The IPCC models predicted only rising temperatures, but we are in a ten-year cooling trend. Doesn’t this give you the slightest curiosity about the integrity of those models? Think it through.

What will the temperature be, anywhere, on Tuesday?

For someone interested in the subject you still don’t know the difference between climate and weather? How embarrassing.

Interestingly, Chris dumped on Enron after it fell to try and dirty up Al Gore. Clown doesn’t even stay bought.

————————-
Farrell: However, I think that they don’t provide good guidance when dealing with, say, Chris Horner, on, say, the horrible state of the climate. It’s worth examining Horner’s modus operandi to see why. His main line of attack is that of the standard political hack, concocting a farrago of innuendoes, half-truths and out-and-out lies in order to beat down those whom he sees as his political opponents. However, when he’s attacked in the same terms as those he himself engages in, he’s perfectly happy to appeal to norms of reasoned debate in order to accuse his accusers of themselves being politicized. When Joe Romm tries to engage him in reasoned debate, he has lost the battle before he has started it. This grants his preposterous claims a credibility that they don’t deserve, and sets Joe up to have the bejasus beaten out of him through distortion, selective editing etc.

Berube: In this context—Climate Progress as opposed to Planet Gore—this grants Horner, and his complaints about scientists and serious policy types, a certain legitimacy. Joe’s job, therefore, is to contest that legitimacy, and to model a way of dealing with Horner that does not give him what he wants: namely, (1) important concessions or (2) outrage. He feeds on (2), of course, and uses it to power the NRO Freedom Center and Massive Persecution Complex he runs out of his one room apartment; and most of the time, we give it to him by the truckload. Scientists and policy types need to try (3), mockery and dismissal, and thereby demonstrate, as I put it on my blog, that when someone tries to blame climate change on Al Gore’s house, that person needs to be ridiculed and given a double minor for unsportsmanlike bullshit.

Neither of these is true. The “Gore Effect” is the name given to the observation that when AND WHERE Al Gore speaks, it is much more often than normal, quite cold or snowy. There is no implied causality, only an observed statistical anomaly. It is quite funny… and folks run with the humor of pretending that their might be causality to intensify the humor.

From cliff Says:
Eli Rabett, you are SO right. Ridicule will save the planet.
-end quote

Uh huh, that’s the way to convince folks you are right, use ridicule… (Yes, that’s sarcastic). Frankly, it’s that tendency to ridicule and insult that is most offputting about the AGW advocates.

BTW, just for fun: Google “2008 record cold snow” and stand back. The sun has decided to be quiet for a while and the world has caught a cold phase. If this holds for another year or two, better duck and cover, because attempting to convince folks to deny themselves life’s pleasures during a cold recession will not be easy. This is also the most likely real cause of The Gore Effect. (And yes, the cold is real. Look up ski conditions around the world. Record cold and snow from New Zealand and Australia to Europe and even south Brazil & Alaska, it isn’t just a local weather thing…)

The jokes of the form “I had to shovel 18 inches of global warming today” have already started.

One final bit of advice: Lose the ‘deniers’ labeling behaviour. All it does is flag the user of ‘deniers’ as a rabid ideolog. It smacks of the dark ages inquisition “Do You Deny Our Lord?” (and nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!! Also be prepared to speak to the issues, not just toss links at folks. It just looks like the tosser doesn’t have a clue and is doing an appeal to authority argument.

Who’s right on AGW? I don’t think it will matter. The general public will decide based on the last decade of personal experience, and with a new cool phase underway (PDO, La Nina, and Solar Cycle 24 all pointing to cold weather) they won’t bother to look at links and decide if it’s CO2 or not; they will just be glad for any warming they can get. Trying to repackage it as “climate change” is doomed to fail. Climate is never stable. Attempting to tell folks they are cold because it’s too warm will just get you laughed at…

Idiot, rethuglican. Made my point. Thanks Cliff.

the logic chain of idiocy Does work tho, at least its worked for me. again, different subject than the story, tailor the subject to the idiot -err climate change denier or whatever.

its just about the only way to convince a rethuglican of anything, put them into a logic chain that makes them realize they are a idiot, without having to tell them they are a idiot.

a great example was posted on dailyKos, and I used a similar logic chain on my dad… (different subject though)

http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 11/ 29/ 2052/ 9599