Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[RickBradford]

That's a no brainer.

Well, I guess it takes one to know one.

Soon is obliged to go and seek grants for his work wherever he can, like many other scientists. The grants go to the institution he works for (the Smithsonian Institute), who in turn pay him. If you think he is deliberately falsifying his science to please the people who give grants to support his research, say so. Otherwise, his source of funding is irrelevant.

Soon is clearly correct when he states:

[The encyclical] 'Laudato Si’ gives credence and praise to these predictions [of catastrophe] by relying on climate models scenarios that have been proven to be false. I fear that this encyclical is driven not by science, but by social motivations and political yearnings.

The Pope, as even that dingbat Marsha Blackburn figured out, would be better advised to stick to matters spiritual.

EDIT: The statement: "He gets paid millions of dollars from Exxon Mobil" is simply a flat-out lie. Even Wikipedia, which has no liking for Doctor Soon, is very clear that his sources of funding are nothing like that. Again, his source of funding is irrelevant, unless you are prepared to state that he falsifies science for the benefits of those who give him grants.

Edited October 15, 2015 by RickBradford

[chuckd]

deleted as unnecessary.

Edited October 15, 2015 by chuckd

[up2u2]

Methane release from melting

permafrost could trigger dangerous

global warming

"A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesn’t adequately account for a methane warming feedback"

Policy Briefing Link

Dr. John Abraham Prof. Thermal Sciences

While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isn’t the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Guardian Article Link

Dr. Robert Holmes Earth System Scientist 'Woods Hole Research Center'

"It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the

possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming.

If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the

2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror."

It is a real problem with IPCC Reports because of the political nature of GW / CC and the powerful and wealthy Fossil Fuel Industry funding Climate Denial they have to be so conservative in their reports and underestimate GW and CC.

If subterranean frozen Methane beds begin to be exposed and warmed it triggers a unstoppable feedback cycle of Global Warming and more Methane being released which then triggers more Global Warming.

The current Global Warming is caused by Man putting CO₂ into the atmosphere so Man can reduce it so it can be addressed. The Methane beds in the Arctic begin to be released we can only sit back and watch. Not much can be done.

Edited October 15, 2015 by up2u2

[up2u2]

That's a no brainer.

Well, I guess it takes one to know one.

Soon is obliged to go and seek grants for his work wherever he can, like many other scientists. The grants go to the institution he works for (the Smithsonian Institute), who in turn pay him. If you think he is deliberately falsifying his science to please the people who give grants to support his research, say so. Otherwise, his source of funding is irrelevant.

Soon is clearly correct when he states:

[The encyclical] 'Laudato Si’ gives credence and praise to these predictions [of catastrophe] by relying on climate models scenarios that have been proven to be false. I fear that this encyclical is driven not by science, but by social motivations and political yearnings.

The Pope, as even that dingbat Marsha Blackburn figured out, would be better advised to stick to matters spiritual.

EDIT: The statement: "He gets paid millions of dollars from Exxon Mobil" is simply a flat-out lie. Even Wikipedia, which has no liking for Doctor Soon, is very clear that his sources of funding are nothing like that. Again, his source of funding is irrelevant, unless you are prepared to state that he falsifies science for the benefits of those who give him grants.

Here's a great video where Willie Soon gets a few awkward questions thrown his way. Watch how he continuously drinks water and squirms to try and deflect the questions put too him. Young Uni students ya gotta love the little go getters. lol

He even admits he puts a proposal to people and the question is did he put a proposal to Exxon Mobil to provide misinformation on the IPCC report that hadn't even been released would they like to fund the proposal. Damn straight they would. Notice he didn't answer the question just attacked the young girl.

His parting thoughts 'getting a bit hot in this kitchen I better make a run for it' lol

Edited October 15, 2015 by up2u2

[up2u2]

Rick I am still really interested in this 'Paper' you mentioned:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9

Abstract

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

You can see why I put a 'red flag' on Willie Soon and Monckton both really discredited Climate Deniers.

The Abstract is VERY confusing. Looks like Legates is using his own 'Paper' to confuse the issue on Cook et al and has written another 'Article' in league with known discredited Climate Deniers to do it. Very unusual. It gets even more confusing as there is Legates et al, Bedford and Cook et all and Cook et al. Can't say I have heard of Science and Education Journal but they say they run a double blind peer review process. I don't know this Briggs character.

[up2u2]

Oh ok Briggs is connected to The Heartland Institute payroll.

Heartland Institute is funded by Koch Bros. Exxon Mobil and 'dark money' from right wing 'foundations'

There you go. The Climate Denier Echo Chamber on full tilt.

Fossil Fuel Oil money fingerprints all over this 'Article' Rick. Wish you would research stuff a little before you post.

Another wild goose chase

Edited October 15, 2015 by up2u2

[RickBradford]

You can see why I put a 'red flag' on Willie Soon and Monckton both really discredited Climate Deniers.

Tsk, tsk. Not 'Deniers' -- you must learn to call them "Climate Holocaust Co-conspirators" or you'll be getting yourself drummed out of the Green Blob Club.

Soon doesn't believe that CO2 is the ultimate thermostat for the earth's climate, and his science about the Sun's influence on climate has its supporters and detractors.

The fact that you dismiss him as "really discredited" means that you, like Marsha Blackburn, are very fixed in your views. Which would come as no surprise to people reading this thread

[RickBradford]

There you go. The Climate Denier Echo Chamber on full tilt.

And there you go. The Climate Alarmist Conspiracy Theory Echo Chamber on full tilt.

'Dark money', indeed. Sounds like something out of Dora the Explorer.

[up2u2]

You can see why I put a 'red flag' on Willie Soon and Monckton both really discredited Climate Deniers.

Tsk, tsk. Not 'Deniers' -- you must learn to call them "Climate Holocaust Co-conspirators" or you'll be getting yourself drummed out of the Green Blob Club.

Soon doesn't believe that CO2 is the ultimate thermostat for the earth's climate, and his science about the Sun's influence on climate has its supporters and detractors.

The fact that you dismiss him as "really discredited" means that you, like Marsha Blackburn, are very fixed in your views. Which would come as no surprise to people reading this thread

Not a term I would use but I do see the connection. Deny the science on Global Warming and you are denying a high potential for a Climate Holocaust.

So Willie Soon doesn't agree with the Greenhouse effect? Total Solar Iradiance TSI has little effect on Global temperatures so none of the science agrees with him on those two points. No wonder the Uni students gave him a hard time they learnt that in High School.

People reading this thread simply have to look at the science it agrees with me not Willie Soon or Congresswoman Blackburn.

What is your understanding of the Greenhouse Effect and Total Solar Iradiance?

[up2u2]

There you go. The Climate Denier Echo Chamber on full tilt.

And there you go. The Climate Alarmist Conspiracy Theory Echo Chamber on full tilt.

'Dark money', indeed. Sounds like something out of Dora the Explorer.

Hardly Dora The Explorer. If the Koch Bros, Exxon Mobil, Heartland Institute are funding you what do you think the research will find? He contacts Exxon Mobil says he can write a 'Paper' that will undermine the IPCC report that hasn't been released would they like to fund it. What do you you think that "Paper' will state? It doesn't get anymore corrupt than that surely.

[RickBradford]

If the Koch Bros, Exxon Mobil, Heartland Institute are funding you what do you think the research will find? He contacts Exxon Mobil says he can write a 'Paper' that will undermine the IPCC report that hasn't been released would they like to fund it. What do you you think that "Paper' will state? It doesn't get anymore corrupt than that surely.

He contacts Exxon Mobil says he can write a 'Paper' that will undermine the IPCC report that hasn't been released would they like to fund it.

1) Do you have any evidence that is what he did?

2) Do you therefore openly accuse Dr Soon of corruption?

3) Do you therefore openly state that he has falsified his research to please the people whose grants he has attracted?

Put up or shut up.

[RidgeRunner]

Which political party represents the industrial polluters?

[RidgeRunner]

Was watching FOX and their journalists don't say "global warming debate" they all say "global warming hoax."

Even the FOX audience should see that is insincere, deceptive, unethical and misleading. No?

[up2u2]

If the Koch Bros, Exxon Mobil, Heartland Institute are funding you what do you think the research will find? He contacts Exxon Mobil says he can write a 'Paper' that will undermine the IPCC report that hasn't been released would they like to fund it. What do you you think that "Paper' will state? It doesn't get anymore corrupt than that surely.

He contacts Exxon Mobil says he can write a 'Paper' that will undermine the IPCC report that hasn't been released would they like to fund it.

1) Do you have any evidence that is what he did?

2) Do you therefore openly accuse Dr Soon of corruption?

3) Do you therefore openly state that he has falsified his research to please the people whose grants he has attracted?

Put up or shut up.

Watch the video Rick that is exactly the question the young girl put to Willie and he absolutely dodged it just started belittling her the same way you are attempting to cover up. She clearly questions her about an email the simple answer is No there is no such email that exists. He couldn't get out of the Uni faster when I guy questions him to explain the Global Warming. He couldn't. The student could Willie shut up shop. It is easy preaching to Climate Deniers they all sit there nodding in agreement but when it comes to people who actually have knowledge on the topic not so easy then.

[RickBradford]

Watch the video Rick that is exactly the question the young girl put to Willie and he absolutely dodged it

Rather like you are dodging my clear question.

1) Do you have any evidence that is what he did?

2) Do you therefore openly accuse Dr Soon of corruption?

3) Do you therefore openly state that he has falsified his research to please the people whose grants he has attracted?

[up2u2]

Watch the video Rick that is exactly the question the young girl put to Willie and he absolutely dodged it

Rather like you are dodging my clear question.

1) Do you have any evidence that is what he did?

2) Do you therefore openly accuse Dr Soon of corruption?

3) Do you therefore openly state that he has falsified his research to please the people whose grants he has attracted?

The girl questions him about an email where Willie Soon approaches Exxon Mobil with a proposition to write a 'Paper' that will discredit the up coming IPCC report that had not been released and whether they were interested in 'funding' that 'Paper'. Willie didn't seem to deny that the email existed so it must. Surely if the email 'Proposal' didn't exist the answer to the question is a simple No!. Do you think such a 'Proposal' is corrupt? Do you think the 'Paper' would be fraudulent? I certainly do and he didn't deny the 'Proposal' didn't exist he in fact confirms he sends out 'Proposals' and if people want to fund it great. He got caught out and deflected when all he had to do was answer the question put to him. Instead he starts rabbiting on and the real funny bit is when a question is asked on the non science he was talking on he couldn't get out of the place fast enough. I love it when Climate Deniers get caught out.

[RickBradford]

Willie didn't seem to deny that the email existed so it must.

That really is the most fatuous statement imaginable, right down there at the level of the SkS Kidz themselves -- or Marsha Blackburn. But pretty much of a piece with mainstream Green/Left "logic", I suppose.

I sure hope the world comes up with better thinking than that when it gets together to discuss climate matters next month.

[notmyself]

What percentage of U.S. scientists disagree with human effected climate change, and what potential bias could they have? Has nobody even looked into the credentials.

[eliotness]

Methane release from melting

permafrost could trigger dangerous

global warming

"A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesnt adequately account for a methane warming feedback"

Policy Briefing Link

Dr. John Abraham Prof. Thermal Sciences

While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isnt the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Guardian Article Link

Dr. Robert Holmes Earth System Scientist 'Woods Hole Research Center'

"Its essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the

possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming.

If they dont, I suspect that down the road well all be looking at the

2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror."

It is a real problem with IPCC Reports because of the political nature of GW / CC and the powerful and wealthy Fossil Fuel Industry funding Climate Denial they have to be so conservative in their reports and underestimate GW and CC.

If subterranean frozen Methane beds begin to be exposed and warmed it triggers a unstoppable feedback cycle of Global Warming and more Methane being released which then triggers more Global Warming.

The current Global Warming is caused by Man putting CO₂ into the atmosphere so Man can reduce it so it can be addressed. The Methane beds in the Arctic begin to be released we can only sit back and watch. Not much can be done.

You have ignored my post 418 about the scientific consensus on population growth. But how can mankind reduce CO2 emissions if the world's population is going to double in the 21st century ??? Live the dream my friend because it isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, your making light of the comment about holocaust deniers by equating them with people who question your beliefs ( Note I say beliefs and not facts, because a forecast of the future temperature of the earth is a projection based on computer models and NOT A FACT ) is so deeply offensive to anyone who is Jewish and/or had family killed by the Nazis.

The Guardian, which must be the greenest paper on the planet, has admitted a scientific consensus got it wrong, so why oh why do you keep on insisting your version of a scientific consensus is infallible ?

Your dismissal of historical records is very disturbing and rather reflects on the GW prophets of doom's wider education. You are without question a very focused person and I commend you for that, but you need to appreciate all the related topics.

[thaibeachlovers]

A few days ago, the Associated Press announced it would no longer use the words "skeptic" and "denier" in its coverage of climate matters. The reason (on the denier word) was that it was a pejorative description which was linked too closely to Holocaust denial. Fairly minor stuff, you would argue, but it caused serious exploding heads in the Green/Left community, who felt that AP were betraying the cause by removing one of their favourite labels.

Salon magazine, for example, did not accept that climate "deniers" could be equated with Holocaust deniers.

"Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial," they stated in a piece designed to rally the faithful. "The problem isn’t that 'denier' has a 'pejorative ring', it’s that it’s not nearly pejorative enough. 'Climate holocaust co-conspirator' would be more apt."

Sometimes I think there is a single author furiously writing Green/Left agit-prop, because it all sounds the same. The Salon piece was a classic which recycled all the tiresome points:

* We are right (the reality-based community); everything else is disinformation (anti-science). There is no debate.

* Anyone who disagrees is stupid, brainwashed by Right-wing sources or paid off by Big Oil.

* Anyone who disagrees with us is not just wrong but evil, is always lying and should be hated to the maximum. They are so inhuman that they care nothing for future generations, including their own children

* Anyone who is not with us is against us ( "You either align yourself more or less with the climate deniers—consciously or unconsciously—or you align yourself against them. There is no “neutral” ground outside of or above the debate")

To anyone capable of independent thought, this foam-flecked rant is interesting. It reveals at a stroke the hatred that is the driving force of the Green/Left, the staggering emotional immaturity, the slavish adherence to the cult, and the absolute lack of originality and imagination among its adherents.

Compared to these people, the Pope is a rational moderate.

This amusing piece, unsurprisingly titled "Wrong, wrong, wrong: The anti-science bullsh*t which explains why the right gets away with lies — and why the mainstream media lets them" can be found here

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/

For me Climate Deniers are similar to people who believe in 'creationism' and refute Evolution and firmly believe the Earth is 5000 years old and a god made Earth in 7 days. No evidence or education can make them believe otherwise. Climate Denial seems to appeal to right wing political ideology and there isn't a great deal anyone can do about. It never ceases to amaze me the bizarre things people believe.

NO ONE on here is a "climate DENIER". Climate happens all the time, every day and every minute of every day.

However, if by that you mean people that don't believe that humans can reverse climate, then there would be quite a few.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to come up with ANYTHING that ANY government has done that will ACTUALLY reverse GW. I'm pickin' you can't, for the simple reason that NONE of them has done ANYTHING that actually works.

god made Earth in 7 days

You might want to check on the source to correct that!

Edited October 15, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[eliotness]

What percentage of U.S. scientists disagree with human effected climate change, and what potential bias could they have? Has nobody even looked into the credentials.

That works both ways. Also the degree of effect humans have had in the past, are having currently and may have in the future is important. Add to this to what extent man can reverse, halt or reduce any climate change, then you will break up the overwhelming consensus claimed into a wide spectrum of opinions much more representative of real science.

[RidgeRunner]

I propose the climate change deniers are a little bit behind on their scientific literature.

The government should make it's climate change policy decisions based on the advice of the distinguished scientists, not the opinions of politicians that represent the largest polluters.

According to the worlds elite scientific organisations like the National Academy of Scientists or the UK Royal Society, it is now more certain than ever, based on many line of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private non-profit organization in the USA that was established by an Act of Congress, charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.

New members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.

Election to the National Academy is one of the highest honors in U.S. science. Members serve pro-bone (free) as "advisers to the nation" on science.

Now you know.

Still, the "journalists" on FOX News insists it is a hoax.

Edited October 15, 2015 by RidgeRunner

[eliotness]

The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger.

[RickBradford]

. . it is now more certain than ever, based on many line of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate.

Of course humans change the climate, and have done for millennia.

Whether it's clearing land, burning rainforests, building cities, damming rivers, putting chemicals into the atmosphere or even building those silly wind turbines, we affect the climate on scales from local to regional to global.

But that's not the point, is it?

The questions that need to be answered are: Is what we are doing dangerous? If so, is there something we can do about it? Is the treatment better or worse than the disease?

In the comic-book world of the Alarmists, the answers are naturally simple. 'Weepy' Bill McKibben, for example, has built an entire career on just this point, as his organisation 350.org states: "The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm."

And their simplistic answer to this simplistic question? Shut down capitalism.

As Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said publicly earlier this year: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Turn back the clocks to 1865, CO2 vanishes from the atmosphere, and everyone lived happily ever after.

In the real world, of course, things don't work like this, but these are difficulties which the Alarmists are unwilling to grasp.

Bertrand Russell put it best: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

[RidgeRunner]

. . it is now more certain than ever, based on many line of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate.

Of course humans change the climate, and have done for millennia.

Whether it's clearing land, burning rainforests, building cities, damming rivers, putting chemicals into the atmosphere or even building those silly wind turbines, we affect the climate on scales from local to regional to global.

But that's not the point, is it?

The questions that need to be answered are: Is what we are doing dangerous? If so, is there something we can do about it? Is the treatment better or worse than the disease?

In the comic-book world of the Alarmists, the answers are naturally simple. 'Weepy' Bill McKibben, for example, has built an entire career on just this point, as his organisation 350.org states: "The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm."

And their simplistic answer to this simplistic question? Shut down capitalism.

As Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said publicly earlier this year: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Turn back the clocks to 1865, CO2 vanishes from the atmosphere, and everyone lived happily ever after.

In the real world, of course, things don't work like this, but these are difficulties which the Alarmists are unwilling to grasp.

Bertrand Russell put it best: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

I guess it's your right to discount that statements from the most elite scientific groups on the planet.

Maybe the industrial polluters and their political representatives are correct and these distinguished scientists have it wrong?

[RickBradford]

I guess it's your right to discount that statements from the most elite scientific groups on the planet.

Maybe the industrial polluters and their political representatives are correct and these distinguished scientists have it wrong?

Once again, if you insist on creating a simplistic cartoon battle: "Evil Fat Cat Polluters vs Noble Altruistic Scientists", you are not going to be able to come up with any sensible answers,

[RidgeRunner]

If you want sensible answers, consult the distinguished scientists at the National Academy of Science.

They were formed to steer scientific and technology policy.

[canuckamuck]

If you want sensible answers, consult the distinguished scientists at the National Academy of Science.

They were formed to steer scientific and technology policy.

Yes and they are certainly determined to steer a certain direction

[up2u2]

A few days ago, the Associated Press announced it would no longer use the words "skeptic" and "denier" in its coverage of climate matters. The reason (on the denier word) was that it was a pejorative description which was linked too closely to Holocaust denial. Fairly minor stuff, you would argue, but it caused serious exploding heads in the Green/Left community, who felt that AP were betraying the cause by removing one of their favourite labels.

Salon magazine, for example, did not accept that climate "deniers" could be equated with Holocaust deniers.

"Climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial," they stated in a piece designed to rally the faithful. "The problem isn’t that 'denier' has a 'pejorative ring', it’s that it’s not nearly pejorative enough. 'Climate holocaust co-conspirator' would be more apt."

Sometimes I think there is a single author furiously writing Green/Left agit-prop, because it all sounds the same. The Salon piece was a classic which recycled all the tiresome points:

* We are right (the reality-based community); everything else is disinformation (anti-science). There is no debate.

* Anyone who disagrees is stupid, brainwashed by Right-wing sources or paid off by Big Oil.

* Anyone who disagrees with us is not just wrong but evil, is always lying and should be hated to the maximum. They are so inhuman that they care nothing for future generations, including their own children

* Anyone who is not with us is against us ( "You either align yourself more or less with the climate deniers—consciously or unconsciously—or you align yourself against them. There is no “neutral” ground outside of or above the debate")

To anyone capable of independent thought, this foam-flecked rant is interesting. It reveals at a stroke the hatred that is the driving force of the Green/Left, the staggering emotional immaturity, the slavish adherence to the cult, and the absolute lack of originality and imagination among its adherents.

Compared to these people, the Pope is a rational moderate.

This amusing piece, unsurprisingly titled "Wrong, wrong, wrong: The anti-science bullsh*t which explains why the right gets away with lies — and why the mainstream media lets them" can be found here

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/wrong_wrong_wrong_the_anti_science_bullsht_which_explains_why_the_right_gets_away_with_lies_and_why_the_mainstream_media_lets_them/

For me Climate Deniers are similar to people who believe in 'creationism' and refute Evolution and firmly believe the Earth is 5000 years old and a god made Earth in 7 days. No evidence or education can make them believe otherwise. Climate Denial seems to appeal to right wing political ideology and there isn't a great deal anyone can do about. It never ceases to amaze me the bizarre things people believe.

NO ONE on here is a "climate DENIER". Climate happens all the time, every day and every minute of every day.

However, if by that you mean people that don't believe that humans can reverse climate, then there would be quite a few.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to come up with ANYTHING that ANY government has done that will ACTUALLY reverse GW. I'm pickin' you can't, for the simple reason that NONE of them has done ANYTHING that actually works.

god made Earth in 7 days

You might want to check on the source to correct that!

All answered many times tbl

[up2u2]

Methane release from melting

permafrost could trigger dangerous

global warming

"A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesnt adequately account for a methane warming feedback"

Policy Briefing Link

Dr. John Abraham Prof. Thermal Sciences

While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isnt the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Guardian Article Link

Dr. Robert Holmes Earth System Scientist 'Woods Hole Research Center'

"Its essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the

possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming.

If they dont, I suspect that down the road well all be looking at the

2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror."

It is a real problem with IPCC Reports because of the political nature of GW / CC and the powerful and wealthy Fossil Fuel Industry funding Climate Denial they have to be so conservative in their reports and underestimate GW and CC.

If subterranean frozen Methane beds begin to be exposed and warmed it triggers a unstoppable feedback cycle of Global Warming and more Methane being released which then triggers more Global Warming.

The current Global Warming is caused by Man putting CO₂ into the atmosphere so Man can reduce it so it can be addressed. The Methane beds in the Arctic begin to be released we can only sit back and watch. Not much can be done.

You have ignored my post 418 about the scientific consensus on population growth. But how can mankind reduce CO2 emissions if the world's population is going to double in the 21st century ??? Live the dream my friend because it isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, your making light of the comment about holocaust deniers by equating them with people who question your beliefs ( Note I say beliefs and not facts, because a forecast of the future temperature of the earth is a projection based on computer models and NOT A FACT ) is so deeply offensive to anyone who is Jewish and/or had family killed by the Nazis.

The Guardian, which must be the greenest paper on the planet, has admitted a scientific consensus got it wrong, so why oh why do you keep on insisting your version of a scientific consensus is infallible ?

Your dismissal of historical records is very disturbing and rather reflects on the GW prophets of doom's wider education. You are without question a very focused person and I commend you for that, but you need to appreciate all the related topics.

With the population growth it is even more crucial to transition to non polluting Clean Energy. It actually makes population growth sustainable. Generate more energy to support a larger population without adding any more CO₂ pollutant.

I didn't mention Jews or Nazis

The Guardian actually reports the consensus on GW / CC correctly publishing the facts not propaganda.

GW / CC theory is based on historical records. I focus on the science full stop.