As I’ve said before, the broad outlines of the picture are clear: Earth’s climate is warming, and human activities are the cause.

(* does that stance make me a denier, too?)

[JR: I was happy to learn recently (from a Pielke interview) that RealClimate bans him. Their website is run by practicing climate scientists and focuses exclusively on the science, whereas I cover the science, the politics, the economics, the solutions, and the media. The fact that Pielke is banned there tells you just how unscientific his comments are.

I could not possibly have said it better myself.]

It is well known that the professional deniers are in fact paid to espouse their views. There is a money trail from the fossil fuel industry to various “Institutes” that then parrot the unsupported denier arguments, all of which have been debunked many times:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Some of the deniers even worked for the tobacco industry denying that tobacco smoke causes cancer, emphysema, etc. ExxonMobil is the biggest funder of these professional deniers, although they have cut back their funding to some degree in the last few years. See exxonsecrets.org and “Smoke and Mirrors” from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

http://www.ucsusa.org/ news/ press_release/ ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

be careful with what you say. When you state that “There is an active scientific debate about climate change” it’s important to be more specific. Some might take that to mean that the scientific community isn’t sure about whether or not AGW is a successful theory. I’ve seen the delayer/denier/skeptic trolls jump on statements like that. It’s important to stress that the fundamental debate is settled. The debate is at the periphery. I like an analogy with gravity. We understand it well enough for most purposes. But the details are far from settled. Certainly doesn’t stop us from putting up buildings.

Just a quibble.

Cheers,

Martin

Why do you think that the Skeptic side (why do you continue using the word ‘denier’?) has to be paid to support their views? I can just as easily state that the Activist side is in it only for the Government funding.”

There is an active scientific debate about climate change, but you are not part of it. Neither am I for that matter. What we are taking part in is a political contest, and like most such — and unlike a scientific debate — it is not one in which everyone adheres to strictly factual arguments.

I believe the facts are on my side. All you, or anyone, has to do to shut me up is to show me some facts which prove AGW is not happening. One valid argument, that’s all I ask. Whoever can show such an argument will be a hero, to both sides.

But so far all I’ve seen is assertion and misinformation, repeated ad nauseum. That is why I call your side the Denialists, and will continue to do so.

George Carlin did have something to say about saving the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

The fact the there was plagiarism in Carlin’s report is very telling. No reputable scientist would even begin to consider doing this as it opens them up to so much criticism (and embarrassment) within the scientific community, that any findings they had then after would largely be dismissed. But then again, he’s not really a scientist.