But that requires self reflection, something that requires independence.

“(1) The “deniers” are denying the fact that there is such a thing as climate change, and;”

What is your point here? Who ever said this? I laid out, in general, the various positions that are taken by skeptics and deniers in comment 33. Why are you asking to prove something that no one has ever claimed?

“(2) The Hockey Stick graphs are indisputable and man’s actions have caused an immediate emergency in accelerated climate change.”

You want me to “prove” that something is “indisputable”? Anyone can dispute anything they want to. The moment they do so, the thing is shown to be disputable.

The blade of the hockey stick shows indisputable (!!!) evidence of warming – these values are taken from actual temperature readings and from models which accurately predict real temperatures. The shaft of the stick is a compendium of various proxy data sets – all for the Northern Hemisphere. There is, of course, always an uncertainty factor with proxy data. Smaller-scale, localized records indicate that some areas had higher highs (in Medieval times) than the larger scale reconstructions – and that leads to confusion on the part of some people.

But the rate of change in the 20th century, correlating with the large influx of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere because of human activity, is unprecedented, and at odds with any known natural cause.

There are few things in science, and none in politics, that are “indisputable”. But the overwhelming majority of those who have spent their lives studying these phenomena agree that the only plausible explanation of the data is the greenhouse effect of the extra carbon dioxide that has been pumped into the atmosphere. This large majority has formed a consensus on that point. Small minorities dispute this conclusion, so obviously it is not indisputable.

Here are the two issues I challenge you to prove:

(1) The “deniers” are denying the fact that there is such a thing as climate change, and;

(2) The Hockey Stick graphs are indisputable and man’s actions have caused an immediate emergency in accelerated climate change.

Coming from the guy who when confronted with fraudulent behaviour by the global warming church replies “Look, it’s all true! The global warming church says their data is fine!”

Chemical Crusaders Target Christmas
A new law is taking harmless toys off store shelves, but a Wednesday vote has given retailers a slight reprieve .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240504574586273769666760.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Actually, I was trying to remember this story the other day. WSJ has had a few pieces on this ban over the last year or so.

More junk science and fear tactics of the liberal left all to exert control over the (hopefully) ignorant and gullible proles.

I would say most skeptics simply have no idea what they are talking about, and just parrot whatever the latest thing they hear on talk radio or read in some blog.

Actually, a lot of it comes from newspapers and what not. For example, Rush’s Global Warming Stack contains articles from all over the news media.

Your DDT story is riddled with falsehoods.

“, the WHO chose to listen to the scientists who showed that DDT must be completely banned….and implemented a worldwide ban against the use of the substance.”

That is ridiculous. DDT has never been “banned” worldwide. It was banned in many developed countries (most of which do not have any malaria problems), and the WHO stopped using it in their own programs for 20 years or so. But it continued to be used by national programs througout the developing world, and it was availble for use in the private marketplace as a pesticide in many places. The WHO eventually changed their mind and started using it again, because that is the conclusion they reached from assessing the science.

“In the meantime, the ban, which lasted 25ish years, prevented the eradication of malaria carrying mosquitoes and could have saved as many as 50 million lives.”

Hogwash. Other pesticides were used. And the current use of DDT is far from ubiquitous because of the resistance problem I mentioned earlier. There have been known mosquito strains resistant to DDT since the mid-fifties – so even now its current use must be carefully targeted. If I remember correctly, I thin most of the strains in India, which has always used a lot of DDT, are resistant now.

In fact, it is probable that the cut back in use for 20 years has probably helped DDT to be as effective as it is today, since the mosquitoes were no longer selected for resistance during that time.

“They are once again on a crusade to ban DDT use.”

Well yes. Pesticides are toxins. Their widespread application in the environment is harmful and self-defeating. Controlling and targetting their use is important – though spraying DDT indoors only increases the risk to humans who live in the enclosed space. If the same result can be achieved in a less harmful way, then of course that should be pursued.

cont.

Well, without denying the probable existence of a fair number of honest and sincere skeptics, I would say most skeptics simply have no idea what they are talking about, and just parrot whatever the latest thing they hear on talk radio or read in some blog.

That might be that there is no warming at all, in fact a cooling. That might be that there has been no change whatsoever for a significant period of time. That might be that there is a warming, but it is inconsequential. Or that there is a consequential warming but it is all due to natural causes. Or that there is anthropogenic change but we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it, or that we can do some undefined things that are different than limiting emissions.

There are lots of different points of view, and often you will find the same person shifting back and forth to pick up the skeptic theme at different points, based on the latest talking points.

What’s the Matter with the Golden State?

It’s run by libs, plain and simple. We saw the colossal failure of liberalism in New Orleans and we see it in CA, MI, NY, NJ etc. and folks just keep on voting for them. I suppose folks fall for their lies and fear tactics.

I wonder what the percentage of total idiots there are here in the GP commenting community.

Hard to say. It depends on whether or not you, ghillie, Tim etc. are the same person or not.

Sonic,

While I conceded that I was wrong about computer models not trying to account for cloud cover, I have to disagree that their attempts to do so cannot be measured. They are measured in the absolute failure of those models to accurately predict present climate conditions given known historical data and in the failure of ALL their climate predictions to date.

The more important point is that, as you said, they are only guessing when they try to model cloud cover. They really have only the faintest understanding of how cloud cover affects climate and really no idea at all whether it compensates for any increase in “greenhouse” gases. To call them educated guesses is to give their guesses more credence than they deserve. They haven’t a fricken clue, which is why none of their models can actually accurately predict squat.

and also you said this:

Many, if not most, climate skeptics DO NOT deny that the globe has been warming.

That would be most unfortunate if that were the case since the globe has been cooling for the last decade. I dont think anyone denies that the globe WAS on a warming trend that seems to have ended in 1998, but I suspect that it what you meant. I dont think many scientists worth a lick would claim that the earth is still warming. The temperature record itself refutes that. Some may claim that our current cooling is actually warmer than it would be if not for global warming, but, again, that would be based on belief in a theory with scant real-world evidence that stands up to scrutiny, not based on fact — and any scientist who would try to portray it as established fact or “consensus” rather than conjecture would be misleading us.

“Only a total idiot would deny the reality of climate change.”

Well, OK then. I wonder what the percentage of total idiots there are here in the GP commenting community.

Show me one person here or in the Republican Party or who calls himself conservative who denies the fact of climate change.

As it currently stands, there is dispute as to whether the direction of the constant process of climate change is toward warmer or cooler. There is dispute about whether the activities of man has had an effect on climate change.

Man-made global warming crisis advocates have framed the debate much differently than a simple examination of which direction climate change is trending.

It is the man-made stuff that is causing the change to happen at a pace which will cause havoc with our civilized infrastructre, and that we wont be able to deal with without enormous dislocation.

Tano says that there is climate change emergency caused by man.

Palin is not on board with that opinion.

Sorry, Tano, the debate has always been over the role of man in climate change. As you wrote and most of us “deniers” believe:

Climate change that is not man-made has almost always happened on a relatively slow time scale (except the changes caused by catastrophic events like asteroid hits etc.). If that is what we are facing now, then there really is no problem – we would have plenty of time to adapt to changing conditions – centuries, millenia.

The ball is in your court. Here are the two issues I challenge you to prove:

(1) The “deniers” are denying the fact that there is such a thing as climate change, and;

(2) The Hockey Stick graphs are indisputable and man’s actions have caused an immediate emergency in accelerated climate change.

I will not hold my breath. You always disappear when you reach this point in any debate.

As a little help to Tano, I call on all Gay Patriots who deny that there is any such thing as climate change to step forward and identify themselves.

Tano is also right about the current use of DDT.

Now, that said, lets get something clear. Many, if not most, climate skeptics DO NOT deny that the globe has been warming. Many do not deny that CO2 has played a role in the most recent warming seen in the last thirty years or so. What we resent and protest against is the false certainty and assertion of consensus by the IPCC, a political body Yes, they use science, but, as some of the e-mails show, not honestly or openly, as they take great pains to hide inconvenient yet valid scientific information that interferes with the predetermined conclusions of the IPCC, that humans are causing global warming.

Since you brought it up, lets use DDT as an example of the way that politics interferes with science. Yes, the use of DDT can be very harmful to the environment. But even as that issue was addressed, it was also shown scientifically that DDT could be used effectively in much smaller doses without doing much damage. Yet, despite that scientific knowledge, the WHO chose to listen to the scientists who showed that DDT must be completely banned. As that view happened to be the same of those administering WHO, the politicians within the institution declared a “scientific consensus” on the matter, and implemented a worldwide ban against the use of the substance. After years and years of stonewalling, the WHO, in 2006, lifted the total ban on the pesticide, a ban based on, again, a political version of “scientific consensus”. In the meantime, the ban, which lasted 25ish years, prevented the eradication of malaria carrying mosquitoes and could have saved as many as 50 million lives. And, so far, in the three years of successful low dosage DDT use, malaria deaths have declined tremendously with no evidence of the same environmental damage seen in the fifties and sixties.

Yet that is still not enough to satisfy the powers that be at WHO. They are once again on a crusade to ban DDT use. They want to use the antimalaria chloroquine pills in place of DDT. Problem is, it’s hard to administer reliably, it’s much more expensive than DDT use, and mosquitos develop an immunity to the drug after a period of time.

Point in his favour, apparently Tano is too stupid to make his own decisions, since he repeats the party line on everything.

MTBE? Sure, it’s expensive and causes cancer, but it’s good for the environment. Well, unless it seeps into the groundwater. That’s bad.

Housing development in Pittsburg? Stopped dead for months while some Berkeleyite nit-wit determined the salamanders they found were quite common and did not exist solely on that one hillside.

Benicia Bridge? CalTrans burned hundreds of millions waiting on a study that determined fish trapped in boxes near a pile driver die. Fish not trapped in boxes near a pile driver will swim away.

The EPA, Sierra Club, and Green Peace are fat-assed bureaucrats and greedy lawyers. And their idiot cousins all work in Sacramento. The fish in the Bay are smarter than the average public servant in California.

Blabbering liar. In your very first comment, you bash her.

To me, this is an inane comment – how can you see it differently?

Then the pathetic lying scum tried to misquote her.

But one thing is interesting here. At least Sarah acknowledges that the climate is getting warmer.

When the duplicitous and pathetic Obama paid propagandist lost that, he now tries to pretend it didn’t happen.

As always, Tano runs and hides from his lies when he is confronted with evidence.

Do you also demand, with every fiber of your being, the right to buy any toy for your child (if you have one)_ even those covered with lead paint?

Yes.

The problem here, Tano, is that you are rationalizing your attempt to take control of peoples’ lives by insisting that they are too stupid to make their own decisions.

That is typical for the Obama Party. Obama Party members like yourself hate freedom of choice. You prefer that the government control every action because you believe everyone else is stupid. You yourself have no intention of following the laws, as we see from the tax avoidance of Timothy Geithner, Charles Rangel, Barack Obama, and virtually the entire Barack Obama Cabinet.

To you, pathetic Tano, freedom is something you have and deny to others. Why is that? Why do you hate free people so much?