This article is pretty good. It's frustrating talking to a confusionalist worshipper.

http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/

Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change denialist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no where. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context, support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them and start all over again.

After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to convince the denialist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I doing wrong?......................

Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in an ideological struggle. They don’t even care if “facts” are correct or not since their intention is not to establish that something is true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just as well for their purposes as does the truth. That part certainly rings true.

When I speak about denialists, mind you, I’m not talking about people who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue. Nor, am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists over the details of global warming i.e. What will the earth’s temperature be if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per million, twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)?

No, the true climate change denialist is an ideologue. Understanding this fact is key to comprehending the denialist mentality and to knowing how to respond to denialist arguments...............

I prefer the term Confusionalist. Confusion, he say "AGW is bunkum"

He lost me in the first line with the denialist tag. Of course this a term of denigration an allusion to 'holocaust denier' and is designed to tar any skeptic with that brush. The rest of it doesn't get much better. A lot of it can be termed 'projection' as he actually goes on to describe a lot environmentalists rather well. Eg the intolerance of any dissenting opinions, adherence to ideology etc.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE DENIERS WERE THOSE WHO NAME-CALLED, BADGERED AND RIDICULED THOSE WHO DISSENT FROM THEIR POV.

Ok lets talk lies.

Are man made CO2 emissions the primary driver behind global warming?

Note for those with difficulties...  this question is about specific things...  
MAN MADE CO2
and
THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING

IT'S NOT ABOUT DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS DUE TO WARMING AND COOLING.

muso wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

This article is pretty good. It's frustrating talking to a confusionalist worshipper. http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/ Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change denialist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no where. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context, support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them and start all over again. After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to convince the denialist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I doing wrong?...................... Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in an ideological struggle. They don’t even care if “facts” are correct or not since their intention is not to establish that something is true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just as well for their purposes as does the truth. That part certainly rings true. When I speak about denialists, mind you, I’m not talking about people who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue. Nor, am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists over the details of global warming i.e. What will the earth’s temperature be if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per million, twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)? No, the true climate change denialist is an ideologue. Understanding this fact is key to comprehending the denialist mentality and to knowing how to respond to denialist arguments............... I prefer the term Confusionalist. Confusion, he say "AGW is bunkum"

It's like you're reading my mind man. 8-)

muso, having tongue in cheek again.  :D

Muso, I just found the perfect quote.

Dogbert says : "I need three bitter and unsuccessful scientists and a hundred lazy journalists." This is what you are battling.

locutius wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 8:57pm:

Muso, I just found the perfect quote. Dogbert says : "I need three bitter and unsuccessful scientists and a hundred lazy journalists." This is what you are battling.

Is Dolbert a successful environmental scientist or an energetic journalist or does he have his tongue in cheek?

Quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/27/2610248.htm?section=justin US PASSES HISTORIC CLIMATE BILL The US House of Representatives have narrowly passed historic legislation to cut carbon emissions blamed for climate change, handing President Barack Obama a hard-fought victory. After hours of bitter debate, law-makers voted 219-212 to put the US economy under a 'cap-and-trade' system in a move supporters said would restore shaky US leadership on the issue of global warming. The pitched political battle on how best to address the problem now shifts to the US Senate, which is not expected to take any major steps before a self-imposed mid-September deadline for laying out legislation. The house's American Clean Energy and Security Act aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 per cent by 2050, create "green" jobs and wean the US economy from oil imports. "Just remember these four words for what this legislation means - jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Let's vote for jobs," Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exhorted her colleagues minutes before the vote. Her comments came after Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner, relying on traditional house perks for party leaders, stretched an allotted two minutes to speak about the measure into a one-hour, one-minute intervention. The 1,200-page bill, the fruit of months of tough negotiations, would create a 'cap-and-trade' system limiting overall pollution from large industrial sources and then allocating and selling pollution permits. The Democratic-crafted bill would require utilities, by 2020, to get 15 per cent of their electricity from renewable resources - solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass - and show annual energy savings of 5 per cent from efficiency measures. The European Union plan calls for getting 20 per cent of all electricity from renewable resources by 2020. - AFP

USA is up and going, great effort, not that I think there is or isn’t global warming, but because using finite energy resources doesn’t make sense to me.

Even if we capture just 1% or Sun’s energy we would be guaranteed great extension of resources that are not replenished.

In addition to the Holy Multiculti is the Holy Global Warmer. Thou must not question either, for it is heresy...

and we burn heretics.

Calanen wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 9:47pm:

In addition to the Holy Multiculti is the Holy Global Warmer. Thou must not question either, for it is heresy... and we burn heretics.

Mate, as an environmental scientist who also happens to be non-religious, I take offense at that remark.

Quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/03/2615551.htm?section=justin EXXONMOBIL 'FUNDING CLIMATE SCEPTICS' By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM The world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that continue to question the cause and effects of global warming. The Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) claims ExxonMobil has reneged on a promise to end financial support to the groups. It also claims a conference of climate change sceptics in Washington, recently attended by Australian Family First Senator Stephen Fielding, was sponsored by one of the groups that received funding from the oil giant. A policy director at the LSE, Bob Ward, first wrote to ExxonMobil in 2006, concerned about the financial support the company provided to climate change sceptics. Last year the world's biggest oil company told the LSE's climate change institute it would discontinue funding several public policy groups whose position on climate change could "divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner". Three years later, Mr Ward says Exxon has reneged on that promise. "They have stopped funding for a number of the groups that have been denying climate change but they haven't stopped funding them all. Yet they have been telling people that they have stopped all that funding," Mr Ward said. "So I think they should either own up that they are continuing funding for some of these groups or they should keep their promise." He says some of the groups are getting several hundred thousand dollars a year. "Two of the main organisations are the Heritage Foundation and something called the Atlas Economic Foundation," Mr Ward said. "Now the reason I single them out is that they have been sponsors of a recent conference of so-called sceptics which took place in Washington, and that is mostly a gathering of lobbyists and other people who reject the evidence on climate change. "Of course it was also the conference which Senator Fielding recently attended. "So I am not sure whether people are aware that those people that he went to talk to, at least some of them are getting funding directly from the oil industry." Speaking from Dallas Texas, ExxonMobil spokesman Rob Young says his company's position has been distorted. "We fund a range of organisations interested in the public debate. Their views and what they want to say is entirely up to them. It is not that they speak for us or that we in fact control their views," he said. "We are funding people on all sides of that debate. We fund the Brookings Institution." Mr Ward says those organisations are not informing the public about climate change. "They are trying to mislead people and frankly we have seen these sorts of tactics before, for instance in the case of the tobacco industry, who for many, many years, funded campaigns and misinformation about the adverse effects of their products," he said. "This seems to be a similar situation in which a commercial company is funding misinformation campaigns because there is abundant evidence that their products are having an adverse effect." Mr Ward says he is still waiting for a response to the latest letter he sent ExxonMobil back in May.

I doubt that ExxonMobil has objective bone in their intentions, which alone could raise suspicion that environmental sceptics are wrong.

Since it is not exact science it is hard to prove, only consolation if we are heading toward “overdue ice age” (as we are heading toward overdue flu pandemic, that we might actually have first wave already) then human induced Global Warming might actually be a good thing, otherwise it is BAD.

from your article Happy...

Speaking from Dallas Texas, ExxonMobil spokesman Rob Young says his company's position has been distorted.
"We fund a range of organisations interested in the public debate. Their views and what they want to say is entirely up to them. It is not that they speak for us or that we in fact control their views," he said.
"We are funding people on all sides of that debate. We fund the Brookings Institution."

Do I need to post lists of people receiving funding and grants and people like Hansen and Gore making fortunes from Global Warming etc, etc, etc... again.

Grendel wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 2:43pm:

from your article Happy... Speaking from Dallas Texas, ExxonMobil spokesman Rob Young says his company's position has been distorted. "We fund a range of organisations interested in the public debate. Their views and what they want to say is entirely up to them. It is not that they speak for us or that we in fact control their views," he said. "We are funding people on all sides of that debate. We fund the Brookings Institution." Do I need to post lists of people receiving funding and grants and people like Hansen and Gore making fortunes from Global Warming etc, etc, etc... again.

That's a relief

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html


Couple of possibilities here:

- Our activity not only changes temperature on planet Earth but also affects at least part of our solar system (take it more like a joke than serious statement)

- Our activity is so negligible that variations in temperature are from external source (in my opinion probably the Sun could take blame for that)

Happy wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 6:55pm:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html Couple of possibilities here: - Our activity not only changes temperature on planet Earth but also affects at least part of our solar system (take it more like a joke than serious statement) - Our activity is so negligible that variations in temperature are from external source (in my opinion probably the Sun could take blame for that)

Here's a third - It's totally unrelated. I'll post a more detailed explanation if you like. Right now, I'm going to enjoy my weekend.

muso wrote on Jul 4^th, 2009 at 9:40am:

Here's a third - It's totally unrelated. I'll post a more detailed explanation if you like. Right now, I'm going to enjoy my weekend.

Hope it will be Global warming/cooling neutral.   :)

Happy wrote on Jul 4^th, 2009 at 7:07pm:

muso wrote on Jul 4th, 2009 at 9:40am: Here's a third - It's totally unrelated. I'll post a more detailed explanation if you like. Right now, I'm going to enjoy my weekend. Hope it will be Global warming/cooling neutral.   :)

Yes, Happy, nice warm winter nights and nice cool summer days would be very nice indeed.