In a previous “debate” on this blog he literally fabricated a quote from scratch to support his claim that climate change “deniers” also deny the link between smoking and cancer.

I asked him to provide a link to the quote and all I got was a barrage of insults.

When I demonstrated through a google search that he definitely fabricated the quote he went silent and moved onto this page.

You can read all about it here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/12/09/how-the-global-warming-story-changed-disastrously-due-to-climategate/

As long as James Hansen is at GISS fending off M&M’s FOI requests nobody should trust NASA’s data. Even if the data sets are scientifically sound, you cannot restore the public’s trust with anything less than full disclosure.

As with Watergate, the crime is a minor problem compared to the cover up.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/jan/judicial-watch-uncovers-nasa-documents-related-global-warming-controversy

Your hobby horse is now throughly broken. Time to get off of it.

I would have thought bilbo aka arkenby etc would already be familiar with the work of Lindzen, Michaels, and the rest — since he KNOWS they are wrong…..

A short list of some Former Believers turned Skeptic for the Faithful to consider:

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, says “I
am a skeptic…Global warming has become a
new religion.”

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, who has authored more
than 100 scientific articles and was one of the first
scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years
ago, now says the cause of climate change is
“unknown.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta once
set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the
Kyoto Protocol but recently wrote a book titled
“The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth
of Global Warming.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young
award-winning scientists, “believes there will be
more scientists converting to man-made global
warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of
evidence.”

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanna Simpson, the
first woman in the world to receive a PhD in
meteorology: “Since I am no longer affiliated with
any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly.” Formerly of NASA, she has
authored more than 190 studies.

Mathematician and engineer Dr. David Evans devoted
six years to carbon accounting, building an award
winning model for the Australian Greenhouse
Office. He wrote FullCAM that measures
Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol
in the land use change and forestry sector. Evans
became a skeptic in 2007.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed one of the
“Fathers of Meteorology,” became a leading
global warming skeptic in the last few years before
passing away in 2008.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental
campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University,
and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife,
said “global warming is largely a natural
phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous
amounts of money on trying to fix something that
can’t be fixed.”

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, a professor of earth
sciences at Flinders University, says: “I started
with a firm belief about global warming, until I
started working on it myself.”

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University
of Auckland, N.Z., converted from a believer in
man-made global warming to a skeptic.

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental
physical chemist, says warming fears are the
“worst scientific scandal in the history…When
people come to know what the truth is, they will feel
deceived by science and scientists.”

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice
core researcher, says “The Kyoto theorists have
put the cart before the horse. It is global warming
that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, not the other way around …”

Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden notes, “Many
[scientists] are now searching for a way to back out
quietly [from promoting warming fears], without
having their professional careers ruined.”

Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer
and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science
consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for
AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been
discovered.”

The main arguments in the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” are based on the Hockey Stick even though the blade should now look more like a drooping noodle. You need to ask yourself why the IPCC is still using old voodoo “science” that denies both reality and history.

Regarding your #173. If you want science that does not deny the historical record you only have to look at the IPCC AR1 report. That was done before the zealots took over.

If you don’t like science that is almost 20 years old take a look at Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels.

Here is a summary but I fear you won’t like it:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html

What is it so hard for you to admit that the IPCC is in the business of forecasting climate centuries ahead and yet they still can’t explain past or present climate?

Interesting remark from Sean, seeing as how myself and multiple other posters have asked him to provide evidence to support his arguments about climate change science being a global conspiracy. I’ll note that he has conspicuouly failed each and every time, not even attempting an answer. How exactly does one not “accept distorted reasoning” while at the same time aligning themselves with a skeptic movement that continually proves impotent at producing evidence to support their arguments? Interesting, indeed.

On another note, arkonbey is right on the money.

1) There was no ‘revelation of Climategate’: Not one page contradictory data was released to show that current AGW hypotheses are incorrect. There were simply some inferences that are admittedly ambiguous. If someone showed decades of data that worked into a model that disproved AGW, then that would be a revelation. If you deny AGW and have no contradictory data and seek no contradictory data, despite what you claim, you are not being skeptical.

2) There was no whistle-blowing: These emails were stolen by an outside entity and only certain emails and portions of emails were released by the thieves. If this was a whistle-blowing by a formerly AGW scientist who was fed up with lying, he/she would have released contradictory data and/or direct evidence of data tampering to prove the ‘truth’. Instead , what we got were a few ambiguous emails.

3) There is no conspiracy by the ‘scientific community part 1: Think of how untenable a multi-nation, multi-organization, multi-individual conspiracy would be, then add a timeline of decades of study. You can’t keep people on the same page forever, especially if it is a deliberate lie; someone would have truly blown a whistle by now. And remember, the ‘scientific community’ is not an entity, it is a bunch of individuals, many of whom are in direct competition with one another.

4) There is no conspiracy by the ‘scientific community part 2: Contrary to Carol’s argument, there are not gigantic amounts of money being poured into AGW research. At the very least least not the way that keeps the members of a conspiracy complicit. Scientists, generally, aren’t taking the grants given to them and buying Mercedes. Money is carefully scrutinized by the donors and can be revoked at any time, so it goes in to the research.

5) There is no conspiracy by the ‘scientific community part 3: If there was a conspiracy that has somehow been able to perpetuate a complex lie among many nations and thousands of individuals for decades, it has been terribly ineffective, hasn’t it?

All arguments aside, are you not the least bit concerned that the data might be correct? If you imagine that the Earth is your house and a couple of different building inspectors tell you that you need to replace your foundation, wouldn’t you do it? The Earth is the only place we have to live, guys and even without AGW, we’re soiling our nest.

I am being very precise when I speak of “belief” in a scientific theory for which one has not personally gathered the evidence. You call that belief knowledge, but what happens to your “knowledge” when a once widely accepted theory is shown to be false…? See, you really didn’t “know” anything of the sort.

Did man once know the earth was flat or did they believe it was flat?

There are very few scientific theories that have enough evidence behind them to be called laws.

Basically, we generally believe what we read from the scientific community because we consider them reputable and unbiased. We trust that the methods used and the conclusions drawn have gone through rigorous debate and the results have been replicated by independent researchers. We trust that the data is available and has been scrutinized for errors.

Now, it’s fine that you still “believe” in AGW after the revelations of Climategate call much of the above into serious question. But do call it a belief, not knowledge.

Sorry to be critical, but you do not seem to be a very rational thinker. I stated that “a” scientist evidently lied in a scientific journal — and I am willing to extend that to several scientists since journal articles tend to have several collaborators — yet you made the conclusion that I think ALL scientists lie about everything…. See, it is crazy distorted reasoning like this that eventually moved me into the skeptic camp.

You guys need to throw out the emotional reasoning, the all or nothing reasoning, the unfounded attribution of motives, and all of your other cognitive distortions — and use absolute logic and precision in your arguments.

For a very long time AGW believers have relied on ad hominem arguments and other irrational emotional ploys such as “Skeptics want to destroy the earth. They are tin-foil hatted conspiracy theorists. They are in denial. They are greedy, Hummer driving mass polluters. They are shills for the oil industry.” With the help of a lazy media entrenched in groupthink you seemed to get away with this distorted reasoning for such a long time that it sorta became second nature. AGW proponents didn’t even ask if any of these assumptions were correct.

I don’t accept distorted reasoning in an argument that must be based wholly on logic and evidence.