Moe Lane called it Obama’s war on boobs, which I liked a lot.

Tardo,

Your misleading poll doesn’t refute any of the points I made about the vast number of scientific advancements that liberals vehemently oppose.

Like you “read” Sarah Palin’s book — days before it came out — and made assertions that you refuse to back up on it?

This is typical of liberals, though; they consider “science” to be repeating leftist talking points. They determine whether or not something is “scientific” based on whether it lines up with Obama Party objectives.

Tano hasn’t read anything. He has a proven pattern of claiming to read something and lying about it. That is why he is a troll.

What’s more disgusting is that Tano is being paid by the National Institutes of Health — doubtless like Barack Obama was paying propagandists through the NEA — to do this. Tano’s Barack Obama is diverting Federal taxpayer dollars to carry out political propaganda, which is a direct violation of law.

See the Pew poll I reference in comment #39.

“Let me repeat, I acknowledge something that you do not–the conflicting views of scientists.”

What do you mean “acknowledge”? Using the normal definition of that word, how can you say that? I have read their work. The consensus climate scientists have read their work. We dont find their arguments persuasive. How is that not acknowledging thier views?

When you say acknowledge, do you simply mean “agree”? IF so, then you are right, we don’t agree – but that is a wierd definition.

“My point all along has been that there is a debate among scientists as to the causes of global warming.”

There is a debate about everything, all the time. Nobody denies that there are debates going on. There is also a consensus amongst the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. And the issue is one of great consequence.

“And that Al Gore refuses to debate the issue”

Why should he? He is not a scientist. As I said before, if some of the consensus scientists want to spend time patiently explaining to the dissenters why they are so unpersuasive, that is a good thing. There are such people out there. Gore sees the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists, and he sees the potential impact on society, and, as a politician and businessman, he sees his work as helping explain the consensus to the public and advance the issues related to what needs to be done.

“, thus, I find it laughable that some call this environmental crusader a thinking man.’

He is a very thoughful man. And he is very busy doing many things. Why must you deny the obvious about him simply because he doesn’t do the things you think he should?

“’m waiting for an apology,”

For what? Why dont you apologize to me for your ridiculous statement about me having an aversion to science, when I have immersed myself in it for the past 20 years? And I have actually read the scientific papers of people on both sides of the issue – have you?

Let me repeat, I acknowledge something that you do not–the conflicting views of scientists.

So, please apologize for misrepresenting what I said. Amazing how you spend so much time on this site, yet don’t let my actual words impact your prejudiced view of conservatives.

My point all along has been that there is a debate among scientists as to the causes of global warming. And that Al Gore refuses to debate the issue, thus, I find it laughable that some call this environmental crusader a thinking man.

I’m waiting for an apology, but doubt I’ll receive it, given how you refuse to address the points I raise and keep on bringing up other unrelated ones.

This is one of your big problems Dan. It seems to be very easy for you to dismiss people’s arguments. Dont give in to the conceit that your own views are persuasive, or that you have any good arguments that have “defeated” by arguments. No, you merely have the ability to dismiss an argument from your mind, and I guess you think you have accomplished something.

[At the risk of earning your ire for writing my comments to your comment on your very comment, let me say simply, Grow up, Tano. If you don't like my arguments, then why do you spend so much time on my blog? Here you go saying I am dismissing an argument from my mind when you regularly and repeatedly misrepresent my arguments. I'm certainly not dismissing the arguments of those who claim greenhouse gases cause global warming, am merely saying there is no scientific consensus on the issue. How is that dismissing arguments? This very comment suggests you're not on this blog to argue with us, but to insult us.

Maybe my arguments are not persuasive, but you do find something about them (or me) compelling given that you spend so much time addressing them. I didn't invite you to this blog. And, let me repeat myself because it's a point which bears repetition, you do spent a lot of time here. Wonder why that is. --Dan]

Where do I dismiss the work of any scientist? You are the one who made the charge. Simply because I pointed out that the anti-AGW scientists have not made any points that the consensus view finds valid. On that basis, you claimed that I dismiss the work of these scientists. No, I accept the judgement of the vast majority in the field that the anti-arguments are invalid. I’ve done my best to read and follow the arguments and my own judgement (though I am not a climate scientist) is also with the consensus.

This is not “dismissing” anyone’s work. This is not an “aversion’ to science.

But you on the other hand. You have apparently found reason to side with the small minority view on this matter. Do you have any scientific reason for doing so? Do you have any training or understanding of climate science? Or are you just mouthing the rhetoric of the red team? Do you know what you are talking about?

Yes, when the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field tell you that something is so, and you choose not to believe it but dont have any scientific basis of your own to do so, then I do think it is fair to say that you are dismissing the work of these professionals.

AE,

Why you have to try to ruin a good conversation by returning us to the standard fare around here -long strings of mindless insults.

And for the record, scientists ARE liberals, at least to a large extent – LINK to Pew Poll showing Scientists are liberals – 52%, Moderates – 35%, Conservative – 9%. Science is an inherintly liberal occupation.

And this poll also shows that 84% of all scientists accept Antropogenic Global Warming. I will assert here, though I dont have numbers handy to back it up, that the percentage gets higher the closer you get to climate scientists, as opposed to just all scientists.

I’m just saying there’s no scientific consensus which means different scientists have reached different conclusions from the data available.

And perhaps some scientists have found the work of global warming critics wanting, but then those critics have found the science of the scientists offering a view similar to Gore’s also wanting.

And back to the point of this post, if the science of his critics is so wanting, why is Gore reluctant to debate it as a thinking man would. I mean, Tano, I relish your comments and have opposed efforts to have you banned from the blog for many reasons. One of those reasons is how easy it is to dismiss your arguments.

You repeatedly misrepresent my points (and those of other conservatives). And in this thread, you make the silliness of your argument abundantly clear. If you had just acknowledged the debate over the causes of global warming, you’d make it more difficult to contest you.

But, the fact remains that there is no consensus. And I’ve never dismissed the work of the scientists allied with Gore on this issue, just wondered why Gore won’t debate an issue which so animates him. And to wonder why lefty journalists call him a thinking man when he’s more of a zealous crusader.

There’s nothing wrong with being a zealous crusader per se, but it’s striking how so many hold up Gore as an exemplar of rational thought when he’s anything but.

Your comment is a complete non-sequitor. My point was that the work of dissenting scientists has been read by their peers, and has not convinced them that the global warming hypothesis is wrong.

What does that have to do with someone supposedly not reading things they disagree with? Your last sentence, if taken in isolation, is perfectly true. But no scientist, (nor I for that matter) is guilty of what you describe, so what are you talking about?

Thats a stunning statement coming from you – someone who is dismissing the research and work of an even broader swath of professional scientists who study the climate.

But thats not what I am doing in any case. There work has been read respectfully by their peers and found wanting. Thats the way it works. You can’t complain about being ‘dismissed” if your peers simply don’t find your work convincing.

This is laughable. Long ago I learned to read books by people who disagree with me. It’s the very reason why I am not a thiest anymore, and why I don’t believe in global warming caused by humans.

If you carefully insulate yourself from any rational objection, but only read summaries and overviews of “the other side” you will NEVER grow or change or improve yourself.

Science always has a measure of error, commonly regarded as confidence levels. But the confidence levels on our knowledge and understanding of our climate has been increasing over the past decades. As I’ve noted before, the upward trend in temperatures is well established and its relation to human causes is without a doubt.

There is a huge difference between “science” as Jody uses the term and “the scientific method” which discovers scientific fact.

Notice that Jody says that the upward trend in temperatures is “well established” and its relation to human causes is “without a doubt.”

Jody, just curious, but do you mean to say: The upward trend in temperatures is scientific fact that has been subjected to the scientific method and its relation to human causes is a scientific fact that been subjected to the scientific method.”?

1998 was a hot year, one of the hottest individual years on record and, relative to those following, it was much hotter. But 1998 thru 2008 were hotter than 1988 through 1998.

Funny, what happened to 2008? Why no mention that 1934 was hotter than 1988? Why no mention that the earth has been hotter in the past than 1988-2008? Is there no money in that?

You really ought to look the word “consensus” up.

“vast majority” (even if that were true) and “consensus” are two very different things.

Not that liberals have ever cared about science to begin with. They abuse it when they think its on their side, and utterly ignore it when it is not.

Progressives are the least progressive, most reactionary people around. They oppose nuclear energy, natural gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, many of them oppose wind, they oppose genetically modified crops, pesticides, vaccination, hell, they oppose energy use in general for that matter! And theres so much other science they oppose.

Hell, they oppose progress in just about any sense, unless by progress you mean Statism. Thats the only thing they are for.

It’s warmed over the past 100 years.

1998 was a hot year, one of the hottest individual years on record and, relative to those following, it was much hotter. But 1998 thru 2008 were hotter than 1988 through 1998. And 1988 through 1998 were hotter than 1978 through 1988 and so on back down. You are cherry picking your starting point. The Boston Red Sox looks like the most successful World Series team in baseball history — but only if you count from 2004. If you count from 1903, they haven’t done that well.

2) All the computer models which predict continued warming have been categorically incapable of predicting current climate conditions when fed known historical data?

That’s simply not true. While there are limitations with various modeling programs, they’ve predicted many things correctly. Some of those predictions: James Hansen has had a good run with his predictive models. Cane’s (1997) has verified sea surface temperature modeling. Even Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 pen and paper models of C02 harm to the environment have borne out. There is no one complete computer system that models every last aspect of the environment. There are, though, multiple smaller models of sections and aspects of the environment work well and continue to be improved.

3) Despite the fact that water vapor accounts for something around 98% of all “greenhouse gasses”, global warmists cannot explain, because they do not know how water vapor and cloud cover effect global temperature, or whether or not any variation in CO2 levels is mediated by resulting changes in cloud cover?’

It’s a bit more complicated than you make it out. While C02 is the strongest Greenhouse gas, it isn’t considered a climate forcing because the resulting amount of water in the air winds up varying as a function of temperature. If you jack up the amount of water vapor in the air it’ll rain out. If you were able to pull the C02 out of the air, the temperature drop would force the H20 out of the air, creating a feedback system that wouldn’t end until no liquid water was left. It’s all a bit over my head, but RealClimate.Org has a pretty good — and rather technical — discussion of this issue, which includes why your point is accurate.

The science is in its infancy, is chock FULL of holes and errors, and yet liberals want us to re-order our entire society based upon science that riddled with error.

Science always has a measure of error, commonly regarded as confidence levels. But the confidence levels on our knowledge and understanding of our climate has been increasing over the past decades. As I’ve noted before, the upward trend in temperatures is well established and its relation to human causes is without a doubt.

The question being debated now in scientific circles is what we can do to change the warming trend, indeed if we can even change it. There’s a lot of debate on that topic… there are even many scientists who would support your view that we just don’t have the evidence yet to show that a radical restructuring of our society will help. Others argue we have enough data and enough of an imperative that we have to try.

AGW is not a vast conspiracy to rob you of your freedoms, AE. It is a serious problem that will have profound consequences for our nation and our world in the decades and centuries ahead.

Lindzen’s op-ed is not a study, it’s an opinion piece, and it contains no information that runs counter to Oreskes study. Lindzen tries to site Peiser’s unpublished letter as a counter, but Peiser’s critique was was found wanting by several scientists and science journalists. Lindzen further tries to cite satellite data in support of his statements but his history and conclusions about that data are wrong.

There’s ben much science since then reaching far different conclusions…,

No, there hasn’t been. The 2007IPCC Synthesis Report provides an overview of even more data and study — based on better estimates, better models, and better observational data than the previous years’ reports — again support the consensus of AGW.

Dan, you haven’t provided any information in support of your opinion. The fact remains that the consensus of evidence provided through the studies of the vast majority climatologists and Earth scientists supports AGW.