Are we shooting the messengers, the climate scientists?

The messenger in this case needs to be shot, he's lying.

Not only is he lying, he's stealing our tax dollars by the billions

and propagandizing and frightening our children.

But not only that, he is also attempting to destroy our liberties

and dramatically increase our taxes.

Now shoot that Commie scoundrel before he gets away !!

**djrob1943 - apparently you think oil companies should not be allowed to defend themselves or enjoy free speech like your Warmist community does, while you relentlessly attack them. Not very American of you sir. And the oil companies' site states that plants need CO2 to live, do you deny that?

Oil is a wonderful thing, try living without it sometime and you will see what I mean.

*****pegminer - your statement that the Republican Party draws (and welcomes) support from militant extremists is a despicable and vicious lie that does violence to the truth. I seriously don’t know of a single recent political act of violence that was NOT caused by the Left-Wing (Democrats). Let’s review some, shall we...

Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber - Left Wing environmental nutjob): Media reports have tied Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, to environmental activists, and say that the 23 injuries and three deaths through letter-bombs were the acts of an independent eco-terrorist. Among those making such accusations were ABC, The New York Times, Time magazine, and USA Today.

Kaczynski, Earth Liberation Front (ELF) eco-terrorist, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and a long list of other left-wing and/or environmental violence is found on the page linked below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism#Groups_...

Behring Breivik, of Norway recently killed 76 kids in a youth camp and blew up a building in downtown Oslo. GUESS WHO BREIVIK'S HERO WAS --- Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. Behring Breivik was NOT right-wing as the media widely reported, he was a Left-Wing environmental terrorist who’s manifesto was taken almost word for word from the first few pages of the anti-technology manifesto written by "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/EU-Norway-Suspect...

Jared Loughner, the man that shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six other innocent people including a child in January of 2011 was described by his classmates as a "left-wing political radical."

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/...

And let’s not forget eco-terrorist James J. Lee 'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' who held hostages at the Discovery Channel network for hours before being shot by the police.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-cr...

(and)

James J. Lee, environmental militant, slain at Discovery building after taking hostages

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Even Timothy McVeigh was influenced by Left-Wing thinking and was an agnostic. I could name more but I’m running out of room.

continually persist with the money. Many (so-observed as) scientists and universities see the $Billions of taxpayer-provided supply funds as an threat to maintain employment and faculty endowment funds, on a similar time as the politicians who allocate such investment see the 'guy-did-it' international warming theory as an threat for Trillions of $$ in tax sales coming doubtlessly from some form of carbon tax scheme. Many scientists are going to do each and every thing they might to maintain the Golden Goose alive, meaning that their examine is geared in direction of keeping the politicians chuffed.

You suggest that is what oil companies want you to believe. So who is the gullible one throwing accusations? Ottawa is correct. NG and many others have become little more than tabloids when discussing certain issues. It isn't anything new with National Geographic. I have been reading it since the 1960s and it always seemed to include a little bone to the lefties at the end of the articles but I was politically naive in the 1960s and I still recognized it. This sort of garbage article is a who different ball game. They are advocacy oriented to push political causes. All these people have are models. Their models haven't been shown to predict squat. They lost their credibility IMO.

You tell Mike to stick with the data. Which data are you referring. I am sure you won't provide any.

I will let you decide. Here is one example. Kevin Trenbreth (famous for his "we can not account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can't" quote in an email that was reveal through climategate) was lead author on hurricanes for the IPCC AR4 report. He held a press conference to announce "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" way back in 2005.

Lansea,who was a contributing author, was so disgusted by this that he resigned from the IPCC. In his letter of resignation he wrote:

Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record....

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

I ask you, was Trenbreth being a good scientist when he stated his opinion, or was he an alarmist politically motivated scientist?

No. I would say that they are more like the Court Jesters. When they quit entertaining the King, they were exiled or out executed.

No, because the Climate scientists aren't the messengers. The media, naive educators & government officials are the messengers.

There are only about 4 dozen genuine Climatologists in the world and only about a dozen support an alarmist view. The media and the IPCC reports the exaggeration and teachers regurgitate it to their impressionable students.

Rusty said:

"No, because the Climate scientists aren't the messengers. The media, naive educators & government officials are the messengers.

There are only about 4 dozen genuine Climatologists in the world and only about a dozen support an alarmist view. The media and the IPCC reports the exaggeration and teachers regurgitate it to their impressionable students."

The only part I agree with is the first sentence. The media have to put forward "both sides of the story" since climate scientists agree on AGW the other side is usually a politician who is very good at public speaking and has good rherotic. So in a debate the politicians seem to win but they are usually just sprouting nonsense.

So lets ignore all those publications that come out every year from literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of climate scientists? Or the fact that conferences like the AGU have hundreds of climate scientists at them.

I have lost all trust in that previously highly respected magazine. It's now a propaganda tabloid and I have no idea why anybody would trust anything they say (other than of course those who like what they say). I'm not sure when the tide turned but if anybody had the time they could probably figure it out by seeing what personnel changes they have made.

The number of of extreme conservatives has increased so rapidly in the US in recent years and so many of them are so out-of-touch with reality and common sense that I'm worried "shooting the messenger" will become more than a metaphor. If you read what is written about James Hansen and Al Gore in this forum it is clear that there isn't far to go from their extremist speech to actual violence. Unfortunately the current Republican Party draws (and welcomes) support from militant extremists.

As for Rusty's claim that there are only about four dozen climatologists in the world, that is a good example of how deniers are completely disconnected from reality. There are probably at least half that number just at the place where I work. Come to the AGU meeting in San Francisco in December and you'll meet thousands.

These days you can pay to get a scientific result. We live in a sound bite world and all it takes is one small manufactured scandal to undo decades of scientific research. People want to find a reason to keep behaving in the manner in which they are accustomed to, and there are plenty of corporations that want to keep it that way. If you listen to the Tea Party you will hear over and over, Climate Change regulations, the EPA, the FDA etc. are all job killers. They increase the cost of doing business and that seems to be the only concern of this party.