Why so much anger in anti-AGW circles?

[Cassandra Syndrome]

There is so much anger in anti-AGW circles because, despite all the lies, misrepresentations and personal attacks, climatology is going from strength to strength.

What happened in Copanhagen then Mr Gloaty?

[Tombo]

There is so much anger in anti-AGW circles because, despite all the lies, misrepresentations and personal attacks, climatology is going from strength to strength.
All the denialist's arguments have been rounded up like stray cattle, compartmentalised and answered.

Hmmm. That's one perspective.

Another might be it has become the laughing stock, and embarrassment to real scientists. Despite the tens of billions of taxpayers dollars/Euros and Yen poured into this thriving industry.

[jman0war]

Check it out, Skeptical Science got hacked.
Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked
Can anybody show me a case were a anti-AGW site got hacked?

This is further evidence of the character of the anti-AGW side. Since they don't do science, they resort to name calling, threats and hacking websites.
Pathetic.

[ibis]

There is so much anger in anti-AGW circles because, despite all the lies, misrepresentations and personal attacks, climatology is going from strength to strength.
All the denialist's arguments have been rounded up like stray cattle, compartmentalised and answered.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Since by definition a denialist is someone who resists coming to rational conclusions and takes refuge in fantasy and invective, of course they have not folded their tents and gone quietly into the night. They are just redoubling their efforts - like Senator Imhofe threatening to prosecute scientists.

The best way for scientists to respond is just to keep doing science and ignore the nuts.

I suspect that much of the anger is the recognition that climate change is being addressed, is being given policy weight - not, mind you, in anywhere near as effective a way as is actually necessary, but even what little gets done must be gall and wormwood.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

The 'debate' wont be won or lost until a proper understanding of climate change over a long term is established.

To come out such a stupid statement above is both unscientific and reeks of someone who is more interested in 'winning an argument' than actually debating.

I dont know what is cause climate change, but I am not about to take a stance based on either some liars falsifying data or listening to agenda driven drivel on the net.

You have declared the debate closed - Stephen Hawking was considered the preeminent scientist on black holes until he himself decided to turn around and, based on new evidence, declare his previous assumption were wrong.

Thats being scientific - declaring debates 'over' smacks of infantile tribalism whereby your 'side' 'wins'.

Wins what exactly? I'll keep listening to the scientific argument if you please and who knows, maybe in time a 'provable theory' as to what is really causing climate change might emerge. Until then, I'm open minded about whats going on.

Fair enough if its a level playing field. But what about the solar scientists? Do they get generous funding? Respect?

Do you think its a tad coincidental that when the sun dips to a century solar minimum low the winters around the world are severe. THere was a mini ice age during the Dalton minimum. We will know by next year if this is going to be another Dalton type minimum. The sun is still pretty inactive this year so far, there are more sunspots, but we are going to have another disappointing summer, but at least tropical storms will be less numerous and less severe.

If the sun is entering another dalton minimum, its lights out anyway because oil will rocket. As I have said on numerous occasions the capital materials in renewable energy are completely oil related. We have to burn a lot of fossil fuels to chieve the goal of complete energy driven by renewable sources.

[sharper]

And this gets to the heart of the matter.

If Oreo wants to drive a monster vehicle, why should he not?

He can if he wants, he just has to pay the full economic cost of his monster vehicle.

When you experience the benefit of something but share the negative consequences out among others they're subsidising your choice.

Example: Someone really loves to have loud parties every Friday and Saturday night until 5am. That person has a choice between purchasing an apartment for €200k or a detached house for €300k.

If you purchase an apartment you accept your behaviour is constrained relative to a detached property. You can't have parties all weekend every weekend all night long and not at least end up with some extremely angry neighbours.

Should people be able to do whatever they want in their own home? Yes so long as it doesn't compromise the ability of other people to enjoy their own home.

Should Oreo be able buy and use a monster vehicle? Absolutely so long as he's willing to pay for it. He doesn't get to make choices and then externalise the negative consequences of those choices.

[jman0war]

Fair enough if its a level playing field. But what about the solar scientists? Do they get generous funding? Respect?

Do you think its a tad coincidental that when the sun dips to a century solar minimum low the winters around the world are severe. THere was a mini ice age during the Dalton minimum. We will know by next year if this is going to be another Dalton type minimum. The sun is still pretty inactive this year so far, there are more sunspots, but we are going to have another disappointing summer, but at least tropical storms will be less numerous and less severe.

If the sun is entering another dalton minimum, its lights out anyway because oil will rocket. As I have said on numerous occasions the capital materials in renewable energy are completely oil related. We have to burn a lot of fossil fuels to chieve the goal of complete energy driven by renewable sources.

So you're saying that solar scientists are underfunded and ignored?
Not the case i'm afraid.

The following page contains links to 25 peer reviewed papers on solar influence on climate, all of them in broad agreement that the sun is not responsible for our current warming trend.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

[Wakeupcall]

There is so much anger in anti-AGW circles because, despite all the lies, misrepresentations and personal attacks, climatology is going from strength to strength.
All the denialist's arguments have been rounded up like stray cattle, compartmentalised and answered.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Since by definition a denialist is someone who resists coming to rational conclusions and takes refuge in fantasy and invective, of course they have not folded their tents and gone quietly into the night. They are just redoubling their efforts - like Senator Imhofe threatening to prosecute scientists.

The best way for scientists to respond is just to keep doing science and ignore the nuts.

[SIZE="6"][COLOR="Purple"]This poster is a sock puppet. Beware!!!!![/COLOR][/SIZE]

[sharper]

So you're saying that solar scientists are underfunded and ignored?
Not the case i'm afraid.

One wonders why solar scientists would even need funding when Cassandra Syndrome has already "proven" the solar forcing in his spare time using google news.

[ibis]

And this gets to the heart of the matter.

If Oreo wants to drive a monster vehicle, why should he not?

See sharper's post, but there's another sense in which this gets to the heart of the matter. Oreo can and presumably does drive a monster vehicle. Nobody has stopped him, and the hysterical accusations of climate change fascism come down, so far, to lightbulbs.

What makes this bizarre to me is that many of the same public figures who wail about 'climate change derived regulations' are extremely supportive of some of the more damaging assaults on civil liberties under the guise of the "war on terror". It would almost make you wonder if there was an agenda...