Comments on: The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:34:16 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Barry Day http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-70233 Barry Day Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:09:41 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-70233 "The deniers are winning" Why wouldn't they be? Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Gerlich, Gerhard; Tscheuschner, Ralf D. http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 “The deniers are winning”
Why wouldn’t they be?

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerlich, Gerhard; Tscheuschner, Ralf D.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

]]> By: Chris Winter http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-59345 Chris Winter Mon, 25 May 2009 23:26:40 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-59345 Itchy, You posted a link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This video produced by Martin Durkin is inaccurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin Martin Durkin has produced a number of misleading, anti-environmentalist documentaries. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1 Itchy,

You posted a link to “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” This video produced by Martin Durkin is inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_criticism

http://www.desmogblog.com/ video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin

Martin Durkin has produced a number of misleading, anti-environmentalist documentaries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2008/ jul/ 21/ climatechange.carbonemissions1

]]> By: Itchy http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-58191 Itchy Sat, 23 May 2009 17:01:51 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-58191 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s

]]> By: Ron Cram http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-48898 Ron Cram Sat, 09 May 2009 14:05:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-48898 Joseph, you might also be interested to learn that Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Science of University of East Anglia, has come out in defense of the deniers or delayers - as you like to call them. Hulme says "climate change cannot be solved by artificially creating consensus." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/ [<em>JR: That's the beauty of science. It is only in science where "consensus" isn't artificial, isn't an "artifice," isn't created by man, but by observed reality and the scientific analysis of those replicable observations. Sadly, even smart guys like Hulme doesn't apparently understand that.</em>] Joseph, you might also be interested to learn that Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Science of University of East Anglia, has come out in defense of the deniers or delayers – as you like to call them. Hulme says “climate change cannot be solved by artificially creating consensus.” http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 2009/ 05/ 06/ mike_hulme_interview/

[JR: That's the beauty of science. It is only in science where "consensus" isn't artificial, isn't an "artifice," isn't created by man, but by observed reality and the scientific analysis of those replicable observations. Sadly, even smart guys like Hulme doesn't apparently understand that.]

]]> By: Ron Cram http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-48895 Ron Cram Sat, 09 May 2009 13:58:34 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-48895 By the way, Joseph, it is not just Republicans who disagree with AGW alarmism. Scientists disagree as well. A recent report by the academic society called Japan Society of Energy and Resources says AGW is an unproven hypothesis. One of the contributors compared compute climate modeling with ancient astrology. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ By the way, Joseph, it is not just Republicans who disagree with AGW alarmism. Scientists disagree as well. A recent report by the academic society called Japan Society of Energy and Resources says AGW is an unproven hypothesis. One of the contributors compared compute climate modeling with ancient astrology.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 2009/ 02/ 25/ jstor_climate_report_translation/

]]> By: Ron Cram http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-48890 Ron Cram Sat, 09 May 2009 13:52:41 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-48890 I am amazed people are still worried about global warming. In a peer-reviewed paper in 2002, Bratcher and Giese predicted a shift in climate regime back to a cool phase, such as existed from about 1942 to 1975. That finally happened in late 2007 at the same time the PDO shifted to its cool phase. What is interesting is that a number of other peer-reviewed papers came out in 2007, as well, showing AGW would not be catastrophic. These include the paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab and a paper by Petr Chylek from Los Alamos National Lab, both coming to a much lower than usual estimate of climate sensitivity to doubled CO2. Roy Spencer of UAH also published in 2007 on his discovery of a new negative feedback over the tropics he identified as the Infrared Iris Effect hypothesized by Richard Lindzen of MIT. Since 2007, there have been a number of other papers too numerous to mention supporting the view AGW will not be catastrophic. Perhaps the most important work, however, has been the work done on Ocean Heat Content. Jim Hansen had claimed the earth’s energy budget was out of balance and that excess heat was being stored in the oceans. This excess heat was “heat in the pipeline” as he called it. That is really not a very good term because it makes it sound as though heat in the atmosphere is more important than heat in the oceans. It’s not true. The best indicator of global warming is ocean heat content. According to data from ARGO network and all of the recent papers, ocean heat content has not increased since 2003. If the earth’s heat budget were really out of balance, heat would be increasing every year… year over year. Heat in the atmosphere has been decreasing since 2005. 2009 is cooler than 2008. 2008 was cooler than 2007. 2007 was cooler than 2006. 2006 was cooler than 2005. Anyone see a pattern here? I am amazed people are still worried about global warming. In a peer-reviewed paper in 2002, Bratcher and Giese predicted a shift in climate regime back to a cool phase, such as existed from about 1942 to 1975. That finally happened in late 2007 at the same time the PDO shifted to its cool phase. What is interesting is that a number of other peer-reviewed papers came out in 2007, as well, showing AGW would not be catastrophic. These include the paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab and a paper by Petr Chylek from Los Alamos National Lab, both coming to a much lower than usual estimate of climate sensitivity to doubled CO2. Roy Spencer of UAH also published in 2007 on his discovery of a new negative feedback over the tropics he identified as the Infrared Iris Effect hypothesized by Richard Lindzen of MIT. Since 2007, there have been a number of other papers too numerous to mention supporting the view AGW will not be catastrophic. Perhaps the most important work, however, has been the work done on Ocean Heat Content. Jim Hansen had claimed the earth’s energy budget was out of balance and that excess heat was being stored in the oceans. This excess heat was “heat in the pipeline” as he called it. That is really not a very good term because it makes it sound as though heat in the atmosphere is more important than heat in the oceans. It’s not true. The best indicator of global warming is ocean heat content. According to data from ARGO network and all of the recent papers, ocean heat content has not increased since 2003. If the earth’s heat budget were really out of balance, heat would be increasing every year… year over year. Heat in the atmosphere has been decreasing since 2005. 2009 is cooler than 2008. 2008 was cooler than 2007. 2007 was cooler than 2006. 2006 was cooler than 2005. Anyone see a pattern here?

]]> By: jay bearu http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-37659 jay bearu Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:53:16 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-37659 We can prove many processes in our physical world by observation and modeling. For example: Gravity is invisible but step off a roof and try to deny it's woking. Religions say that the unseen and unprovable tenents expoused in a particular religion require faith. Followers are required to pay a monetary tithe or offering to that religion. It follows then the the adherents to GW believe in unprovable tenents, as in a religion of sorts. As in some religions, they are trying to impose their beliefs on others and even propose requiring others to pay monies to a religion they are not believers in. ( carbon dioxide tax ). Imagine that no seperation between church and state! We can prove many processes in our physical world by observation and modeling. For example: Gravity is invisible but step off a roof and try to deny it’s woking. Religions say that the unseen and unprovable tenents expoused in a particular religion require faith. Followers are required to pay a monetary tithe or offering to that religion. It follows then the the adherents to GW believe in unprovable tenents, as in a religion of sorts. As in some religions, they are trying to impose their beliefs on others and even propose requiring others to pay monies to a religion they are not believers in. ( carbon dioxide tax ). Imagine that no seperation between church and state!

]]> By: John524 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-37200 John524 Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:46:31 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-37200 Very nice site! Very nice site!

]]> By: John524 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-37199 John524 Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:46:30 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-37199 Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apxoiey.com/qoxrrt/4.html Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apxoiey.com/qoxrrt/4.html

]]> By: cephe kaplama http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-34399 cephe kaplama Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:12:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/#comment-34399 Great site.Thanks a lot. Great site.Thanks a lot.

]]>