Originally Posted by SirCharles

I'm not whining.

Don't be a silly boy, of course you are.

Originally Posted by SirCharles

I'm only exposing how the denial machine works.

What imaginary denial machine are you rambling on about, another conspiracy theory?

Originally Posted by SirCharles

Most of the people are coming to the conclusion that AGW is real.

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe AGW is real, do you?

Originally Posted by Sir Charles

The propaganda is coming from your side, Steven.

How about this propaganda?

Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather.

The guy who said that, said the same about Katrina.

Originally Posted by Earthling

CONSENSUS THEORY DEBUNKED

Benny Peiser debunks Naomi Oreskes' claim of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that humans are responsible for global warming. Any bold print is my addition.
Jihadnews: CONSENSUS THEORY DEBUNKED

Just keep digging.

Peiser had to admit that his conclusions from the papers he studied were false.

So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?

How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?

Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...

Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.

— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch

And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.

So Oreskes' conclusions have been tested and shown to be true.

Media Watch: Bolt's Minority View (30/10/2006)

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

Sea level doesn't have to rise by 5 metres, or even 2 meters by the end of the century to be a big concern. for many low-lying areas a rise of just 1 meter will devastate coastal agriculture and habitation.

Nothing to be concerned about then, sea level isn't going to rise 1 metre this century.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

Obviously, the concern will be more pressing for localities that are sinking.

Yes, Venice is a good example, technically, a lot more of it should have sunk by now.

Humans should learn lessons from examples like that. but fools are still building on flood prone land.

More than 5 million people in the UK live in areas prone to flooding. ...

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

I had to google Stephen Schneider and found this attributed to him:

That would preclude Schneider being a scientist in my view. At least in his public discourse.

Since Stephen Schneider is deceased, I doubt if he cares very much about your opinion.

The American Geophysical Union honour a great scientist with a annual lecture and award at their Fall Meeting.

Stephen Schneider Memorial Lecture at AGU in San Francisco - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

The talk, given by Dr Ben Santer, is worth listening to.

Originally Posted by SirCharles

A bit dramatic...

That's par for the course with you.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Just keep digging.

Don't worry, I intend to.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Peiser had to admit that his conclusions from the papers he studied were false.

I'm glad you found that, although "false" might be a strong word.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

So Oreskes' conclusions have been tested and shown to be true.

Yep, much like Mann's hokey schstick.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Pitiful.

Richard Lindzen is the first name on the list.
Read down and you will find "Richard Siegmund Lindzen - Professor of Meteorology at MIT".

These are the same person - or have deniers cloned him?

Correct.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Frederick Seitz (deceased) is also on list, and so is Stephen H. Schneider, who was not a denier at.

Denier at what, when or where?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I think this exchange about eyesight is at an end.

Agreed, that post has been amended.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Let's get back to climate science.

Good idea, so tell me, how many of the "3,000" climate scientists can you name?

Originally Posted by Earthling

Good idea, so tell me, how many of the "3,000" climate scientists can you name?

The American Geophysical Union has over 60,000 members worldwide, and some 20,000 attend its Fall Meeting every December. I am sure the membership list is available if you want it. ... Here is its position on climate change ...

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Makes your hokey list of discredited old farts, fakers, shills, lobbyists and charlatans look pretty pathetic, doesn't it?

He's back:
grinning from ear to ear.

Gore: ‘Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come’

Read more: Gore: ‘Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come’ | The Daily Caller


Hurricane Sandy a boon to global warming speculation

Read more: Hurricane Sandy a boon to global warming speculation | The Daily Caller



I'm sure he alluded to that in 2005:

On Katrina, Global Warming

On Katrina, Global Warming

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

The American Geophysical Union has over 60,000 members worldwide

I'm sure it has, but not all of them are climatologists and not all of them alarmists.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

I am sure the membership list is available if you want it. ... Here is its position on climate change ...

I see, you can't find a list of "3,000" climate scientists, so you decide to fob me off with a 'position statement' instead.