How far will the denialists go?

Peter J sez:

"If you're going to accuse people of making death threats, it would be wise to back up your accusation, don't you think?"

Since I'm aware that it is hard to post links in questions, here's the top 3 hits from a Google search on "climate scientist threat"

Headlines:

"Australian climate scientists receive death threats" - Guardian

"Australian climate scientists face death threats, cyberbullying ..." - thinkprogress

"Climate Scientists Under Threat: Global Warming Proponents Face" - abc world news

Edit - Portland. You use the quote from Harmon Craig to support your confusion of molecular residence time with concentration persistence. I'd love to be in the room if you said that in the presence of "Charmin' Harmon". To be much more charitable than he would be, I'll point out that molecular residence time is the equivalent of the residence time of any given deposit in your bank account, concentration persistence is the change in average balance over time.

I am a skeptic! I am not a denier! I only have actual historical temperature data to support my conclusion that we do not yet really understand the AGW theory well enough to say the study is over and we have the answer. The fact is that the earth has been warming up in a long term trend for over 16,000 years, It seemed to accelerate up to 1998, then cooled down some. My state is back to just about the same as we were 20 years ago. I don't need a model or fancy theory to read the actual temperature data.

Obviously the AGW alarmists models are wrong at least for the recent period. Their models say we should be much warmer now and the sea levels should be drowning people now. Maye later? We shall see.

I guess it's the exact opposite for environmentalists. They want to keep the planet nice and healthy but destroy all the cancerous human life in order to achieve that. Google: DDT, death and biofuels, starvation, overpopulation, Club of Rome, etc. and you should have enough scientific data to see what I'm talking about.

You probably thought of this question while driving your corn-fueled hybrid SUV.

I'm beginning to think this axiom has ring of truth to it: "Radical environmentalists have probably never had to worry about paying their grocery bills." Otherwise, why would anyone support taking the only food off of tables in the poorest regions of the world, stuff it into their cars and think they are saving the world?

All the way to using FACTS to expose the biggest scam in history. And by using real science not political science.

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temper...

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/why-...

As long as we humans are still existing. Or as long as our planet can hold.

If you're going to accuse people of making death threats, it would be wise to back up your accusation, don't you think?

"While most people are too busy shoveling snow to oppose warmingists, the warmingists have been using government money to engage in perversions." --- is an equally valid accusation...

Although there has been many studies, Global warming due to greenhouse gases is inconclusive. Weather patterns are more to blame for drastic climate changes. In the current case as was evident 300 years ago, we are experiencing a global weather event. It all starts with upper level wind pattern changes. Without going into detail this changes migratory systems, but I digress. When a long period of heating occurs due to natural weather patterns, natural warm water currents in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans flow farther north/south into glacier regions near both poles. The effect of this causes fresh water released from glaciers that, due to density differences, causes these warm salt water currents to discontinue warming surface water. This in turn causes temperatures to drop as warm water currents retreat further south. As this happens, the northern hemisphere becomes colder because of the retreating warm water currents. So, as warming causes glaciers to melt, the onset of fresh water originating from the poles disrupts the warm Water distribution that keeps the globe "normal". Therefore to much heating makes the warm currents go south and northern regions get colder and allows colder conditions to go equatorward. Historically these are referred to as mini ice ages. The last one happened recently causing the great potato famine roughly 300 years ago. In conclusion, although a brief time of CFC's released by spray cans in the 80s and 90s may have hurt the ozone some, these conditions have been reoccurring throughout history due to the unusual dispersant of fresh water from glaciers offsetting the natural warming flow of ocean water trying to balance the earths climate. Ironically, hot conditions will cause the above cold conditions and we continue in a cyclical manner until the earth ends.

Their amorality and dishonesty is indicated by their incessant lying. They have honed their trickster sound bites sufficiently for the Sarah Palin Party (formerly Republicans) to adopt their deceit as its principal climate policy platform. Their cheating on and gaming of Yahoo Answers is but a low-level reflection. They are a tiny minority of the entire public, but are greatly assisted by the kid glove treatment of incompetent or timid journalists who call them "skeptics" or "critics" when they are actually anything but skeptical or critical, endlessly regurgitating long discredited, patently untrue, and pitifully inconsistent distortions and disinformation about science.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.htm...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=...

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

Deniers, it seems will say or do just about anything, as an example note Portland's answer

He seems to be try to blame the Nuclear accident in Japan on Global Warming, strange I thought

a) deniers had said there was no real problem with Nuclear leakage in Japan just weeks ago

b) I thought the damage was caused by a tsunami

To be honest, Portland's answers are about as believable as his 60% best answer rating, his ID pages shows long strings of, one best answer after another.

So what he is about is painfully obvious, his point on sea level is a fine example of the mis-information deniers try to peddle the satellite record does show current sea level at ~3.27mm per year (or about 30cm/1ft per century) what portland fails to mention (an habitual denier trait) is the old rate pre, the early 90s was less than half this rate i.e. the rate is increasing as time passes.

If you worked on the rate available in the 1980s it would have been a rise by the end of this century of about 6in, now 30 years later it 1ft, what will it be in another 30 years.

One foot by the end of the century by itself would be fairly serious but it's pretty certain as it continues to warm the rate will also continue increase.

The connection between Kyoto and the nuclear accident in Japan seems to only be visible to Portland's rather feeble understanding of these issues, Nothing in Kyoto limits nuclear reactors in anyway, it is the local issue that nuclear power is not popular with the public in Japan that is stopping them building new reactors, not Kyoto.

Kyoto is about reducing Co2 emissions, (regardless of their other safety issues) nuclear reactors certainly does this, so this appears to be yet another poorly thought through denier conspiracy theory.

As far as they can unless somehow they can get rid of the underlying fear and ignorance that is driving them.