Are the AGW alarmists beginning to panic?

Even before the Climate Gate Scandal, evidence and support for 'Man-did-it' global warming was eroding. Climate Gate/IPCC Gate and the other 'Gates', have provided very serious blows to the AGW religion.

There are zealots in every religion and the alarmists you mention are two of them. It is difficult for them to see their faith up-ended. They (and other such zealots) react to the exposed corruption/failure of those they so admire, with indignation and scorn when this failure is brought to light. In their desperation, they react by blocking..... it's really kinda sad.

>>Is the hockey stick graph a fraudulent propaganda tool of AGW alarmists?<< Fraudulent, no. Used as a propaganda tool, yes. As a propaganda tool, however, it's much more likely to be used by deniers who fraudulently claim that it's fraudulent. >>1) It left off the great warming period hundreds of years ago.<< You mean the Medieval Warm Period? I believe it's been explained that the MWP was not a global phenomenon and therefor doesn't show very strongly on the 'hockey stick' graph. >>2) It's been said that certain variables were cherry picked and shouldn't have been used or should've been used.<< I'm sure the same can't be said for the 'evidence' of a fraudulent 'hockey stick' graph... >>3) The visual effects are intended to be misleading and alarming<< It's plausible they were intended to be alarming, but I don't think they are misleading at all. I don't think that science should try too hard to cater to the lowest common denominator. >>4) It only extends back a thousand years and ignores the dramatic climate changes that dwarf current climate change and the "big picture" is left off which has a pattern that shows we are entering a glacial period lasting almost a 100,000 years and it will gradually become colder and icier over thousands of years and AGW won't offset it, not by a long shot<< So first you complain that it goes back only 1k years, then you go on to give your absolutely unqualified opinion about the future climate? >> and even climate scientists admit this but keep open the drama of AGW by saying they don't know for sure about this yet they can say they know for sure we will suffer from AGW - complete contradiction.<< Could you perhaps supply just one single source of a climate scientist 'admitting' that we are *currently* entering a glacial period? >>So I"m not here to say the hockey stick graph is proof that AGW doesn't exist.<< That's good. Proof that AGW doesn't exist...um...doesn't exist. I doubt there is even such a thing as evidence that AGW doesn't exist. >>I'm asking if this is evidence that it is a propaganda tool.<< More likely propaganda tools have been applied. If you're so concerned about propaganda tools though, you may want to look more carefully at what the denier camp vomits all over the net.. >>And if so, then what does it say about the credibility and motives of the AGW alarmist movement?<< The "AGW alarmist movement" is irrelevant. You're trying to say that a graph is fraudulent because it has 'visual affects and is used as propaganda. That's like saying that beautiful women are a fraud because their images are Photoshopped and used to sell things. _

Personally, I hope they are beginning to panic. Perhaps we might get more reasoned debates on the issue rather than the almost totally one-sided dictating to that we're getting now. My kids are absolutely terrified by everything that they've heard. We need more balance!

They are certainly acknowledging that they are losing public support even if they do keep insisting that the debate is over.

The debate may be over, but that obviously doesn't stop people from changing their minds about who won.

No, I don't think the proponents of AGW are beginning to panic in the least. The alarmists were prone to it long before any recent developments in the Climate Change debate, that's why they are called alarmists, and I don't think either Dana or littlerobber girl qualify as alarmists; neither is clanging bells and demanding that we all go live in trees, stop driving cars or heating our homes with fossil fuels...they probably just p**s you off is what I would guess based on the fact you bothered to post a question about it.

And clearly, if they have blocked you, you have p***d them off as well-that could be for any number of reasons, not the least of which might be questions and comments just like this, that do not address the issue of this category and personalize whatever problem you have with them. Frankly, I think this is an immature and inappropriate question in this forum, plus you reach a clearly illogical conclusion; there is nothing obvious about who has 'won' any debate of any sort demonstrated by the fact that they both blocked you. In fact, I would say the failure of logic demonstrated by your supposition would be a more likely cause of you getting blocked-if people can't stick to the issues and apply logic in their arguments, why would either Dana or littlerobbergirl want to waste their time with them?

Now me, I'm different in that respect. Stuff like this that is substantially unrelated to climate change interests and entertains me. If Y/A had a category called Ironic and Funny Breakdowns In Logical Thought I'd probably hang out there more than here in the Global Warming category.

Yes, your arguments are so persuasive that you're making me panic. Keep dreaming, buddy.

I grew tired of deniers flooding my questions with non-answers and the usual empty bullshit about Al Gore and stolen emails and other garbage. It's totally worthless. Really I'm doing you a favor by preventing you from wasting your time, because I'm not interested in what you have to say. You have never offered anything of substance to any of my questions, so I blocked you.

You're welcome.

"Panic"? Over what?

And what "debate" are you referring to? Are you under the mistaken impression that there has ever been a single scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal casting doubt on either the exhaustively documented global warming trend or its anthopogenic origin? What exactly is there to "debate" over?

Or are you perhaps simply here to argue and launch ad hominem attacks (like this one, which probably demonstrates perfectly why you were blocked)? I believe you've answered your own question.

I find it quite strange you would reach that exact conclusion on the basis that they blocked you.

You may have been blocked for a number of other reasons.

i.e. for being annoying, or equivalent to a brick wall.

I would persume the latter, the science is in on AGW, there is no question about it's existence within the scientific community, all the evidence / peer reviews from scientific research *around the world* points to it's existence, this is not a big conspiracy, science is open - you can learn it yourself, and even join in the research if you could manage to pull your head out... er.. the clouds for a short while.

Yet, all the McScientists require is a couple of mis-conscrewed lines picked out of 13 years worth of emails, and *wham!* that's all the evidence they need! -It's crazy really.

Yes they are. In fact I went to the store today and polled it's customers. They told me they were being blocked ever increasingly, so I deducted from that, a general state of panic.

But you need to realize that these so called liberals are the descendants of those who at one time brought us the Inquisition the last time it got cold. I prefer the summer wear of a warmer climate and as the world cools to where the liberals will be comfortable I will regret the costume change of young ladies as the world cools.

http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/pages/global-warm...