Are deniers getting desprite?

Points along the line of of asking for real evidence are often asked of deniers as your first answer show their answer is to change the subject or throw an insult or blather about communists etc etc etc.

Deniers answer to all this is scientists and scientific organisations are all part of some global conspiracy (at least that's one of a quite large set of denier conspiracy theories) In the real world there is no real scientific group that disputes, and denier know that hence the need to subject shift.

Take jim (please) who has made statements about evolution, the ones I see most often are the religious nuts who claim it also isn't real, that would be denial in the face of overwhelming evidence I know which group that sounds like to me

or Ian (probably another of jims twins) he seem hug up on your spelling rather than answering the question. he clings to the 17 years, marvelous how that number just keeps getting bigger, given that 1998 is only just 15 years ago, but then nobody has accused deniers of being maths professors.

1998 only rates because it had the strongest El Nino of the last 100 years a fact deniers try to ignore.

Then 2005 & 2010 where warmer than 1998 without the aid of such an event, yet denier continue to to this myth, and they have the cheek to call us believers and faithful and numerous other religious references. I think there is a solid air of desperation in the statements of their leader in the last few years, they know their time is running out as change is happening faster than scientists first thought, it is beginning to dawn on these denier con men they will still be around to face the music for the lies they have been telling.

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/applications/clim...

The only place the planet is cooling is in the fantasy world deniers have created for themselves.

This is what is happening in the real world http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13#gtemp

I have a sad but sneaking suspicion Xi Gua is sadly one of us trolling, I said as much the other day in an answer to him and the question was quickly deleted. As for 1997 itself, it fell from the list of ten warmest years about 5 years ago. That list in the above NOAA link seems to have a formatting problem the years are there but white (it is from 2010).

Now 2011 was a cooler year and just missed out on this list but 2012 made 10th spot knocking 2001 off the list, making (excluding 98) 2002 the oldest year in the list, that doesn't really go with the idea of 17 years or 15 years of cooling, if 9 of the 10 warmest years happened in the last 11 years and the 2 warmest years happened in the last 8. the most recent just a little over 2 years ago, 2010.

On Ottawa's point on conspiracies, he's being a bit disingenuous as denier's have dozens of listed, blaming everyone from governments to Gore to scientists to greens to various billionaires, conspiracy theories involving many groups that constantly change and have not a scrap of evidence to back them.

The idea that the oil industry is behind this is hardly a conspiracy theory as they have publicly admitted they funded the denial movement and the motivation is pretty simple to protect profits, following a quite similar model to the one the tobacco industry used to slow action on cigarettes, one that slowed government action for decades costing the lives of thousands of people.

One of the main denier theories is that Governments are doing this for the tax, this is a pretty lame theory as Gov already get significant taxes for oil and the aim of actions on AGW is to get people to shift away from oil a rather self defeating conspiracy.

What I don't really follow is WHY there is so much outright denial when there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. The scientific theory of AGW may be very sound and there are no alternative theories being put forward that have the weight of evidence behind them AGW has, but there are so many variables we don't completely understand that it is extremely difficult to accurately predict impacts and outcomes. That is why I consider myself a 'skeptic...' and I qualify the term in its application to myself because I don't have the scientific credentials required to offer a credible argument in the debate-or the access to the data that I would need to do so.

Yet there are any number of people-several here at least-who present outright lies and misrepresent themselves to dispute the apparent long term weather trends that indicate climate change is actually occurring. The arguments that are presented are so often so demonstratably false and known to be that pie charts have probably been published in USA Today about them...or completely unrelated to science, such as global temperatures are increasing because of a Marxist conspiracy. I don't understand what people who put forth such arguments hope to accomplish or why they don't grasp that their 'positions' on the issue would be met with derision and they end up being labeled as 'deniers.'

To me, however, that is entertainment they offer up at their own expense while at least some of us wait for links to current developments in the research and look for explanations of why science is reaching the conclusions it has.

I do think some of the warmists here can be pretty harsh in their judgments of others and tend to label ANYONE who does not take everything we are being told at face value as deniers, as well as call people other names when no editorial opinions are necessarily offered-in some cases it appears that kids and people who are just starting to try to learn about climate change who ask questions that are 'too simple' are automatically called deniers and derogatory terms like morons. In other cases, I think relatively complex and questions that are interesting and have the potential to shed some additonal light on the nuances of the debate itself are dismissed when an opportunity exists to address a pretty well thought out question-not always or necessarily related to the science.

I understand the frustration of some proponents of AGW in their replies because I often snort at some of the questions, answers and comments and have been known to post what I considered a zinger or two myself. But I think it is very important to not leap to conclusions about the intent of the asker or respondent (in some cases) but rather, look for the key to the asker's real intent. If it is to make a partisan political statement unrelated to science-as about 90% of the questions, answers and comments by opponents of AGW seem to be-well...it's probably a waste of bandwidth, they should be arguing over in the Politics categories. However, cloaked in the marxist plot comments there are, from time to time, actual and legitimate concerns and issues raised. Sorting that out from the political agendas is often difficult.

I do think that the people who perpetuate falsehoods and think that they have climate change all figured out-when not even the vast body of science claims that-are not analytical enough to be 'desperate;' I think in some cases they even believe they are making reasoned arguments that are not so ignorant as to be laughable and think the denial contigent is actually making progress against science.

They always have been but the deteriorating quality of their arguments shows their position is increasingly untenable

Climate change is the NEW term that is used to cover ANY change in the climate.

Before that it was Global Warming, and 20 years before that it was Global COOLING and 10+ years before that they were worried about "Nuclear Winter" possibilities.

ANYTHING to keep the sheeple scared into letting the governments WASTE taxpayer money "for the good of all."

Sounds like they have YOU pretty well brainwashed into believing anything they say, because "scientists" say it!

Scientists USED to insist the world was FLAT too, at one time, even though common sailors knew better!

Ah now that's mean. I'm sure many of the deniers have found love ...

There are number of questionable questions from both sides. Some skeptics think there is a socialist world order conspiracy and some alarmists think there is an oil industry denial conspiracy.

Plus, some alarmists resort to name calling and stick throwing tantrums and claims of intellectual and moral superiority (just look at some of the answers here so far for examples). And BTW, this question encompasses some of what I'm talking about.

Scroll through some of my past questions and have a sober look at the level of scientific discussion (and the level of name calling and moral and intellectual superiority).

I'm getting depepsi , you can have desprite.

Ha! Ha! Nice try Growler. That is an old trick. One that has been used by the losing side many many times.

The fact is that the earth has been cooling for over a decade. This has been proven many times on this site. Even James Hansen and Phil Jones admit to it. Everyone on both sides agrees that the CO2 level has increased during this time. Case closed! Argument over! You are finished! Mother earth has PROVEN you wrong.

<well based and supported by the entire science community> Ha! Ha! There is a list of over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition stating that they do not support the theory of AGW of Climate Change. Your side had a hard time coming up with 75. Ha! Ha!

I'm picking you're not familiar with the phrase 'nullus in verba'. Did you ever try checking any of the data for yourself?

No, but they can spell.