Dave,
Your arguments are based on science ,as usually Well if you want to know (1), I like Rush Limbaugh, Mishelle Malkin and Mark Levin. I also (2) do believe in God and (3) family values. (4) I support Republican Party as of this summer. Any public outrage on this statement ???

OK, I will do it for you on your behalf: In any liberal University in US (not just ours) the first and the forth will make me a fascist, the second an ignorant bigot and the third a homophobe. And that would come from faculties not from students. And I know this too well and that is why now I want to go and work for industry and stay away from academia. I developed some sort of contempt for people who hide behind their degrees, tell us that they reason based on science while in reality they are more stupid than the rest of us if you take them outside of their field. In common human world they are less smart than an average person sampled from a telephone book. So, I would rather go and speculate on Wall Street, at least I will be surrounded by decent and honest people, I mean more decent and honest than ones I see in academia.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. LMAO.

http://www.realclimate.org

Climategate to RICO, the call is becoming loud.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/21/manipulating-climate-change-warming-to-rico/
Manipulating Climate Change: Warming to RICO?

Well, now it really does look like a massive conspiracy to defraud the government……
Fraud is a RICO predicate offense. If what we are seeing unfold is evidence of fraud, a RICO complaint is a possibility, along with what the “discovery” process would reveal.

http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=websterb&date=091125
Those who were most responsible for massive diversion of federal spending (tens of billions of dollars over the past three decades) should not only be fired, they should be tried for criminal conspiracy and violations of the RICO Act. They have corrupted science, the classroom and political processes for their own personal empire-building gains.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html
I have an article here: “RICO Convictions of Major Tobacco Companies Affirmed — [T]he DC Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 92-page per curiam opinion upholding the judgment issued by DC District Court … in August 2006.” Well, this is how the big warmers should be treated, exactly — and Algore is the biggest of the big warmers along with Phil Jones and Michael Mann and everybody else at this CRU place at East Anglia. There should be legal consequences for this fraud! I remember those hearings. Waxman held those hearings. That’s when the CEO said nicotine was not addictive. Remember all that? We’ve been through this before. Except last time the left was out destroying a capitalist enemy. This time they’re circling the wagons around one of their own, which is genuinely destroying capitalism.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Global-warming-loyalty-oaths-and-Climategates-smoking-gun

For more than two weeks we have heard the establishment scientists saying that the leaked emails were take out of context. Unfortunately for them, putting them in context makes it even worse, as McIntyre shows with one series that should have district attorneys dusting off the definition of RICO statutes. The emails show collusion to place inaccurate and incomplete data into public evidence for policy makers charged with enacting appropriate legislation to evaluate and deal with climate change.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2009/12/climategate-rel.php
From there you proceed into issues of potential legal liability, for transparency and other laws broken, possible RICO exposure, and other legal fallout for the principals.

Read it: they funded by Big Oil, so what they write must be false. Here we have a good example of reasoning based on science

I am becoming extremely suspicious of people who speak on behalf of science about politicaly significant questions.

My own take is that I don’t appreciate them, or your take on them, making me (by unearned association) look bad for my choice of related profession.

Intelligent people aren’t supposed to be stupid.

Or irrational.

You’re embarrassing.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

The CRU is based at the University of East Anglia!

The funding for climate change “skeptics” from Exonmobil and Shell is, at least in part, not even secret!
(They publish accounts like all other companies….)

Janne, AGW is either true or it isn’t. It does not mean you will have to be sterilized.

http://www.realclimate.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioj53IBf4nM

How do you feel about these sorts being the recipient of your “climate debt”.

>At the beginning and at the end, denialists are always left with only one explanation: a giant, secret global conspiracy.

Doug,
At the beginning and at the end, alarmist are always left with only one explanation: a giant, secret funding from Exon Mobile, Shell etc . Is not this the way how you would explain the report from NIPCC: http://www.nipccreport.org/ debunking AGW? And is not this the way how you would explain Alan Carlin’s report supressed by EPA? (even while Carlin is paid only by EPA )

“The less I know about a subject, the more confidence I have, and the more new light I throw on it”

“These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and **socialists*** who want to level-out global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation.”

Yes, that is precisely how I see it.

“…The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.”

“The last century’s global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit is not a consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of a multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation. …”

This guy earned his right to have his opinion, ***unlike most of us***.

“The recent “Climategate” revelations coming out of the University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming ***conspiracy ***that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years.”

from: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5756

The biggest scientific scandal in this generation is that “scientists” who ****push socialism through a Global Warming Scare ****tried to “hide the decline” in global temperatures and to destroy or manipulate — “trick” — data that disproved their theory. That they could not duplicate the experiment independently without lying is proof, to me, that Global Warming is a hoax (see REM). The fact that the Global Warming crowd by and large indulges in larger carbon footprints than everyone else is also proof that they do not believe in their junk science.

REM: This is simple Bayesian reasoning, used by detectives, common people, statistitians, politicians but somehow forgoten by practcioners of fundamantal sciences. Though, it is R. T. Cox and later E.T Jaynes (author of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science ) who glorified Bayesian reasoning.

Surferosad,
So, Lef-liberal should be a group protected from any criticism? How predictable But, you are absolutely wrong on semantics. That was “green-biting” or perhaps “left-liberal baiting” or perhaps you need to invent a new word to bully your students into believing that anyone who could be labeled by it is bad person. What problem do you have with left-liberal baiting in general? You liberlas do Republican baiting and I do left-liberal baiting. They all do the same in Congress. You can call it any name, (or I could do) but calling names is not the way to conduct intellectual conversation. The question if it is relevant. And what I said is that left-liberal mob mentality may possibly serve as a sole motivation for commiting data fraud (completely aside of $60 billions that UN asks us to monitore climate change ).

The worst thing I see here is that you assume that name-calling only may constitute a proof and get you some leverage in discussion. OK, let us asume that I can be also possibly a racist, sexist, homophobe and fascist or a criminal. But pointing to any of this circumstences would not in any way disproof of what I said about possibility of data fraud based on political motivations.

>>>Anyway, thank you for once again amply demonstrating the uselessness of debating climate change deniers.

Same to you. You are a geologist by training. I suggest you to complement your study with basic Aristotelean logic and learn at least one thing that ad-hominem attacks do not constitute proof and do not even show you in good light .

Well, I have the same problem with M. Mann and his writings on RealClimate as I have with you. The combating posture, name calling and demagogy (misuse of semantics) are signs of unsrupulous mind and of a potential lier.

So, your argument basically amounts to a baseless assertion that even if you could find an experimental verification of a climate model, which so far you couldn’t do, I would still not accept it?

You are wrong, I would certainly accept it, but I can understand why you have to resolve to such twisted logic – there simply are no experimental verifications of climate models. If they existed we would read about them in every climate thread.

And no, I am not a denier, I am a skeptic. I agree that the Earth is currently warming, I accept the physics behind the greenhouse effect, I accept that humans *may* be responsible for a significant part of the current warming. But I have some experience with computer models and I am deeply skeptical our climate models can accurately reproduce every important mechanism and feedback of something as complex as global climate. I won’t take anyones word for it I want to see a proof – meaning experimental verification of models predictions, but there is none. I keep bringing this up in climate threads and so far no one has been able to come up with any such verification and so I remain skeptical. But as soon as someone proves his model can accurately predict climate by repeatedly and correctly postdicting or predicting climate I will be happy to change my position.

Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion – R.P.Feynman

Personally I am inclined to believe that peak oil and peak coal will take care of CO2 emissions eventually, but that is just my own unscientific opinion.