1) Many link global warming with an almost religious zeal that mankind is responsible.
2) Many approach this without a clear understanding of cause and effect.
3) Many arrogantly claim that AWG science is settled/closed and that anyone who does not accept it is a “flat-earth Neanderthal.” Likewise, many arogantly claim that people who believe in AWG are “politically motivated idiots.”

To ever hope for progress on the issue (in either direction):

1) Keep dialog on a non-emotional level. Don’t let strategically placed pictures of polar bears or ice flows sway your focus (in either direction).
2) Is increased carbon dioxide causing warming or is warming causing higher levels of carbon dioxide? It is not necessarily as simplistic as this, but this is how good scientists approach a problem. Remember that there are excellent scietists on both sides of this debate.
3) Science must remain open. New evidence and discourse must remain welcome. Good scientists ALWAYS welcome challenges of new hypotheses, divergent views, thoughtful reasoning, and validated, statistically significant data. (OK, I know, lies, damn lies and statistics)

As for global warming, remember that climate science is still in its infancy and hsitoric data samplings are very limited, particularly from from a global perspective. Let’s keep the discussions on a civil level and, to the degree possible (play on words unintended), avoid the obvious problems introduced when emostions and politics enter the picture.

Junk Science and Realclimate are advocacy sites. Neither can be wholly trusted in finding the truth.

Why would their domain being hosted by the same outfit that pr’ed for Certifiable Cindy? They also don’t mention anything about their indirect relationship with these two shadowy organizations and the resulting entanglements with the funders .

Realclimate is a store front. The notion that it is populated by even dispassionate scientists is a crock of swill.

Again: Give us the economic case for mitigation with facts and figures.

Seeing Mooney isn’t a scientist he could give it a try too. Perhaps he has an economics degree well hidden that we can’t see.

Why the ellipses? Why do you not link to the original page. Oh, I see you where being deceptive.

Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation. We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.shtml).

You claimed that Real Climate was a “PR Front” where is that evidence?

Where to begin…

The only reason you know about the reply of Ann Hobbs to my DDT question is because I posted it. I acted in good faith and posted a reply that tended to undermine my argument. An argument, by the way, that occurred years ago and has nothing to do with the current discussion.

That you would drag up that post and interject that irrelevant, out of context, bit of information into the current discussion on climate change is evidence of your desire to smear people that disagree with you rather than engage them in honest dialogue.

You seem more interested in impugning my credibility than engaging in an honest scientific discussion. Sadly, this says more about your credibility than mine.

Mooney and Milloy are both bloggers and authors with a highly public profile and very different opinions on the topic of climate change. The difference being that Milloy at least has a science degree.

I would love to see them square off in a debate.

“…..We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications……..”

Environmental Media Services was the organization that helped fund Cindy Sheehan’s mad ravings.

Who “woulda” thought these dispassionate scientists at Realclimate were being supported by a left leaning organization. LOL.

You’re talking about natural variability? Are you retarded? The real question isn’t anything to do with natural variability. The real question is to ask why the short term trend has stopped dead in its tracks in the face of material increases in emissions over the past 10 years. Why would natural variability supersede the ” onslaught” of what we’re brewing up. Now answer that without resorting to another silly way of suggesting randomness, as that’s just a vulgar cop out.

And while you’re at it please provide an economic justification for the mitigation case, which for ease of argument we’ll assume man-made emissions are a reality

—————-.

Perhaps it was the Republicans war on science that has stopped the short term trend I’m sure Mooney could cook up a sophomoric book with that assertion supported by “evidence”.

While you’re at it, also show how it is that natural variability stopped. As a help, you can check out my graph of temperature vs. CO2 in the note Does CO2 correlate with temperature?. Sure looks to me like a bit of natural variability squiggles around an increasing trend.

But I’m willing to be convinced by evidence. What evidence would change your mind on those two points?