as "correct" as out currently accepted structure of the solar system.

 

[nwdiver]

The structure of the solar system can be directly observed, most of our concern over climate change is based on the very logical concept of temperature always following CO2 concentrations and here we are with record CO2 concentration levels.

The physics of climate change is 100% as observable as the structure of the solar system. No one has ever seen the structure of the solar system... it's inferred from multiple observations... just like climate change. AGW is not a logical conclusion derived from climate records... AGW existed as a hypothesis long before those climate records were discovered. CO2 is understood to effect climate because of it's transparency to incoming short-wave(visible) radiation and relative opacity to outgoing long-wave (IR) radiation. Alexander Graham Bell predicted this decades before we had analyzed ice cores. Ice cores supported the original hypothesis... not the other way round...

FACT: CO2 shifts the energy balance of the Earth

FACT: Humans emit ~40B tons of CO2/yr

FACT: ~40B tons is >5ppm of the Earths Atmosphere

FACT: CO2 levels are rising >2ppm/yr and are now at record highs


OPINION: Fossil Fuels are for Morons and Monsters.

 

[RichardC]

The physics of climate change is 100% as observable as the structure of the solar system. No one has ever seen the structure of the solar system... it's inferred from multiple observations... just like climate change. AGW is not a logical conclusion derived from climate records... AGW existed as a hypothesis long before those climate records were discovered. CO2 is understood to effect climate because of it's transparency to incoming short-wave(visible) radiation and relative opacity to outgoing long-wave (IR) radiation. Alexander Graham Bell predicted this decades before we had analyzed ice cores. Ice cores supported the original hypothesis... not the other way round...

FACT: CO2 shifts the energy balance of the Earth

FACT: Humans emit ~40B tons of CO2/yr

FACT: ~40B tons is >5ppm of the Earths Atmosphere

FACT: CO2 levels are rising >2ppm/yr and are now at record highs


OPINION: Fossil Fuels are for Morons and Monsters.

Thanks, for the brief summary, a slightly more detailed version follows:

The History and Theoretical Underpinning of AGW

The scientific causes and basis for AGW is simple and well understood.

• The discovery of the greenhouse effect is generally credited to the renowned French mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier, who calculated, in the 1820s, that the incoming energy from the Sun could not account for the warmth of the Earth and argued in 1824 that it could best be explained by the greenhouse effect
• He also suspected that human activities could affect the climate
• In 1864 John Tyndall further advanced the work begun by Fourier by demonstrating that GHGs such as methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapour strongly block infrared radiation
• In 1896 Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, calculated that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the Earth’s temperatures by around 5-6 degrees Celsius
• By 1917 Alexander Graham Bell was expressing concerns about the greenhouse impacts of the burning of fossil fuels and went on to advocate the use of alternate energy, such as solar energy
• Scientific debate with respect to persistence of manmade GHGs in the atmosphere came to a consensus by the end of the 1950s as studies demonstrated that oceans had a limited capacity to absorb CO2 and the Keeling curve demonstrated that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is in fact rising, year-by-year

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

Empirical evidence that the predicted impacts of the dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere were occurring became apparent and the harm unequivocal by the mid-1980's.

• Despite the growing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere, during the 1960’s and 70’s early evidence of global warming were masked by the cooling effects of aerosol particulate pollution (such as sulphur dioxide)
• By the early 1980s, environmental legislation (in particular the US Clean Air Act) had decreased the emissions of aerosols and it became clear that steadily increasing CO2 levels (without the offsetting cooling from aerosols) were progressively increasing the energy in the planet and causing global warming
• The development of a clear scientific consensus led to the organization in 1985 of a joint UNEP/WMO/ICSU Conference which concluded that greenhouse gases "are expected" to cause significant warming in the next century
• Widespread international concern about the seriousness of threat of manmade climate change led to the establishment, in 1988, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and, in 1992, of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and thereafter to the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol

Current Confirmation, Reconfirmation and the Scientific Consensus

The scientific theory underlying AGW and its approximate impact have been understood for more than a century now, and have been repeatedly confirmed and reconfirmed in literally thousands of experiments and peer reviewed papers. The physical science is intrinsically much simpler than that establishing the causal connection between smoking and cancer. Simply stated: GHGs in the atmosphere trap infrared heat energy, more GHGs trap more heat energy. We have two hundred years of science and knowledge gained with respect to the properties of GHGs and AGW. We have billions of measurements which have repeatedly tested, confirmed and documented in thousands of peer reviewed papers the physical basis for and fact of AGW. We have unanimity among all National Academies of Science, the IPCC and virtually all climate scientists in this regard.

Skeptical Science summed up the case against GHGs as the cause of AGW as follows:

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.
And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime.
The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

There is currently no national science academy or national or international scientific body which disagrees with the scientific consensus, as set out by the IPCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

A study completed last year found that only 1 of 9,136 recent peer-reviewed authors rejects AGW.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

HowStuffWorks has prepared a list of "10 Things That Don’t Disprove Global Warming" which are frequently cited by deniers and the reasons that none of these things (even those which are true) in any way disprove AGW, as follows:

We're Experiencing Colder Winters
Arctic Sea Ice Actually Has Increased
Polar Bears Seem to Be Thriving
Global Temperature Hasn't Risen Since 1998
Carbon Dioxide Is a Tiny Part of the Atmosphere
The Earth Has Natural Warming and Cooling Cycles
In the 1970s, Scientists Were Just as Sure an Ice Age Was Coming
Climate Scientists Have Been Caught Faking Data
There's No Proof Global Warming Causes Drought
Global Warming Isn't 'Settled Science'

http://science.howstuffworks.com/en...ings-dont-disprove-global-warming.htm#page=10

A more comprehensive list of 176 global warming and climate change myths, and the science which refutes them, can be found at the Skeptical Science website. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Finally, I note that a Physics professor in Texas and others have offered prizes of up to $30,000 to any one who could prove the falsity of AGW.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca/p/challlenge-submissions.html

The reason that the professor's money is safe, relates to the simplicity of the laws of physics that underlie AGW. The key elements of the physics (which are taught in grade 11 in high school) are as follows:

1. The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics - the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
2. When assessed from the top of the atmosphere, the earth is in substance a closed system, subject only to the incoming and outgoing flows of radiative energy.
3. NASA has repeatedly confirmed that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are causing a net energy imbalance of approximately one half Watt per square metre the top of the atmosphere. See: http://phys.org/news/2012-01-nasa-case-earth-energy.htmll
4. This surplus energy (equivalent to roughly the energy which would be released by the detonation of 300,000 Hiroshima bombs each and every day) is for the most part accumulating in the oceans, but is already having all of the observed impacts referred to above.

The foregoing clearly refutes your factually incorrect assertion that:

"most of our concern over climate change is based on the very logical concept of temperature always following CO2 concentrations ..."

and that

"climate change is a very long game and the real damage will come decades or centuries down the line if and when the atmosphere and oceans can't deal with the CO2 anymore."

The concerns over man made climate change originate almost 200 years ago with scientific studies into the physical properties of greenhouse gases and the role that they play in trapping heat energy in the planetary system. As a result of this work, we have known for approximately 120 years the expected impact on global temperatures that would result from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Keeling studies in the 1950's clearly demonstrated that manmade GHG emissions had already then vastly overwhelmed the ability of the oceans and other natural sinks to dispose of the manmade GHGs and that manmade GHGs were rapidly accumulating in and were already changing the chemical makeup of the earth's atmosphere.

The impacts of climate change were in the future in the 1980's, but are already having very real and serious impacts, including the following (from NASA). See:http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Sea level riseGlobal sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.[SUP]4[/SUP]
+ more

Earth’s vital signs: Sea Level

Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.[SUP]5[/SUP] Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.[SUP]6[/SUP] Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.[SUP]7[/SUP]
+ more

Earth’s vital signs: Global temperature

An indicator of current global average temperature as measured by NASA; updated monthly.

Global Climate Change: Causes

An overview of the greenhouse effect and other contributors to abrupt climate change.

Video: Global warming from 1880 to 2013

A visualization of global temperature changes since 1880 based on NASA GISS data.

Warming oceans

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.[SUP]8[/SUP]
+ more

Article: Warming ocean causing most Antarctic ice shelf mass loss

Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.

Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet

Shrinking ice sheets

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
+ more

Vital Signs: Land Ice

An indicator of the current volume and the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets using data from NASA’s Grace satellite.

Global Ice Viewer

An interactive exploration of how global warming is affecting sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets world wide.

Declining Arctic sea ice

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.[SUP]9[/SUP]
+ more

Earth’s vital signs: Sea ice

An indicator of changes in the Arctic sea ice minimum over time. Arctic sea ice extent both affects and is affected by global climate change.

Glacial retreat

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.[SUP]10[/SUP]
+ more

Interactive: Global ice viewer

An interactive exploration of how global warming is affect sea ice, glaciers and continental ice sheets worldwide.

Extreme events

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.[SUP]11[/SUP]
+ more

Precipitation Measurement Missions

The official website for NASA's fleet of Earth science missions that study rainfall and other types precipitation around the globe.

Ocean acidification

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.[SUP]12,[/SUP][SUP]13[/SUP] This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.[SUP]14,[/SUP][SUP]15[/SUP]
+ more

Decreased snow cover

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.[SUP]16[/SUP]
+ more

Continuing and intensifying climate change impacts include:

1. Flooding - Heavy rainfall, expected to worsen as climate change progresses, swells rivers and leads to extreme flooding events, such as those experienced in 2008 and 2013 throughout Europe. Such events have resulted in loss of life and damaging economic impacts; the floods of June 2013 led to an estimated €12 billion in economic losses across nine EU Member States. These costs stress the resources of both insurers and governments. The U.S. has sustained 170 weather/climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2013). The total cost of these 170 events exceeds $1 trillion. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/inte.../372na7_en.pdf and Billion-Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters: Overview | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
2. Hurricanes and typhoons - The first decade of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century saw 3,496 natural disasters from floods, storms, droughts and heat waves. That was nearly five times as many disasters as the 743 catastrophes reported during the 1970s – and all of those weather events are influenced by climate change. The bottom line: natural disasters are occurring nearly five times as often as they were in the 1970s. But some disasters – such as floods and storms – pose a bigger threat than others. Flooding and storms are also taking a bigger bite out of the economy. But heat waves are an emerging killer. See: Eight ways climate change is making the world more dangerous | Environment | The Guardian
3. Drought - There is strong scientific opinion that the frequency and severity of droughts are increasing. The Prairie droughts of 1979 cost $3.4-billion, and droughts in the 1980s cost more than $10-billion. The droughts of the 1990s, from a meteorological perspective, were more serious than those of the 1930s, and the droughts from 2001 to 2004 were severe and widespread. If current production systems, insurance and government programs are insufficient to sustain profitable agriculture in a variable climate at the moment, what's the prospect under future climate change? Recent U.S. droughts have been the most expansive in decades. At the peak of the 2012 drought, an astounding 81 percent of the contiguous United States was under at least abnormally dry conditions, resulting in an estimated $30 billion in damages. Climate change increases the odds of worsening drought in many regions of the U.S. and the world in the decades ahead. See: Climate change in the land of great drought - The Globe and Mail and Drought and Climate Change | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
4. Starvation - Millions of people could become destitute in Africa and Asia as staple foods more than double in price by 2050 as a result of extreme temperatures, floods and droughts that will transform the way the world farms. Climate change is expected to lower grain yields and raise crop prices across the developing world, leading to a 20-percent rise in child malnutrition, a new study finds. See: Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists | Global development | The Guardian and Climate Change Will Worsen Hunger, Study Says | Worldwatch Institute
5. Forest fires - U.S. wildfires cost as much as $125 billion annually and the current scientific consensus is that wildfire risk will increase in many regions of the world as climate change leads to warmer temperatures, more frequent droughts, and changing precipitation patterns. Fires are expected to become more frequent and intense, and fire seasons are projected to last longer as a result of climate change. The last few years have seen unprecedented losses of human life as well as valuable forests. For example see: LA Times and http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/N...T_Forestry.pdf
6. Sea Level rise - A possible rise in sea levels by 0.5 meters by 2050 could put at risk more than $28 trillion worth of assets in the world's largest coastal cities, according to a report compiled for the insurance industry. By 2050—without adaptation—the losses from coastal flooding globally are projected to rise to $US1 trillion per year, ... By 2100 the losses from coastal flooding are projected to be 0.3–9.3% of global GDP per year. The high-end projection is a scenario for global economic collapse. See: Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion - CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/index.html?_s=PM:TECH and http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/upl...6342619dad.pdf http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/56812f1261b168e02032126342619dad.pdf
7. Species extinction - Climate change alone is expected to threaten with extinction approximately one quarter or more of all species on land by the year 2050, surpassing even habitat loss as the biggest threat to life on land. Under a "business as usual" scenario, where greenhouse gas emissions aren't significantly reduced, about 50 percent of plants and one-third of animals are likely to vanish from half of the places they are now found by 2080, ... See: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss | The Center for Health and the Global Environment and Climate Change Could Cause Widespread Species Loss | Global Warming Effects
8. Loss of permafrost -Rapid thawing of the Arctic could trigger a catastrophic "economic timebomb" which would cost trillions of dollars and undermine the global financial system, say a group of economists and polar scientists. Governments and industry have expected the widespread warming of the Arctic region in the past 20 years to be an economic boon, allowing the exploitation of new gas and oilfields and enabling shipping to travel faster between Europe and Asia. But the release of a single giant "pulse" of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea "could come with a $60tn [£39tn] global price tag", according to the researchers who have for the first time quantified the effects on the global economy. It seems highly likely that the Arctic as we know it will disappear soon. By the end of this young century, a 30-70% decline in temperatures will ensure that permafrost, for example will disappear from gigantic areas of our North. Microbial decomposition of the preserved material in this soil will proceed at a comparable rate. Read more at Climate change and permafrost loss | Climate | The Earth Times and see:Rapid Arctic thawing could be economic timebomb, scientists say | Environment | The Guardian and
9. Economic and health impacts - Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study. See: Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds | Environment | The Guardian
10. Breakdowns of security and war - Last month the Pentagon released a landmark report declaring climate change an "immediate risk" to national security and outlining how it intends to protect bases, prepare for humanitarian disasters and plan for global conflicts. Climate change is a 'threat multiplier' because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today—from infectious disease to armed insurgencies—and to produce new challenges in the future. See: Immediate Risk to National Security Posed by Global Warming - Scientific American and the 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.

With respect to your observation that:

Temps are still trending upwards, but 2014 was a cooler year in the US than 1921.

I note that this "pearl" is typical of the disinformation that denier organizations like to spread in an effort to falsely create the impression that there is doubt about the fact of manmade AGW.

While that may well be true that 2014 was a cold year in the US, that fact is a completely irrelevant result of a local weather system, and when measured on a global basis 2014 was in fact the warmest year on record. See:http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/2014-officially-the-warmest-year-on-record-378458691995

Based on recent reports, 2015 is on track to break all records and to be the yet warmer, warmest year. See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2015-global-temp-forecast

That being said, I place little weight on record air temperatures as the vast majority (approximately 95%) of the excess energy resulting from AGW is being accumulated in the oceans. Numerous scientific studies have demonstrated that the variations in air temperatures which have been observed in recent years are a result of changes to ocean currents, which have resulted in the storage of AGW energy in deeper ocean strata, and a reduction in global air temperatures. See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ng-pause-trade-winds-pacific-science-climate/ and http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...QBShgu_weAE4oPVDtRv6dzrRCAu0zhw7w6apK8hdtZhDR

While AGW science is on a rock-solid scientific foundation, the extremely well-funded denialism industry has been sufficiently successful at delaying public recognition of that fact so as to provide the industry's political lackeys with the cover required for them to continue to act in the interests of the industry (and against the public interest) by denying climate change, the need for action and/or the possibility of meaningful action.

See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html
http://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/news/unidentified-sources-massively-fund-climate-change-denial-movement/1002836094/?&er=NA
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/01/dark-money-funds-us-climate-deniers/

The fact that this thread even exists is a testament to the effectiveness of the denial industry.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@Richard

Great post!

Your post makes us understand why we should do our best to decrease CO2 emissions. Hope that many TMC Members and guests will read your post carefully.

 

[RichardC]

The Deniers Are Taking on the Pope on Climate Change

The long reach of industry-funded denier organizations extends all of the way from here to the Vatican. As noted in a recent Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing

Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches
Pontiff hopes to inspire action at next year’s UN meeting in Paris in December after visits to Philippines and New York ...

Francis will also be opposed by the powerful US evangelical movement, said Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which has declared the US environmental movement to be “un-biblical” and a false religion.“The pope should back off,” he said. “The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science. It follows that the policies the Vatican is promoting are incorrect. Our position reflects the views of millions of evangelical Christians in the US.”

An AlterNet article raises some cogent questions about why an article about the Pope's plans to intervene in the interests of the impoverished victims of climate change ended up quoting a representative of the Cornwall Alliance: http://www.alternet.org/election-20...284526.uE1-oM&rd=1&src=newsletter1029554&t=10

This is interesting on several levels.
1) Beisner is not Catholic, so why would a reporter ask him about the Pope? Other than that he is sure to return your email/call, since that's his job.
2) Beisner's grift is getting polluters to fund his propagandizing of white conservative evangelical Protestants like himself. Preaching to the conservative choir is a solid meal ticket these days. But it's not a Catholic choir in this case.
3) A minority of US Catholics are right-wing conservatives, and some of them have lots of media cred. Were none of them available (on presumably short notice) to espouse climate change denial?
4) Why would Francis care what "millions of evangelical Christians in the US" think about his endorsing the climate change consensus? If he thinks it's the right thing to do, he will do it, even if millions of American Catholics oppose him.
5) The "false religion" bit is ironic, since that's a charge evangelical Protestants have been aiming at the Catholic Church for 500 years.

It is interesting to note that the Cornwall Alliance's assertion that the Pope "has been misled on the science" is contrary to the well understood and settled scientific consensus as to the causes and impacts of manmade climate change, and instead appears only to reflect the denier group's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming". See: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

WHAT WE BELIEVE

1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.

WHAT WE DENY

1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

While these statements undoubtedly provide great comfort to the fossil fuel industry, they are contrary to the science and of less than no value to the increasing numbers of victims of climate change. Further inquiry indicates that the Cornwall Alliance has deep links to the oil industry and appears to have been set up as an industry proxy to fight true, public interest attempts, such as those of the Pope and the Interfaith Power and Light group, to fight damaging climate change. See: http://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/resources/religious-statements-on-climate-change/

See: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/

Thus far, Cornwall has been able to masquerade as a legitimate, independent group of pastors and religious leaders opposed to addressing climate change. However, ThinkProgress investigated the group and found deep ties to the oil industry, as well as with longtime right-wing operatives orchestrating the climate science denial machine.

The Cornwall Alliance appears to be a creation of a group called the James Partnership, a nonprofit run by Chris Rogers and Peter Stein, according to documents filed with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Rogers, who heads a media and public relations firm called CDR Communications, collaborates with longtime oil front group operative David Rothbard, the founder and President of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Jacques Villarreal, a lower level staffer at CFACT, for his James Partnership group. In the past, Rogers’ firm has worked for the Bush administration and for the secretive conservative planning group, the Council for National Policy.
According to public records, the following entities are all registered to the same address, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Road Burke, VA 22015, an office park in suburban Virginia:

- Rogers’ consulting firm, CDR Communications
– Rogers’ nonprofit hub, the James Partnership
– The Cornwall Alliance
– The new “Resisting the Green Dragon” website
​

In late 2005, evangelical leaders like Rick Warren joined a drive to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.” To counter this historic shift in the evangelical community, a group called the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance” (ISA) was launched to oppose action on carbon emissions and to deny the existence of climate chance. One of the men guiding this group was Paul Driessen, a consultant for ExxonMobil, the mining industry, and for CFACT.
For “stream lining” reasons, ISA relaunched as the Cornwall Alliance in 2006. With the new name came a redesigned website, highly produced web videos, and an organized network of churches to distribute climate change denying propaganda to hundreds of pastors around the country. The branding for the Cornwall Alliance is derived from the “Cornwall Declaration,” a 1999 document pushing back against the creation-care movement in the evangelical community. The Declaration “stressed a free-market environmental stewardship and emphasized that individuals and private organizations should be trusted to care for their own property without government intervention.” CFACT President Rothbard has been hailed as the “driving force” behind the Cornwall Declaration public relations effort.
CFACT is a gimmicky right-wing organization that does everything it can to try to discredit the science underpinning climate change. For instance, staffers from the group traveled to the Copenhagen conference on climate change to stage silly press conferences with Rush Limbaugh’s former producer and stunts aimed at mocking Greenpeace.
But who is the “driving force” behind CFACT? According to disclosures, CFACT is funded by at least $542,000 from ExxonMobil, $60,500 from Chevron, and $1,280,000 from Scaife family foundations, which are rooted in wealth from Gulf Oil and steel interests.
CFACT and the Cornwall Alliance, according to disclosures filed with the Washington State Secretary of State’s office, share a common fundraising firm, ClearWord Communications Group. ClearWord has helped raise millions of dollars not only for CFACT and Cornwall, but also for infamous polluter front groups like FreedomWorks, the Institute for Energy Research, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Last year, Cornwall produced a video with former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) attacking clean energy legislation as part of a campaign by the ExxonMobil-funded “American Energy Freedom Center.”
In a call to the Cornwall Alliance’s media office Monday afternoon, spokesman Quena Gonzalez said Cornwall has no relationship to CFACT and said CFACT President Rothbard has no official capacity with his group. Gonzalez said that in “several years of working” at Cornwall, he has never heard any questions about working with CFACT, and instructed ThinkProgress to contact Calvin Beisner, the national representative for Cornwall. Incidentally, Beisner is a board member of CFACT.
Rothbard had a central role in sparking the founding of Cornwall and is currently a partner with Chris Rogers, the man who runs Cornwall and CDR Communications. Nevertheless, under his capacity as CFACT President, Rothbard’s anti-Greenpeace publicity stunts are reported regularly on the Cornwall blog as breaking news, without any acknowledgement of Rothbard’s relationship with Cornwall.
Gonzalez also said he had never heard of CDR Communications. But according to his own LinkedIn profile, Gonzalez works for CDR Communications as the “Director for Religion and the Environment” at the firm. ThinkProgress contacted Chris Rogers on Monday, who contradicted Gonzalez and said his firm CDR Communications provides “support” for Cornwall but did not clarify.
It appears that Cornwall attempts to carefully hide its backers. Not only did Gonzalez refuse to provide much information, but Cornwall’s website is registered with a special service to hide the identity of the person or group who purchased the domain address.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

The physics of climate change is 100% as observable as the structure of the solar system. No one has ever seen the structure of the solar system... it's inferred from multiple observations... just like climate change. AGW is not a logical conclusion derived from climate records... AGW existed as a hypothesis long before those climate records were discovered. CO2 is understood to effect climate because of it's transparency to incoming short-wave(visible) radiation and relative opacity to outgoing long-wave (IR) radiation. Alexander Graham Bell predicted this decades before we had analyzed ice cores. Ice cores supported the original hypothesis... not the other way round...

FACT: CO2 shifts the energy balance of the Earth

FACT: Humans emit ~40B tons of CO2/yr

FACT: ~40B tons is >5ppm of the Earths Atmosphere

FACT: CO2 levels are rising >2ppm/yr and are now at record highs


OPINION: Fossil Fuels are for Morons and Monsters.

You don't have to convince me, I'm fully on board.

The problem lies in the ice cores. For me that's more than enough evidence to support the move away from fossil fuels, but you can't take CO2 concentrations and temperature data derived from 400k year old ice cores and make the leap to outlawing speech to the contrary. That should be as obvious as man-made climate change IMO.

This thread is not about whether AGW exists, it's about free speech.

 

[tomas]

RichardC, thanks for the books, but I think you are preaching to the choir. And, to me, this is a big problem... advocates of more aggressive action on climate change seem to commiserate among themselves vs. educate the un-educated in a simple, concise, way. This forum is probably the highest concentration of climate change believers you could find... ergo probably the biggest waste of time to further convince. Now, if somebody wants to rally people to a meaningful action, this might be a good place to recruit.

 

[RichardC]

You don't have to convince me, I'm fully on board.
The problem lies in the ice cores. For me that's more than enough evidence to support the move away from fossil fuels, but you can't take CO2 concentrations and temperature data derived from 400k year old ice cores and make the leap to outlawing speech to the contrary. That should be as obvious as man-made climate change IMO.

This thread is not about whether AGW exists, it's about free speech.

Ice cores have nothing to do with this topic, as ice cores are at best a minor corroborating source of evidence for AGW. In order for free speech to have any relevance there needs to be some legitimate debate about the fundamental facts of the science, and there is none (for all of the reasons detailed above and in other threads on this site). In summary:

1. There is no plausible or credible scientific basis for doubting the reality of manmade climate change. The relevant scientists agree, all of the national science academies agree, even the oil industry majors agree on this. This is science 101 at its most basic.
2. Notwithstanding the absence of any plausible or credible scientific basis for doubting the reality of manmade climate change, billions of dollars are being spent to mislead the public and politicians by falsely creating the impression of doubt, presumably to benefit the industry interests who stand to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in profits (at the expense of our children and grandchildren) if rational public policy action on climate change can be blocked for a number of years.
3. Free speech rights do not and should not extend to intentionally misleading statements which are made to advance commercial interests.
4. In the absence of a legitimate scientific debate, that anyone would think there is a need to resort to `free speech` rights in order to propagate factually indefensible lies, demonstrates the extent to which the political and public policy mechanisms have been corrupted and subverted by the denier disinformation juggernaut.
5. As noted above, manmade climate change is a question of scientific fact, and not opinion. While free speech protects an ability to freely express opinions, it does not give a right to knowingly disseminate misstatements of fact.

- - - Updated - - -

RichardC, thanks for the books, but I think you are preaching to the choir. And, to me, this is a big problem... advocates of more aggressive action on climate change seem to commiserate among themselves vs. educate the un-educated in a simple, concise, way. This forum is probably the highest concentration of climate change believers you could find... ergo probably the biggest waste of time to further convince. Now, if somebody wants to rally people to a meaningful action, this might be a good place to recruit.

Thanks Thomas, agreed on all counts.

I regularly refer people to this site (and to Skeptical Science) as a resource on questions relating to climate change.

With respect to recruits, I have just posted a New Year`s wish list of action items at http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/39978-Climate-Change-Legal-Action/page7

 

[ggies07]

Now, if somebody wants to rally people to a meaningful action, this might be a good place to recruit.

See: 350.org

 

[tomas]

See: 350.org

Exactly my point. Read the list of board members. Activist, academic, activist, academic, author. These orgs will get somewhere when they recruit business execs and republicans to advocate from inside the denier circles. This movement will have legs when the advocate group surprises people.

 

[ggies07]

Exactly my point. Read the list of board members. Activist, academic, activist, academic, author. These orgs will get somewhere when they recruit business execs and republicans to advocate from inside the denier circles. This movement will have legs when the advocate group surprises people.

Well, hopefully this woman can help.....

Can a Christian Activist Make Conservatives Care About Climate Change? | Rolling Stone

Most of us know this, but I'm glad she sees this and is trying to spread the message:

What I found was that his resistance had very little to do with theology and much more to do with his entrenched political ideology," she says. "Conservative talking heads and think tanks don't have to prove the science, they just have to introduce an element of doubt.

 

[nwdiver]

"Conservative talking heads and think tanks don't have to prove the science, they just have to introduce an element of doubt."

[FONT=Miller Headline, Georgia, serif]Doubt which is fed with misinformation; Misinformation which should be illegal.[/FONT]


Like this crap...

[FONT=Miller Headline, Georgia, serif]IMO the best publicity for climate change would be Fox News being forced to pay $MILLIONS$ for making false and misleading statements.[/FONT]

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Ice cores have nothing to do with this topic, as ice cores are at best a minor corroborating source of evidence for AGW. In order for free speech to have any relevance there needs to be some legitimate debate about the fundamental facts of the science, and there is none (for all of the reasons detailed above and in other threads on this site). In summary:

1. There is no plausible or credible scientific basis for doubting the reality of manmade climate change. The relevant scientists agree, all of the national science academies agree, even the oil industry majors agree on this. This is science 101 at its most basic.
2. Notwithstanding the absence of any plausible or credible scientific basis for doubting the reality of manmade climate change, billions of dollars are being spent to mislead the public and politicians by falsely creating the impression of doubt, presumably to benefit the industry interests who stand to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in profits (at the expense of our children and grandchildren) if rational public policy action on climate change can be blocked for a number of years.
3. Free speech rights do not and should not extend to intentionally misleading statements which are made to advance commercial interests.
4. In the absence of a legitimate scientific debate, that anyone would think there is a need to resort to `free speech` rights in order to propagate factually indefensible lies, demonstrates the extent to which the political and public policy mechanisms have been corrupted and subverted by the denier disinformation juggernaut.
5. As noted above, manmade climate change is a question of scientific fact, and not opinion. While free speech protects an ability to freely express opinions, it does not give a right to knowingly disseminate misstatements of fact.

We're gonna prosecute every person who bends the truth for their own financial interest? Pepsi is good for you? The pharmaceutical industry cares about your health? The NRA is interested in safety? Thousands other examples that are much more egregious than denying man-made global warming as part of a campaign to keep the superior competition in check.

Most lawyer's solution is for more lawyering. Who's going to decide who can say what on global warming? If Exxon implies that the evidence for man-made global warming is a bit shakey, are they getting sued? By whom? Where's the line? Are the rules going to change every four years?

The truth is undeniable, so what's the point? People can do their own research and make up their minds just as they always have. What you're describing above essential would outlaw 50% of the marketing done in the US.

 

[Johan]

@TalkingMule: How do you feel about the lawsuits against the tobacco companies? Do you think it was acceptable? The right thing? Or was it in your opinion "over lawyering"?

I ask because no-one here is suggesting to ban or outlaw (factually incorrect) opinions or statements. But to knowingly and intentionally, with malicious intent, systematically spread disinformation in order to continue a harmful activity and/or the sale of an unnecessarily harmful product maybe should have legal repercussions?

 

[nwdiver]

We're gonna prosecute every person who bends the truth for their own financial interest? Pepsi is good for you? The pharmaceutical industry cares about your health? The NRA is interested in safety? Thousands other examples that are much more egregious than denying man-made global warming as part of a campaign to keep the superior competition in check.

Most lawyer's solution is for more lawyering. Who's going to decide who can say what on global warming? If Exxon implies that the evidence for man-made global warming is a bit shakey, are they getting sued? By whom? Where's the line? Are the rules going to change every four years?

The truth is undeniable, so what's the point? People can do their own research and make up their minds just as they always have. What you're describing above essential would outlaw 50% of the marketing done in the US.

No one is suggesting that we suppress opinions...

These can't be tested and are obviously opinions...
- The pharmaceutical industry cares about your health
- The NRA is interested in safety

This is too vague... now if you were to qualify that it doesn't increase the risk of diabetes...
- Pepsi is good for you

Is it really so hard to understand the difference between protected opinions and facts?

Fox News: 'The ice sheets are growing'
NOPE

Fox News: 'CO2 levels aren't rising'
NOPE

Fox News: 'Global warming stopped 20 years ago'
NOPE



Examples of Opinions (CANNOT BE TESTED)

- We have more important concerns than global warming
- Obama doesn't care about AGW... he just wants to dictate what you drive
- Global Warming is a socialist plot
- We don't have a moral obligation to protect our kids future
- I don't care if Miami gets flooded I like driving an SUV
- Solar Panels and Wind Turbines are ugly

It's not like going after people for making false claims is new... the FCC and FDA have been doing this for decades.

- - - Updated - - -

@TalkingMule: How do you feel about the lawsuits against the tobacco companies? Do you think it was acceptable? The right thing? Or was it in your opinion "over lawyering"?

I ask because no-one here is suggesting to ban or outlaw (factually incorrect) opinions or statements. But to knowingly and intentionally, with malicious intent, systematically spread disinformation in order to continue a harmful activity and/or the sale of an unnecessarily harmful product maybe should have legal repercussions?

I would add that if a factually incorrect statement IS made... regardless of intent... they get a nice letter from NOAA or NASA explaining the error and if it happens again they will get another not so nice letter from the Justice Department. This isn't new... this happens ALL THE TIME.

 

[RichardC]

We're gonna prosecute every person who bends the truth for their own financial interest? Pepsi is good for you? The pharmaceutical industry cares about your health? The NRA is interested in safety? Thousands other examples that are much more egregious than denying man-made global warming as part of a campaign to keep the superior competition in check.

Most lawyer's solution is for more lawyering. Who's going to decide who can say what on global warming? If Exxon implies that the evidence for man-made global warming is a bit shakey, are they getting sued? By whom? Where's the line? Are the rules going to change every four years?

The truth is undeniable, so what's the point? People can do their own research and make up their minds just as they always have. What you're describing above essential would outlaw 50% of the marketing done in the US.

The FTC spends roughly $150 million per year prosecuting those responsible for making misleading representations. See:
http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/doc...-ftc-performance-snapshot/2013snapshotpar.pdf

Most cases pursued by the Canadian Competition Bureau relate to misleading representations, and the states and provinces are also actively involved in pursuing such cases. Our laws are quite clear as to where the line is drawn. Using the Canadian law, with I am most familiar, what is prohibited is the making of any deceptive representations for the purpose of promoting a product or a business interest. I quote the following from the Competition Bureau web site:

Misleading Advertising and Labelling
The misleading advertising and labelling provisions enforced by the Competition Bureau prohibit making any deceptive representations for the purpose of promoting a product or a business interest, and encourage the provision of sufficient information to allow consumers to make informed choices.
The false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Competition Act contain a general prohibition against materially false or misleading representations. They also prohibit making performance representations which are not based on adequate and proper tests, misleading warranties and guarantees, false or misleading ordinary selling price representations, untrue, misleading or unauthorized use of tests and testimonials, bait and switch selling, double ticketing and the sale of a product above its advertised price. Further, the promotional contest provisions prohibit contests that do not disclose required information.
The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, Textile Labelling Act and Precious Metals Marking Act all contain prohibitions regarding false or misleading representations. They also require certain labelling or marking information aimed at assisting consumers in making informed purchasing decisions.

False or misleading representations
The Competition Act provides criminal and civil regimes to address false or misleading representations. Under both regimes, the Act prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/...ureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html

 

[TheTalkingMule]

How exactly does any of that get enforced in the realm of public discourse or the media? We're not talking about a specific commercial being misleading or a tobacco executive lying in front of Congress. Will it be illegal to go on FoxNews and say you don't believe humans are contributing to global warming? Just for crporate executives? What if a corporation hires a PR firm to spout denier talk on 60 Minutes?

There's a line between logical enforcement of misrepresentation laws for public safety and just telling people what's OK to discuss. I'm not sure where that line lies, but the sentiments that started this thread are clearly far onto the slippery slope side of the line.

Agree. From this point of view I agree with Robert Kennedy who would like to issue a law to punish climate skeptics.

Punish climate skeptics? That's nuts and in the grand scheme of things counterproductive.

 

[nwdiver]

How exactly does any of that get enforced in the realm of public discourse or the media?
Punish climate skeptics? That's nuts and in the grand scheme of things counterproductive.

- No such thing as a climate 'skeptic'. Those were replaced by climate 'deniers' decades ago.

Denial IS NOT Skepticism
Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

- The FDA doesn't seem to be having any problems... this letter was sent partially because of Facebook activity.

When misinformation can hurt the public the public has a responsibility to act.

 

[Johan]

Free Speech and Skepticism on Climate Change

How exactly does any of that get enforced in the realm of public discourse or the media? We're not talking about a specific commercial being misleading or a tobacco executive lying in front of Congress. Will it be illegal to go on FoxNews and say you don't believe humans are contributing to global warming? Just for crporate executives? What if a corporation hires a PR firm to spout denier talk on 60 Minutes?

There's a line between logical enforcement of misrepresentation laws for public safety and just telling people what's OK to discuss. I'm not sure where that line lies, but the sentiments that started this thread are clearly far onto the slippery slope side of the line.



Punish climate skeptics? That's nuts and in the grand scheme of things counterproductive.

I can see that they've gotten to you. You are probably a smart person, one who likes to think for himself, and proud yourself in being a sceptic (not with regards to AGW but more in general). I agree that being a sceptic in the general sense is often wise. When it comes to man-made global warming however, there is no longer room for skepticism on the factual matter of the realities or the science. There is however a lot of room (and there should be) with regards to which solutions would work best, how to address the issue, IF anything should be done at all etc.

There is a very coordinated effort that has been ongoing for many years to create uncertainty surrounding both the science as well as the gravity of the issue. Dumb people have been misled with FUD and outright lies, religion etc. Smart people like you have been misled by associating AGW denying with the principles of general skepticism, free speech, "thinking out of the box" and other phenomena that are in themselves good.