Interesting how many tobacco lobbyists seem to have developed a PhD in climate science in the last 20 years.

A good lobbyist/lawyer/liar is a lucrative career path.

If these industries invested the time, effort, money, and resources into projects and technologies to reduce their impact on the environment, they probably wouldn't need to fund these fraudulent think tanks.

To me, this is evidence of cult-like behavior and bitter intransigence.

like a lil kid knowing what he's doing is wrong but doing it anyway.

Yea Al Gore who barely got though college is now the lefts primary source for warming with his PHD in everything

Conversations I'm Tired Of: Episode 350:
Us: "Climate change is happening, so let's discuss what options we have and which are best."
Them: "Al Gore!"

yea as he flies in his private jet from the $$ made trading carbon futures

Jealousy doesn't become you, moron.

Ah, perfect example of the "No True Scotsman" logical FAIL.

ER - well, no. The consensus of nearly every Ph.D. in climate science in the world is our primary source for an understanding of climate change.

Strange that when ever a paper is publish or a lobbyist position is printed there is a scarcity of these so called experts. But the list is filled with sociology PHD's polisci degrees and GED's

You mean the folks that doctored their records and admitted that their data was in fact "made up" that Royal Society??

Jack Noir has it right. But if you don't want to believe the scientists, you might take a hint from Mother Nature. The unprecedented droughts, floods, and hurricanes of recent year demonstrate that global warming is happening.

Amazing. Another brainwashed soul. Unprecedented? Like in the last 15 minutes, or what?

Droughts? Where? 2012 barely shows up on the PMDI

Floods? Where? That's a new one.

Hurricanes? Where? The USA is going through the longest stretch of no major hurricanes since the civil war. By next spring it will probably be an all time record.

Probably talking about Sandy, huh? Just be glad extra-tropical storm Sandy wasn't like the storm of 1938 when enough trees were destroyed on Long Island alone to build 31 MILLION homes. Harry is worried about a few beach houses that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Have a little more Kool-Aid.

Brainwashed? Keep flacking for the Koch brother bro'--their profits take precedence over the future of humanity.

Didn't think you could respond with facts. Case closed.

Oh puhleeze! As if the scientific community's consensus and thousands of scientific studies weren't enough. Not to mention the mounting empirical evidence, obvious to anyone not invested in paranoid Tea Party fantasies. Give it a rest.

Thousands of studies? You have studies that show that:

1) Droughts are unprecedented
2) Floods are unprecedented
3) Hurricanes are unprecedented, and
4) These unprecedented things are proof of global warming.

Funny that I've been studying this for years and have not seen anything of the sort. There are exactly zero studies that show what you are saying. So quit LYING to people. It drives the rest of us who actually study this stuff crazy. Or post up ONE study that shows ONE conclusion that supports ANY of that tripe.

Hint: Item 3 is close. You will have to wait until next year for it to possibly be unprecedented (to the good side).

I am not lying to anyone. Massive floods in Pakistan, drought in the US, super storm Sandy, etc., etc.. Also see the Media Matters post above. It is the Koch bros and their allies, surrogates, and puppets, the talk radio ranters and the Glenn Becks who are lying--and you are helping them. What you guys are doing adds up to a massive crime against humanity.

You said unprecedented. Give me something unprecedented. Anything. PLEASE. 1 out of 4. You can't do it, can you? Not without admitting you have been lied to. Do you like being lied to? Why?

Koch bros? You really think those little pipsqueaks can match the Climate Industrial Complex in terms of funding or influence? That is hilarious! A few hundred grand here and there to worthwhile projects against $Billions ($Trillions by some estimates?). You obviously haven't looked at the funding, have you?

Let's take a look at some green funding. Here is an estimate done during FakeGate earlier this year (If you get confused by all of the "gates", because you and I both know Climate Science has more than world cup slalom, this one is from when the ethics officer of a green foundation allegedly forged documents and then quit).

http://joannenova.com.au/20...

No, they are simply protecting the science and the real evidence from being misrepresented by organizations like Media Matters, and from being destroyed by taxpayer funded organizations like NOAA and NASA. That's all, just protecting the evidence, which by all measures is on our side (as opposed to models which have failed by every measure possible).

Do you really think any of the events you listed are unusual, or that they can be stopped with taxes? Then you really are a witch burner. You need some meteorological history. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the latest incarnation of the left, aka, "dirty weather" or "climate chaos" or whatever cool new plastic they wrapped it in this week are legitimate.

You say I've been lied to. You're right. You are lying. Or rather you are propagating lies. You may not be doing so consciously, but you're doing it anyway since you've bought the entire climate denial scenario. It takes a heap of paranoia to believe that NOAA and NASA are destroying evidence produced by "real science." Rave on . . .

A picture is worth a thousand words. Amazing. NASA was good enough to put us on the moon, but now...according to you (nobody in the scientific community)...they are wrong. Lol!
The ice loss is UNPRECEDENTED!!
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/f...

Did you find any evidence yet? Are you going to answer the question or continue to attempt to deflect it?

OK Mr. Smith. Start with this:

"With the exception of rapid atmospheric changes triggered by major
volcanic events, asteroid impacts and methane release, which led to the
great mass extinction of species [1], the current rate of CO2 rise
(2005-08: 1.66-2.55 ppm/year) is unprecedented in the recent history of
the Earth, driving polar ice melt and sea level rise rates in excess of
IPCC projections. Warming of large parts of the Arctic and Antarctic
circles by 3-4oC during 1975-2009 (~0.09–0.12 degrees C/year) triggers fast feedback effects from ice melt, albedo loss and open water infrared absorption, and from the carbon cycle. Estimates of future sea level rise derived from 40 years records (1.6-3.7 mm/year), glacier flow rates and ice shelf collapse dynamics, and yet little-quantified positive
feedbacks, render exponential to non-linear sea level rise on the scale
of tens of meters over the next few centuries possible. The rise in the
oceans heat content (1950-2004: 16.10^22 Joules), lowered pH (8.2 –
8.1), and enhancement of the CO3(-2) to HCO3(-) transition, threatens
algae, calcifying plankton and reef habitats from shallow habitats to
abyssal depths [2]. The best outcomes of the looming Copenhagen climate summit, 25 percent carbon emission reduction relative to 1990 levels, would be unable to arrest the rise of mean global temperatures over 2 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels. The rise in CO2
emissions by 41% since 1990 [3] and continuing land clearing go counter to the urgently required measures at mitigation, massive reforestation, revegetation, application of biochar and chemical draw-down of atmospheric CO2. While governments vie to vested interests and economists calculate the price of the Earth, a denial syndrome underpinned by an ideology of human mastery over nature is enhanced by a massive disinformation campaign by contrarians who ignore the basic laws of physics and chemistry and falsify climate data."

You can read the rest at http://www.globalresearch.c...

But it doesn't matter, does it? You'll do your bit for the "massive disinformation campaign" no matter what scientists say.

I thought we were talking about floods, droughts and Hurricanes? You have a lot of outdated info there. You could do better citing Bill McKibben or some other teary-eyed watermelon, especially if you want claims that have no basis in fact. (for instance quantities like a 0.1 change in ocean pH, which is less than the measurement error) The fact that you cite from an article from a non-profit whose goal is globalization is telling.

CO2 rise, sure. Antarctica continues to cool as it has been for decades, with the exception of the small area of the WAIS. The notion of 3-4C in Antarctica will get you laughed out of the room. 2°C potential rise is dependent on feedbacks being positive while the real world data continues to indicate very negative in the tropics, mixed bag in mid latitudes depending on humidity and storm potential, and possibly positive at the poles.

I agree that governments are working for the climate profiteers and they want to be in on the game to fund their social agenda.
And yes, the ones in denial are the ones purporting a human mastery over nature, a syndrome that is not supported by any climatologists that I am aware of. In other words, there are no policy measures that are significant to climate at any cost. Period. You can't legislate the weather, in fact, you can't even make a measurable effect. But if you could, it would appear that enhanced CO2 is still working its magical wonders (is there anything it can't do?), as ACE is still low, major hurricane frequency is incredibly low, tornado activity is extremely low, forest fire count is among the lowest on record, and, of course, 1936 is still by far the most extreme year on record, with 2012 coming in as not much different from normal by almost any measure.

So, yes. The fact denial machine is enhanced by a massive disinformation campaign by Climate Industrial Complex promoters who ignore the original data and falsify climate records. Which is why they hate us. We deny them the ability to lie about the weather because we still have the original data supporting the fact that there simply isn't much out of the ordinary going on, and we can prove it. The fact is, we are making a dent in the massive disinformation campaign, one historical graph at a time. People believe history when they can do the math themselves. Which is why so many are abandoning the lies and going with the data.

Do you know one measure that the activists at NOAA can't play with? Extreme temperatures, since the records are so easy to check, and they don't change with "adjustments" and "homogenization". Here is a chart you need to see:

http://stevengoddard.files....

Some trend there, huh. All the data and code is readily available, you can do any of this yourself. No adjustments are applied to anything you see there.

Want another?

http://stevengoddard.wordpr...

Want a few thousand more? Start looking at what the activists won't show you. This is not difficult.

we could go back to floods, droughts, and hurricanes, we can continue to sling studies back and forth but I seem to believe what most scientists believe and you believe the "scientists" you want to believe. This conversation is a waste for both of us since I won't convince you of anything and you won't convince me. As I said a while ago, give it a rest.

This arrogant fellow isn't worth the trouble. He's an expert at cherrypicking data that he thinks he can dispute with high-school math, and he's fond of citing his pals inside the tiny skeptics' blog-bubble as if they are authorities on the subject.

This guy is a skilled obfuscator. Don't let him waste your time.

Oh yes. Joanee Nova. Us in the Climate business know her well. Well...here's a CLEAR debunking of her theories. Let me know when you've figured out why she is publishing this garbage?
www.skepticalscience.com/Ho...

Please, don't mind wading in cool aid but you poor fools are drowning us all in it.

The physical evidence is overwhelming. When area's the size of Manhattan break off of Greenland....you have to take notice. THESE things ARE unprecedented. Watch the new 7 part series being aired by Showtime called "Years of living dangerously". Maybe it will open your eyes to the overwhelming PHYSICAL proof of where the planet is headed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=brv...

Scientific opinion on climate change
The massive amount of observed and modeled data is overwhelming. Make sure you read THE WHOLE PAGE. And while you're at it....please point to me ONE peer reviewed study that supports your belief that the planet is in a cooling trend. I'll be waiting for your peer reviewed study. You won't be the 1st guy I've destroyed and debunked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

The reason why the temps are changing is because its fall and it will get colder (winter) before it warms up (summer)

Where I am it's spring and it will get warmer before it gets colder.

Where I used to live 50 years ago, we had winter snow. It hasn't snowed there for several years

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations. Academic papers almost never reject the view that human impacts have contributed to climate change. In 2004, a review of published abstracts from 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing "global climate change" found that none of them disputed the IPCC's conclusion that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[14] A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.[15] (see also Scientific opinion on climate change and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Okay, don't take a hint from Mother Nature. Rationalize to your heart's content.

Is three misspellings and three missing punctuation marks per sentence the norm for you?

What s also funny is that Einstein failed school (I believe it was math that troubled him) but since a drop out can develop the physics to create an atomic bomb some would consider him one of the smartest men this century. Just a thought about judging someone on there scholarly grades. (Let's be clear that I am not saying Al Gore is a genius either).

Interestingly, it was conservatives who rabidly denied Einstein's Theory of Relativity in much the same way they are denying climate change.

Wow....I've seen Teh Stoopid on folks, but you are definitely in the top ten!

Pretty much explains the warmers

Yea, all those climate scientists driving Rolls-Royce and living in big mansions. Oh wait, that is oil and coal exec's...never mind.

If they are on the US guberment payroll they sure do>>>

Yet another lie from the troll.

The avg Fed makes $130,000 a year

You math fails on this stupidity , too .

Anyone find it funny that conservatives are against actual conservation?

Actually, conservatives are against change. As in, any change that might happen to affect them in any way, shape, or form. (e.g. Costs them a buck or some power)

You're forgetting fracking. And off shore oil. Let's preserve God's country and waters - until we blow one up and befoul the other.