Maybe if you weren't thinking about Koch all the time you would realize that if you're running a scientific project with a predetermined outcome you wouldn't run something more transparent than just about any AGW study

I would argue against a "very low" estimate for cloud forcing, but otherwise, this is on target. I'd also argue against calling the cloud feedback negative, since it could be positive.

Here's where you go off the rails. There is plenty of observational evidence that climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees C. Here's a paper that combines this observational evidence in an attempt to narrow the sensitivity. This is independent of climate models.

There's a fundamental difference between predicting weather and predicting climate. Weather is dominated by chaos and unpredictability, whereas climate over a long enough period will have that variance cancel itself out, much the same way your long term win rate can't be used to predict the win rate for your next 1000 hands.


I have no idea what this book is, but if it claims people without PhDs were lead authors it is wrong on the issue we are discussing. This may be true for Working group II or III, but the make up of the scientific basis report (WGI) is beyond reproach in terms of credentials.

Yeah, after a quick read of the first 4 chapters, that book is utter nonsense. She tries to make the case that IPCC lead authors aren't experts, but her evidence is that one guy said the 1995 report didn't have any malaria experts and that two other "experts" were not lead authors. But the info on malaria is out of date and there are plenty of sea level experts and hurricane experts as lead authors in the IPCC.

Washington Post Blog

The Atlantic

From same Post blog. You know who the Koch brothers are.


I agree most denialists at least admit the Earth is warming. But in some of those 2009 clips, you have guys like Hannity and Beck saying "global warming is a fraud." Of course they could be referring to man-made GW but I think some of them used to really just argue the warming point.

Well, it was argued by prominent skeptic Fred Singer in Nature yesterday:

And if you ask a skeptic about "hide the decline" most think it's about hiding the "decline" in global temperatures.

There are loads of denialists that insist that insist the Earth is not warming. A quick google search will confirm this.

Does it help to mention that Michael Shermer - a skeptic so skeptical of everything that he founded the magazine called Skeptic (not to mention being a self-described Libertarian) - changed his mind and now accepts anthropogenic global warming? He did this over a year before this thread was created.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...flipping-point

But unlike land surface

Come on dude, you're better than that.

Muller lols at your knowledge of his views


http://www.grist.org/article/lets-get-physical

Come on dude, read the rest of the quote.
And

Not to mention the fact that he's wrong about proxies not showing warming and the atmosphere not warming.

No, Very few "denialists" ever argue that.

Some do. The very prominent Anthony Watts essentially denied there was warming by claiming the data showing there was warming was inaccurate:

Forbes Blog

Some, like Hannity and Beck, phrase there statements to be construed in such a way ("Global warming is a fraud.")

Soon it will be "Well duh, very few denialists actually argue that the warming is man-made. But what can we realistically do/have done to prevent it? That was really our whole point the entire time."

The name of the game is just to slow down the process and gunk up the argument by any and all means necessary. Worked for the tobacco industry for 40 years.

In before nearly instantaneous ikesbot contentless generic snark.

The temperature records do suck. 64% of US stations have an error of >2C. Only 9% have an error of less than 1C.

There's also a huge difference between the temperature record sucks and the temperature isn't going up.

You should tell Mueller that he's an idiot then.

Clearly Muller had showed strong skepticism that the warming showed in other studies was inaccurate or false. This is why Anthony Watts and other denialists were so excited about him, as Muller is such a respected scientist and to find one of those on the denialist side was clearly cause for celebration.

Muller isn't disputing this. He's reanalyzing the same data that the USHCN used, not recreating it.

You should keep to talking about stuff you're vaguely familiar with, like Barry Bonds.

Not if you're a denialist. Clearly the point of saying the temperature record sucks when it shows the Earth is warming is to then insinuate that the Earth is not warming (or a very negligible stop messing with my CO2 emissions and go hug a tree you hippie amount.)

If the Earth is so hot, explain my chart....if in fact it is caused by man, then why do global warming charts usually start at about 1860-1880 (AT the Industrial Revolution, not before it for comparison)?

In order to show global warming a) is a threat, b) is man made, and c) is credibly preventable, we might want to start charts AT LEAST 500-400 years ago (if not at the dawn of man) to compare pre-industrialization to now, show that we are hotter now than pre-industrialization (which we aren't), and that therefore man can do something MAJOR (I admit we exacerbate it, but to what small degree is the question) to stop it.

Now the chart:

Yes, it is obviously. Nice to know you can read minds though.

Again, more mind reading. It's interesting, because the accuracy of a temp increase is hugely important to so many things about AGW, but addressing this fact makes you a denliast, just like those nazis.

GMAFB

It has been shown many times that this doesn't affect the computed trend in any significant way.

Lol....tons of "denalists" argue that global warming is an outright fraud. Of course many of them also argue temperatures are not increasing.

Yes but it sounds like it means something.

If you only address it by saying "Maybe the temperature didn't go up that much, or at all!!!" and never address it by saying "maybe the temperature actually went up a bunch more than shown", then pretty much yes, addressing it makes you a warming denialist. If you say "well, there's a lot more uncertainty in this data than is being acknowledged", that's rather another matter.

(It's possible that Muller's actually made that point -- but I doubt it. Can't be bothered to research it.)

Thankfully we can put that accuracy behind as, as Muller has confirmed it!

Also, congrats on the nazi reference. Godwin's Law confirmed once again.

Denialist is an easy way to refer to those who are skeptical of the current scientific consensus on GW. I suppose DGW would make it nicer for you?