I’ve been trying to trace it back to wherever it came from.

What’s your source? Where did you copy it from?

“It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this is a problem. The fact that 99 percent of the scientific community is in agreeance regarding the human impact on the planet, is pretty well known and accepted. Where’s your documentaion saying that’s a lie? Did you ask 99 percent of the scientific personally to see if their solidarity on the subject is really all just a hoax?

I can never figure out what behooves skeptics to continue denying the phenomena of climate change. Regardless of your ignorance, you’ll be suffering alongside everyone else, and fewer and fewer people will give your continued and misguided skepticism another thought.”

Bravo, Mariposa! Bravo!

To that point, here’s a short list of deniers I’ve identified who should be burned at the stake for the good of us all: Chris Landsea, John R Christy, Christopher Monckton, Bob Carter, Joe Barton, Vaclav Klaus, John Coleman, Nigel Calder, Richard Lindzen, John Stossel, Vincent Gray, Reid Bryson, Patrick Michaels, George Taylor, Claude Allegre, etc., etc.

And that’s just a short list. These clowns don’t represent 1% of scientists, why should we listen to them? Okay, so it’s true that Einstein, one lonely man, overturned 300 years of Newtonian physics while he was still a clerk. Human history is replete with advances that occurred only because of scientists who broke with the “consensus.” That’s irrelevant to today’s discussion.

To paraphrase a good friend, when you combine Internet access (and the sudden ability to post your comments all over the planet,) no real understanding of climate science (possibly through willful ignorance), and an inexplicable ideology that says independent thinking and all efforts to improve the human condition are evil, you get a bumper crop of idiots who show no fear in exposing their ignorance for all of us to see.

There is no hope in trying to make such people understand what’s going on with global warming. The best we can hope for is to muster enough enlightened people to save these people from their own warped beliefs.

Thanks again, Mariposa

Glad to hear all of that … there are many reasons to cut carbon, and those of us who think it necessary should spend less time quibbling about our reasons, and more figuring out how to do it, as you suggest.

John

PS I’ll save the Fisker for my son … provided he lets me drive it once in a while.

I don’t mean to be unkind here, Paul, but that post was simply over the top. You’ve jumped the shark.

You’ve been referred yto empirical examples from geologic history that support the modeling;

You’ve been pointed to articles and testimony by Hansen that outline in very simple terms what’s going on;

Climate change is becoming one of the most widely studied phenomena in science, and as Joe points out, the results of these studies have been broadly replicated, and moreover, the forecasts they’ve made are happening now. What more can you ask, before accepting the science?

You seem to just make stuff up, with absolutely no regard for reality, just to bolster your preconceived notions.

“Close knit secretive group?” Are you kiding? You’re embarrassing yourself with this petulant belief in anti-scientific mythologies.

Maybe you ought to just start a religion. Faith-based denialists. I’m not being facetious here, Paul. You seem to be clinging to your denial with a religious ferocity, so why not? If you operated outside the contraints of science, your ontology would be as valid as anyone else’s without having to deal with facts, truth, and context. And best of all, you could make all the outrageous and counterfactual claims you wanted to and no one could tell you you were wrong. It would all be a matter of faith and belief, not data and reality.

Think about it.

Justice Scalia, in talking about the opinion of a couple of Senators on a piece of legislation said, “The opinions of an individual Legislator, expressed outside the deliberation of the Legislative body, are scintillatingly irrelevant.”

The individual opinions of a cats and dogs list of a bunch of agronomists, economists, chemists, and geologists etc. are likewise of no value when compared to the consensus documents issued by the world’s leading climatologists.

And yeah, there were six climatologists on your list, but I challenge you to find even one peer reviewed article by even one of them, that undercuts the prevailing scientific perspective on AGW.

But don’t waste too much time looking — your kids are far more important and they will need all the nurturing and help you can give them to grow up able to cope with the world we’re leaving them.

Wow! I’m a married dad with one (adorable) nine-month old who takes up all of my spare time.

The testimony doesn’t have all the references that his scientific publications do — but I’m not sure what contrary evidence you are talking about.