Let the deniers ante up for once & prove their case. They can’t, because while it’s easy to deny climate change, it’s impossible for them to prove that it’s not happening. Denial doesn’t need proof. Anyone can deny anything. But there’s no data in the denials. Nothing but empty space to match what’s between the denier’s ears. The only thing they have are narrowly-selected spot arguments that they regurgitate over and over again like a drunken wino. The same broken-record arguments that have been debunked countless times.

Yes. I’m all for either a hearing or a trial. Get this denier insanity over with once and for all.

Deniers are in the same league as IDers, and we saw what happened to them in Dover, PA. The ID “experts” had their heads handed to them. Can’t wait for that same Dover, PA type ruling to come down in this case. And it will.

In the meantime, just keep the policies going to reduce CO2 emissions. There’s plenty of proxy data proving climate change. The deniers will just say it’s all a big fraud anyway.

The CRU provided the model that the IPCC relied (heavily) upon. The CRU code shows that the numbers were fudged and “garbage” (the CRU words). Now the warmists are claiming that the CRU data does not matter because the IPCC believes in global warming (never mind that this belief relies on….the CRU model!) The emails do not matter except that they reflect artificial changes to the data in teh model (they actually are available to read if any of you can read code, do math or understand what a “model” is.)

Screaming consensus is not really a rebuttal. It is a way for people to say “shut up, only idiots disagree with us.” Calling republicans thugs does not change the fact that the CRU in conjunction with many other scientists (including those at NOAA) fudged the data and relied on a garbage model. Please, try to make your point with, well, um, actual points.

Calling Einstein a lousy womanizer does not change general relativity and calling inhofe an idiot does not change the fact that you have been relying on lies to prove your conviction.

To use your words – it “sickens me” to see how people can willfully misconstrue facts to suit their own agenda. Nothing in this “climategate” scam has indicated that the science behind global warming is wrong, nor that any conspiracy exists. Wake up and read something reliable.

Push the world to war. Indeed. As has been thankfully done before, science is trying to alert the world to a potential catastrophe. It is amazing that in the world’s most dominant country that this think you are peddling actually has the traction that it does.

Great. You’ll let the rest of us know when the global warming skeptics start pushing for initiatives that preserve, protect and respect nature, won’t you?

There used to be conservative environmentalists like former Senator James Buckley from New York and former Richmond Times Dispatch editor James J. Kilpatrick. Unfortunately, with the hijacking of the Rethuglican party by the religious right, these kind of folks have been driven out of the party. Even Barry Goldwater, as conservative as he was was not nearly as unfriendly to environmental concerns as noodlebrains like James Inhofe. The current Rethuglican party has become the part of Falwell, Dobson, Shelton, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, O’Reilly, Hannity, Drudge, and their ilk. Which newspapers are going to town on climategate? The Wall Street Journal, the London Times, and the New York Post, all owned by Rupert Murdock, the scum of the earth.

We deniers want Al Gore, Canada’s David Suzuki, all politicians, scientists, teachers and anyone else helping push the world to war against the non existent enemy of climate variation, arrested to stand trial for high treason. Because for 23 years this doomsday from humans was hidden atop the polar caps, mountains and deep in the oceans and rainforests and we fell for this feeding frenzy of disco science hook line and sinker. How obedient and unquestioning we have become during a time when we are living longer than at any time in history as a species. Or is this our fault for being such lazy citizens of an era where truth is buried somewhere in the sewer of untreated information we call the Internet? Say NO to “SAVE THE PLANET” and YES to I LOVE MY PLANET.
THE NEW GREEN: Preserve Protect and Respect Nature and face the future of progress with optimism and courage.

You must be a good mind reader. For years I’ve called myself a “Theodore Roosevelt Republican”. Not surprisingly, both he and Barry Goldwater are two of my heroes.

John

@ james wheaton -

Read my reply to Wes Rolley (see above).

Steven Douglas:

For all of us here, please let us in on how many actual published, peer-reviewed climate articles you have thoroughly read to meet your above conclusion. (And I’m talking the actual papers, not a summary of them on blog). Less than 5? More than 5? None? More than 20?

We’re curious.

John Kwok doesn’t need to explain himself. His views on taxes, social issues, national defense and health care legislation have no bearing on whether he can look at science objectively (nor do yours).

Like it or not, we’ve got just 2 parties to choose from in this country. The leadership of one of them has decided to put the blinders on regarding climate change and to pretend that a warning from the science community is a partisan issue. Unfortunately, quite a few Democrats in Congress are also wavering on taking meaningful action. If you think the current health care debate has been divisive, just wait until this issue hits the floor.

Now that is about the same level of discourse as we get from climate change deniers.

John Kwok.. there are really three roads for Republicans to follow:
One is a Conservatism that hearkens back to T.R. and Barry Goldwater, one that recognizes that the connection between Conservative politics and Conservation. That is the road that Jim DiPeso has chosen to go.
One is to switch party’s. That is the road that Pete McCloskey, the Republican who more than any other helped put the Endangered Species Act into law… but now a Democrat after he felt that the party had left him.
The third is to give lip service to Ronald Reagan, but to actually follow Nancy Reagan. Just Say No.