Are there any global warming deniers that tell the truth?

Deniers don't read. That's why they are deniers. They choose not to get education.

It is common in this forum for uneducated people to provide quotes they think denies global warming, but in fact the quoted person is an advocate for action. The deniers get their science education from manipulative political blogs rather than from the scientists themselves and are badly mislead.

It is not surprising that non-thinking sheep are easily duped. People who actually do research understand that global warming is real and is serious. That's why no denier here can ever cite science.

No climate scientist is a denier. No denier is a climate scientist.

Truth is a difficult burden for everyone (and yet, at the same time, the truth will set you free). Unfortunately, many have a difficult time shouldering that burden and remain trapped in either deceit or self-deceit.

If I was deceiving myself, how would I know? A good question for all of us, I suspect.

In many cases the answer is pretty obvious, they ask questions and are not even slightly interested in a real answer, take this as an example

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am...

Both the question and the answer seem to be trying to ignore (whether you accept the link to AGW or not) that Hurricane Danielle (a category 4) passed the U.S. followed closely by hurricane Earl, also a category 4 with the potential to become a category 5, perhaps flossie should have waited for the end of the season 'dig' before making a fool of herself with this nonsense.

The 2010 season is now only halfway through and has already had 3 hurricanes equaling 2009

http://www.onlykent.com/20100831/hurricane-earl-pr...

<<Guess what? William Gray is a close personal friend of my family>>

I'm not surprised.

EDIT

Remember in November: <<I tell the truth, it's global warming that's false>>

Ironically you are not telling the truth about whether you tell the truth. Previously you insisted that it was liberals who made up that Palin claimed Africa was a country and that Satyrday Nite Live fabricated the famous Tina Fey line. And when I showed you the actual video of Palin saying that quote word for word, and a report that it was Republicans disgusted with coaching Palin who made the Africa claim, you got furious, telling me that it is improper tpo present evidence.

Whereas, global warming advocates who say that the "evidence is overwhelming" and that "the science is settled" are honest even though Phil Jones in a BBC interview said otherwise:

" When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. "

Edit: Phil Jones was asked to clarify this statement but he did not. He could have espoused the alarmist view that humans will cause catastrophic warming and that the debate is whether it will be three degrees or ten degrees, but he did not. The reason he did not, is that in a system as complex as the earth's climate, we have just begun to study this issue, and we are still ignorant on many issues, like clouds and human aerosols.

Baccheus said: "What he said about the debate not being over is that he can't interpret the question and that there is still a lot to be learned."

I do not know about you but when you say that the debate is over, that means we know everything that there is to know. Also, a person can also believe that the balance of the evidence is for a proposition, without believing that the evidence is overwhelming.

I'm afraid you have an object lesson.

To quote the answers here, "even though Phil Jones in a BBC interview said otherwise"; but Phil Jones said nothing of the sort. What he said was that a short range selection of temperature data, while showing an upward trend, did not show it at the 5% level of statistical significance. And as he was at pains to point out in that same interview, if you took a longer time period you would indeed meet this statistical criterion.

And "global warming computer models do not (and cannot) take future atmospheric moisture into account and Milankovitch cycles are completely ignored"; completely untrue on both counts.

Don't expect deniers to give you honest answers. Eric C claims:

"Whereas, global warming advocates who say that the "evidence is overwhelming" and that "the science is settled" are honest even though Phil Jones in a BBC interview said otherwise:"

The "science is settled" meme is somewhat of a strawman. Some of the science is settled. Other areas have overwhelming evidence. Other areas are virtually known within an uncertainty range.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...

Dr. Phil Jones is not in disagreement with this.

'Global warming remains a hypothesis. There is nothing to prove or convincingly show that it's real beyond natural causes.

The fact that "deniers" don't stoop to the alarmist's cowardly level of ignoring evidence (or inventing it out of nowhere) seems to bother you. Grow up, put your political posturing aside and open your eyes. Those who think that anthropogenic warming is real have judgemental and attitude problems. Most of what you say here is proof of that.

You are in total denial if you cite hurricane data as something to crow about. Your doomsday cult said hurricanes would increase. They are at record lows as far as combined strength goes. Apparently being completely wrong over and over and over again doesn't affect the cultist mentality, They just see everything that doesn't conform to the cult as lies from the other side. That is some serous cognitive dissonance going on.

Guess what? William Gray is a close personal friend of my family. He lectures around the country telling people of the false science of AGW.

No it is real easy to deny global warming without lying. All you have to do is read the climate scientist reports with a critical eye. Most AGW backers believe that not only has CO2 increased by around 40% (which is a fact) but it is all man made, none from nature. Also these same scientists write off as unimportant that water vapor has doubled and that it is actually water vapor that works in conjunction with the increase in CO2 to help warm our planet. With out the increase in water vapor, the increase in CO2 would have minimal effect on the climate.