Are those who claim global warming has stopped fooling themselves, or trying to fool others?

the harder someone tries to fool themself, the more passionate and opinionated they get about a subject, in my experience. one way of strenghtening the delusion is to get others to agree, lending validation to the opinion.

this chap is in so deep now he cant possibly backtrack, so just has to keep digging.

Only problem is that all those studies blaming Co2 for the worlds problems were written by people that have never studied Co2 or they could not be so far from the truth about it.

For more information that debunks the AGW fictions about Co2 I recommend the two articles below of which one is a PDF reprint of a published document and the other is a PowerPoint paper on what is Co2, friend or foe.

http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf

http://www.co2web.info/whatisco2.pps

Tamino is the one trying to fool people by confusing the issues. Any warming trend does not prove the AGW hypothesis. The theory of AGW, of positive feedbacks, DEMANDS that each decade has to warm up at a faster rate than the previous decade. The fact that the last ten years saw a smaller rate of increase DISPROVES the real AGW hypothesis of catastrophic warming.

The real theory of AGW is CATASTROPHIC warming is based on computer models forecasts of future temperature. In order for these computer models (that you want us to trust) to be correct the earth would have to warm 0.4 degrees over the next couple of years, something that is very unlikely to happen.

Tamino statement that none of the results is statistically significant is the only valid conclusion for the ten year averages. I would have tried a Fourier analysis of prior years to model the noise

If Lomborg wants to play fast and loose with statistics, may I suggest a few more methods?

1. rejection of outliers using a criterion designed to select "warm" data

2. Lomborg could try more permutations of the weight functions used to compute averages to find a more negative result

3. devise a function combining the GISS, RSS and UAH data sets that assigns more weight to whichever set has the "coldest" data in a particular year.

4. Mix a few half truths in with outright lies and distortions.

Lomborg at least was smart enough not to publish his method as reputable scientists do. This gives him wiggle room to change his analysis by one of the methods suggested above in order to delay being cornered by critics like Tamino. For Lomborg, delay is a win because it helps to maintain support for the status quo from a body politic of willing fools.

I don't know about Lomborg, and I am not an AGW denier, but I recently heard a scientist on radio suggesting that the picture may be complicated by Sun activity. He was saying (and sorry, I can't remember his name and I couldn't find a relevant link) that although AGW is a reality, in the short term changes in the Sun may cause a temporary fall in global temperatures.

This might fool people into thinking the overall long-term increase in temps was a mistaken interpretation of the data. So we may be in for short-term cooling followed by devastating long-term warming.

"Tamino's the Jerry Springer of global warming. Can't be taken too seriously and believed even less. Lomborg was correct, and Tamino needs to reassess the data to see where he went astray in his criticism."

Sigh....If only this were true..

Like Dr. Ladbury, I am SHOCKED that Lomborg would attempt to mislead. Too bad more people don't have even a basic understanding of statistics...but that would put people like Lomborg out of business.

It is hard to believe that smart people can believe totally stupid things, but it happens all the time. Pauling and megadoses of vitamin C. Einstein and ignoring the evidence for quantum. And a lot of people _like_ being contrarians, and once they've put themselves out there, they start twisting reality in their own brains so that they don't have to admit that they made fools of themselves publically.

See: Creationism, WMDs in Iraq, Holocaust denial, man-landing-on-the-Moon denial, etc. etc.

There are lots of studies on how people reject information that doesn't fit with their exist worldview, and uncritically accept information that agrees with them. And the internet, at the same time as it is powerful force for information spread, is also a powerful force for concentrating these weird pockets of reality denial. Of course reality has a liberal bias...

I can't say I understand it, but given the prevalence of blind spots in the population, it suggests that I probably have similar blind spots in my own beliefs and I wonder what they might be.

Tamino's the Jerry Springer of global warming. Can't be taken too seriously and believed even less. Lomborg was correct, and Tamino needs to reassess the data to see where he went astray in his criticism.

I have a difficult time believing that someone like Lomborg truly doesn't realize that what he is saying is incorrect. And I would imagine that the majority of laypeople using this argument are simply repeating what they've heard from people like Lomborg. Sooo, I'd say it's a combination of both.

Nice try but.... did you even bother listening to the report today that the glaciers in Alaska have stopped shrinking and are in fact growing again? Sure you didn't. It wouldn't fit into your plan for world devestation.