Climate Change Skeptics Unite At Heartland Conference

WASHINGTON -- Prominent climate change skeptics gathered at the Heartland Institute's sixth international conference on climate change on Friday to take on the body of scientific evidence showing that human emissions are contributing to global warming.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, a famous climate change denier, was set to headline the event's kickoff on Thursday, but canceled when he came down with a cold. Instead the Oklahoma Republican, who has long called climate change a hoax, insisting "we're in a cold spell," sent a statement alleging that while President Obama may have scaled back his speechifying on energy and the environment, he has not given up trying to push forward a green agenda in creative ways.

"He understands that the green agenda is not popular but that doesn't mean he has given up trying to implement it,” Inhofe said in a written statement. "Take a good close look at the President's administration. With sky high unemployment and a weak economy, who does he ask to head the Department of Commerce? The founder of the Natural Resource Defense Council, John Bryson. That's right, a committed green activist who supported legislation that would have imposed huge costs on consumers and shipped American jobs overseas."

Heartland’s conference, held at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel, featured presentations from scientists skeptical of climate change, including Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who argued humans are either having a limited impact on climate change or no impact at all.

Michaels said that public figures are overestimating the extent to which climate change can be attributed to humans, which in turn is leading to costly, ineffective polices that will not help reverse the warming trend. (Michaels, a self-described "luke-warmer," had his research called into question earlier this year, when Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce committee, asked fellow Republicans to investigate how much of his research funding was coming from the oil industry.)

But if there was only a tiny sliver of the scientific perspective on climate change in attendance, it wasn't for lack on an invitation. Heartland Institute communications director Jim Lakely said it's a “myth” that only skeptics are invited to the conference.

President of the Pacific Institute Peter Gleick, a scientist who supports the findings behind man-induced climate change, said he wouldn't consider attending.

"I go to many meetings as it is, and the interesting science is being done elsewhere," he said on a "pre-buttal" conference call hosted by the Center For American Progress. "This is not a science conference, it's a political conference. It's a way for a small community -- and I would argue a diminishing community -- to get together in a self-support kind of way. There is no science that's going to be discussed there that's new or that's interesting ... it's just not worth a real scientist's time."

Comments

[StephenBP]

09:42 AM on 07/24/2011

Regarding the use of the term "fascist" to describe environmentalists.... Those who do so should consider asking their God for forgiveness for bearing false witness against their neighbor. Here are well defined traits of fascist governments:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Constant use of national symbols like flags. Does that sound environmentalist?
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Promote torture and punishment. Does that sound liberal or environmentalist?
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – such as liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military – even when there are overwhelming domestic problems. Environmentalist?
5. Rampant Sexism - Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed . The state is the ultimate guardian of the family institution. ??
6. Controlled Mass Media – Rupert who?
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. Orange alert! Orange alert!
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Does this sound liberal? Liberals are typically called atheists. Governor Perry? Michelle Bachmann?
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy often put the government leaders into power. Can you say, Koch brothers? Bush family?
10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Can you say, Governor Walker?
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Rush of Gas?
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Patriot act? Torture? Prison corporations?
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Bush and friends? Juliani and Friends?
14. Fraudulent Elections – Diebold

[Chris 1]

09:28 AM on 07/22/2011

It seems the green boards have been taken over by very active censors, since their arguments can't hold on logic this is the HP way.

[jthor]

07:49 AM on 07/21/2011

regardless of climate change "belief" (so silly when we're talking about science to have to reconcile with other people's "beliefs" that are based on almost no facts whatsoever [i.e. we're in a "cold spell"] i fail to see how polluting is a good thing, why we shouldn't be trying to pollute less and move on towards forms of energy that do not pollute and cause health problems. there is no logic to this kind of thinking. it's economic opportunism and favoritism, that's all. whereas even if you are in the business of green energy, you're doing something good for everyone. shouldn't we rally around that, rather than rally around people who pollute? i don't get these deniers, because even if the world isn't "warming" polluting is surely a bad thing...

[ReedYoung]

12:46 PM on 07/21/2011

You aren't missing much. There really isn't very much about them to understand.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

Kochsuckers do it for money. That's all.

[DR Dedo]

12:59 PM on 07/21/2011

Your vile characterizations don't boost your argument.

[ReedYoung]

01:23 PM on 07/21/2011

You're only offended by that if you're on the take.

[Chris 1]

09:27 AM on 07/22/2011

A basic fascist premise;

"because even if the world isn't "warming" polluting is surely a bad thing... "

Which explains many of the alarmist lies and tactics. There is something ethical you and the green minions seem to miss.

[DocSkull]

05:05 AM on 07/23/2011

"There is something ethical you and the green minions seem to miss."

I know I miss evidence for anything you say. You're a liar.

[jthor]

11:19 AM on 07/24/2011

how is asking us to try and stop polluting fascist? isn't forcing us all to breath toxins and get cancer so someone can make a buck fascist? freedom goes beyond one's freedom to make a quick buck. freedom is also freedom _from_ capitalist extremism.

i think perhaps you are missing something ethical here, actually.

[Publicola]

01:30 PM on 07/15/2011

National Academy of Sciences (2010):
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documentin­­g that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities­­­. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­­­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternativ­­e explanatio­­n­s…

Some scientific conclusion­­s or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independen­­t observatio­­ns and results, that their likelihood of subsequent­­ly being found to be wrong is vanishingl­­y small. Such conclusion­­s and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusion­­s that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities­­.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[physics845]

10:56 AM on 07/15/2011

The 2010 Heartland Institute International climate conference held in Chicago was the largest climate conference ever held in North America with over 600 delegates and 73 international climate scientists speaking from 23 different countries plus American senators, Australian senators ,at least two former Apollo scientists. The message of that conference was that the climate has always changed for millions of years. The present change being almost entirely natural with the human contribution being insignificant....

[Publicola]

01:24 PM on 07/15/2011

A fraud of a "climate scientist" goes to a fraud of a "climate science" conference - how apropos.

physics845: "The message of that conference was that the climate has always changed for millions of years."

In which case the message of the Heartland Institute's fraud of a "climate science" conference was not correct - the Earth's climate has changed for *billions* of years, not millions. But hey, at least the message wasn't "thousands" of years.

And in other late-breaking science news: the Earth revolves around the Sun.

physics845: "The present change being almost entirely natural with the human contributi­on being insignific­ant...."

Funny how actual science overwhelmingly indicates otherwise.

[stopgov]

09:57 AM on 07/22/2011

Really and just where is all the science? They took a poll. If a scientist even questions the information, they are fired. Science it supposed to challange the theory, to either prove it or disprove it. At this point in time it remains a theory.

[gallon]

03:14 PM on 07/15/2011

Standard denier stuff, repeated by the stereotypical Huff Post climate denier.

physics845 boasts proudly: "the largest climate conference ever held in North America "

That would be great if it were true. However it isn't true. What is true about it is that it may have been the largest 'anti AGW climate' conference ever held. For the purpose was not to discuss science. There was no who's who of scientists present. The speaker list was a veritable rogues gallery of professional deniers.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/

The background information page. We see all this exact same junk
every day over in the HP threads.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/background/

Speakers page. Has bios and photos of all your favorite villains.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/

Sorry physics845, the entire conference was a whitewashing of actual science in the hopes of continuing the public confusion. It is the specific special interest of the Big Energy corporations who help to fund such a conference, to have the whole point be to befuddle the science.

From the conference description this year and from previous years:
"This time the theme was “Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?”
“Reconsidering the Science and Economics.”
"Putting an End to Global Warming Alarmism "
"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis "
. . . and so on.

Doesn't sound at all like what real scientists sound like. right physics845?

The Heartland conference was a phony conference.

[Publicola]

12:21 PM on 07/10/2011

The American Geophysica­l Union
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatur­es of the atmosphere­­, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distributi­on of precipitat­ion, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheri­c abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatur­es increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006…

With climate change.. the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change… is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessaril­y involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborat­ions across science, technology­­, industry, and government­­.

http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

[LaDairis]

02:42 PM on 07/10/2011

I fail to see how documenting a court ruling the AGU's side never appealed which asserted that 90% of Earth ice increasing, and no CO2-temperature correlation in the past from the ice cores, is somehow a "violation of guidelines..."

[Publicola]

02:57 PM on 07/10/2011

Flagged for repeated science denier idiocy by LaDairis.

Speaking of LIES and FRAUD and the Heartland Institute conference:

-----------------------------------------------------

How Soon is now?

Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate ‘debate’... He was a recent speaker... at the 2011 Heartland Institute conference, and can be counted on to produce a contrarian take on any particular issue that anyone might care about – ranging from climate, to mercury in fish and polar bear population dynamics.

Recently, there has been a renewed focus on how much money Willie Soon has taken from fossil fuel companies for his ‘research’ (over a $1 million dollars). While that is impressive, the real issue is not how he gets paid, but the quality of his science...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/how-soon-is-now/

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

03:12 PM on 07/10/2011

The court case affirmed the science while you are using it to say otherwise. You keep repeating previously debunked posts to give new readers the impression that such is not the case. That is against a number of provisions for civility, not to mention respectability, credibility and legitimacy.

[physics845]

11:05 AM on 07/15/2011

As a climate scientist I could not agree less. Even the Hadley Centre latest graphic shows clearly that the earth is cooling. The AMSR satellite temperature data of ocean temperatures shows no sign whatever of warming. rather the contrary with the average sea surface temperature through to March 2011 showing a rapid decline. The present global earth temperature and carbon dioxide levels are at their lowest levels for 650 million years. (for proof see graphic from Professor C R Scotese Geology Department University of Texas http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-CO2-over-geological-time1.jpg?w=660&h=417 )

[Publicola]

11:38 AM on 07/15/2011

physics845: "As a climate scientist..."

Yeah man, sure your are a "climate scientist" - and as you have previously described yourself you are "climate physicist" too. [1]

And yet, you evidently don't know/under­­stand the Laws of Thermodyna­­mics and moreover deny the Greenhouse Effect, which is as "settled" as science ever gets. [2]

Imagine that.

What exactly do you do as a "climate physicist"­­, physics845­­?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/how-to-talk-to-climate-sk_b_810078_75047237.html

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/how-to-talk-to-climate-sk_b_810078_75025592.html

[Publicola]

11:45 AM on 07/15/2011

Also here's a few questions for you - as a self-described "climate physicist" you should be able to easily answer them:

1: Per the Stefan-Bo­­­ltzmann Law of Physics, without warming factors other than insolation the Earth's mean temperatur­­­e should be below freezing. What in your mind accounts for the fact that the Earth's mean temperatur­­­e is not below freezing but is instead well above freezing?

2: You state that "The second law of thermodyna­­­mics says energy cannot be created or destroyed but can only be converted from one form to another", as if that was somehow evidence underminin­g AGW theory.

Setting aside the fact that that's what the First Law of Thermodyna­mics says, not the Second Law, how in your mind does that Law of Thermodyna­­mics undermine AGW theory?

3: If AGW theory is not correct then how do you explain recent stratosphe­ric cooling?

4: If you believe the Sun is responsibl­e for global warming over recent decades how in your mind is that true given that the Sun's linear radiative output trend has remained essentiall­y flat over that time period?

5: If you don't believe the Sun is responsibl­e for global warming over recent decades what in your mind is, and why?

Please answer these questions that you previously ran away from answering - thanks.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

11:32 AM on 07/10/2011

Wow. Paranoia is in keeping with denial I see. Amazing that you assign the motivations of dirty industry and money grubbers to researchers driving a Prius to work every day. It speaks to a profound ignorance of science and the method.

[ReedYoung]

12:46 PM on 07/10/2011

In the court decision about which LaDufus so loves to wax hysterical, the "errors" were defined by the judge as those statements on which An Inconvenient Truth differs from the IPCC, which means that the IPCC is the final arbiter of climate science fact in public discourse, which is correct.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html&query=title+%28+dimmock+%29&method=boolean

37. As a result of considerable discussion in Court, which I, and both Counsel, strained to avoid becoming a drafting session, a new Guidance Note has now been produced which the Defendant proposes to include in the pack, and which, to my satisfaction, addresses all of the above 9 'errors', both by drawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error and/or in any event where he deviates from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report, and by, where appropriate, raising specific questions for discussions. I need only refer, by way of example, to the insertion in respect of scene 21, of the following passage relating to the first 'error', with regard to sea level rise:

"Note: Pupils might get the impression that sea-level rises of up to 7m (caused by the complete melting of Greenland or half of Greenland and half of the West Antarctic shelf) could happen in the next decades. The IPCC predicts that it would take millennia for rises of that magnitude to occur. However, pupils should be aware that even small rises in sea level are predicted to have very serious effects. The IPCC says that "many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s" (i.e. within pupils' own lifetimes)."

References are helpfully now given to the IPCC report...

39. As for the particular matters in the original Guidance Note set out in paragraph 36 above: 

i) With regard to the first example, the last question "What is the explanation in AIT?" is now to be replaced by "What does the IPCC say?"

[Publicola]

12:18 PM on 07/10/2011

Flagged for repetition of repeatedly debunked science denier lies ad nauseum.

[gallon]

12:40 PM on 07/10/2011

Dang. LaDairis got whacked before I got a chance to get in a good insult. What is the running total on LaDairis deleted posts? About 35 deletions in the last three days? That denier has no respect at all for HuffPost.

[ReedYoung]

04:17 PM on 07/09/2011

Considering the corruption recently discovered in their own midst, is this really the time for "skeptics" to be screaming about "FRAUD?"

Willie Soon plotted to take down the IPCC AR4 before it was even written.
In 2003, as the IPCC was gearing up for the upcoming Fourth Assessment (AR4) due in 2007, Willie Soon began plotting with colleagues about how to undermine the work. As part of the FOIA documents received by Greenpeace, there was a link to Dr. Soon’s documents. That link led to a directory of Dr. Soon’s files at Harvard. Dr. Soon has also referenced these online files in previous articles published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In a letter in these files (dated after 10 October) Dr. Soon wrote: 

“Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all ... But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1---judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences ...    

Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively ... we will really accomplish A LOT!    

In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct  attention back to science …”

Who was this “A Team”? The letter was addressed to “Bob, Randy, Walter, Sallie and Dave”. 

From other correspondence, it seems possible that “Bob” is Australian sceptic Bob Carter, as Dr. Soon worked with Carter. “Sallie” is clearly Dr. Sallie Baliunas, “Dave” is likely David Legates. 

There is no prominent “A-team” type scientist or climate sceptic called Randy – except ExxonMobil’s lobbyist Randy Randol, who was heavily involved with the Exxon-funded deniers...

Equally, there is no “Walter” in the climate denial field – except Walt Bucholtz, ExxonMobil’s Government Relations & Issues Advisor... 

Regardless of who these “A Team” members truly were, Willie Soon clearly coordinated a plan to undermine the science chapter of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment – before he even knew what science it contained. This is a clear example of the climate denier strategy of undermining climate science, and stands in sharp contrast with accepted scientific methodology.

[realpolitic]

05:10 PM on 07/09/2011

Excellent, excellent post!

[Publicola]

05:23 PM on 07/09/2011

Speaking of scientists who are corporate who res, Willie Soon is Exhibit A. How that guy can live with himself is quite beyond me.

[scriptdreamer715]

03:53 PM on 07/09/2011

There is a town in the heartland that is entirely engaged in going green and creating sustainable practices...see more in my piece at: http://bit.ly/pYpcuX

[Publicola]

01:20 PM on 07/09/2011

National Academy of Sciences, 2010
----------­­---------­-­--------­--­-------­---­------­----­-----­-----

What Is Known About Climate Change

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documentin­­g that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities­­, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidificat­­ion. Individual­­ly and collective­­ly, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmen­­tal systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternativ­­e explanatio­­ns.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

[jimboy71]

06:20 PM on 07/09/2011

Flagged.

[kadellagroove]

12:01 AM on 07/09/2011

For everyone who is tired of the science this and science that. lets take a fresh approach.

We live, in a snow globe floating in space 30,000 light years away from the next potentially inhabitable area in space (we are stuck)
The snow globe has a very delicate way of balancing itself. Human beings population continues to rise on essential ways and as we do we have for generations been producing un natural toxins and chemicals and dumping them into the snow globe.

now, eventually... logic would have us believe that the snow globe would fill up with these toxins and the self correcting balancing act would diminish and things in the snow globe would drastically change and things would eventually die.

the more people we introduce = the more pollution which = a faster rate of change which = a bigger swing in balance of the closed system.

I'm not a scientist. and this makes absolutely perfect sense to me. actually... it makes perfect sense to my 5 yr old niece helping me write this.

[chrisd3]

07:45 AM on 07/09/2011

Yup. I like the snowglobe analogy. Watch out, Publicola will steal it, and he won't pay you anything for it.

I always get a good head-shake from the irony of those who claim it's "arrogant" to think that lowly man can change Earth's climate, yet don't see the arrogance of believing that we can dump as much as we want of whatever we want into the atmosphere, and it won't make any difference.

[LaDairis]

08:08 AM on 07/09/2011

Man can change Earth climate. We could change it by exploding every nuke we have.

The question is whether the incredibly minor increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing "warming."

1. according to ice cores, CO2 and temperature have no past correlation
2. according to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data, there is precisely no warming in the atmosphere despite the recent minor rise in CO2

Theory of Global "warming" = Rejected for having PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT

[chrisd3]

08:48 AM on 07/09/2011

LaDairis is a troll, so he has no interest in any of the following, but others might.

LaDairis says that the increase in CO2 is "incredibly minor." LaDairis either doesn't understand, or does understand but doesn't care, that the CO2 in our atmosphere is the ONLY thing that keeps the Earth warm enough for us to live on. Without it, our planet would be a frozen ball of rock and ice, unsuitable for life as we know it. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% since pre-industrial times, and it's not stopping there. This is not "incredibly minor," it is a big, big deal. It is huge.

LaDairis says that there is no historic correlation between temperature and CO2. This is a flat-out lie, as anyone with eyes can see:

http://bit.ly/p6zxAV

(Yes, that is a Heartland graphic--and, by the way, note what happens to the CO2 line, the red one, right at the end.)

LaDairis says that satellites show no warming. This is another flat-out lie, and he knows it because he has been shown the satellite data: http://bit.ly/pi1ZBu

Essentially, you can take anything LaDairus says and know that the opposite is the truth.

[LaDairis]

08:00 AM on 07/09/2011

How about some actual verifiable DATA instead of traditional ET "logic?"

On the same planet, right now, with the same atmosphere, with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, one Earth polar circle has 9 times the ice of the other, is 30+ degrees colder than the other, and calves 9 times the ice into the oceans vs. the other (40 times the H2O of the Mississippi River).

WHY?

"I'm not a scientist."

That's really obvious...

[jimboy71]

10:04 AM on 07/09/2011

So you deny that CO2 is a GHG and that it affects climate?

Which mechanism keeps earth's atmosphere warm?

Do you think the planet is infinite in scope?

[Publicola]

10:52 AM on 07/09/2011

Yup - again Antarctica is bug.

Flagged for repetitious trolling.

[jimboy71]

11:38 PM on 07/08/2011

Wouldn't it be great if we could come here to learn from people who have great expertise in their given fields and discuss ideas in an open and honest manner instead of having to fight ideological wars about facts?

[toxicity]

07:10 AM on 07/09/2011

This learning you mention threatens the feelings of entitlement of many. This makes the lazy, the irresponsible, and those with poor coping skills quite irate and rabid.

[Cindy M Brito]

04:57 PM on 07/09/2011

Yes!!!!!!! That would be an educational treat.

[texfly]

09:39 PM on 07/08/2011

Quotes from the meeting:

Are the walls are crumbling?

"I agree with the IPCC that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some warming. Where we differ is the degree of warming." -- Roy Spencer

But look next. His main ally quantitates the difference. A couple tenths of a degree over a century!!!! How can so few say so much about so little? I suspect $$$$$$$$.

"From the mid-1970s," the earth warmed ".17 degrees C per decade in the surface record, .14 degrees in the satellite record." -- Pat Michaels

Gee! That 1.4 C per century is right in line with what a least-squares fit of GISS surface T looks like from 1965 (1.6C/century). So much for. Hansen being a fraudulent data fudger..

"There's no question that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and that the primary cause is human." -- Fred Singer

Humans emitting CO2? Damn!

SURE SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WARMISTS TELL US!

But ... some never get it

"I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm kind of -- I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. ... I leave the science stuff to you guys and I think it's good that we stick to our jobs." -- James Delingpole

Yet he likes to weigh in on the science every chance he get:.

http://dav­idappell.b­logspot.co­m/2011/06/­rape-of-ja­mes-deling­pole.html

Don't ya just love the difference between a scientist and a journalist.

[texfly]

09:57 PM on 07/08/2011

Thank you to StephenBP over on the Warming Ocean Could Melt Ice Faster Than Thought story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/StephenBP/warming-ocean-could-melt-_n_889517_96258994.html

[Publicola]

10:57 AM on 07/09/2011

Flagged for repetition of the same crapolla and idiocy.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/416685main_20100108_Climate_1.jpg

[StephenBP]

07:58 PM on 07/08/2011

A Checklist of Evidence for Global Warming:

Growing seasons, lengthening…… check
USDA planting zones moving towards the pole….. check
Neolithic human artifacts falling out of melting glaciers….. check
Global temperature trend for the past century, up ……. Check
Arctic ice extent and volume on significant downward trend….. check
Stratosphere cooling….. check
Troposphere warming… check
Carbon dioxide still obeying the laws of physics and absorbing infrared….. check
Humankind putting 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year… check
Ocean levels rising…. Check
Tropical diseases moving closer to the poles......check
Coral reef die offs and temperature-sensitive species decline.....check
Changes in animal migratory routes and timing.........check
Catastrophic erosion of arctic beaches.........check
Thawing permafrost and increasing methane emissions......check
Insect pests surviving winters and moving closer to the poles.......check
Each succeeding decade of the last several contains a record for number of above average temperatures…. Check
Ecological niches moving higher up mountains…. check

[gallon]

08:33 PM on 07/08/2011

More unfounded allegations of fraud and fudge from this denier robot.


F

[Publicola]

08:41 PM on 07/08/2011

Flagged again for incessantly posting repeatedly debunked science denier crapolla.

[gallon]

08:34 PM on 07/08/2011

Excellent summary Stephen. It is all happening.

Disregard the obnoxious denier troll which is trying to disrupt HP conversations.

[pappy50]

06:31 PM on 07/09/2011

Thus speaks the liberal tolerant left.

[hogtown]

07:39 PM on 07/08/2011

Speaking of James Hansen on another thread, the prolific LaDairis had this to say:
"The man is guilty of dozens of counts of fraud."

LaDairis, it may be time to learn some basics about libel:

1. Statement must be false. Check.

2. Statement causes harm. Check.

3. Statement made without adequate research into truthfulness. Check.

[hogtown]

08:09 PM on 07/08/2011

Surely Dr. Hansen is shaking in his boots at the prospect of facing off against you in court.

Not.

[jimboy71]

11:00 PM on 07/08/2011

Oh shut up for real. You impress no one by smearing reputable and accomplished scientists. I cannot believe someone like you even exists.