Ah, appealing to a doomsday scenario to silence dissent.

I agree. Direct, fact-driven critique is preferable in all cases.  I'd love to see some from the anti-AGW side that was publishable.  

I don't think anyone was talking about Nazis, but let me give you a related analogy:

The Soviet officer is insulted when I call him totalitarian, because I am equating him to a Fascist. 

I'm not at all calling you a fascist, I reply.  You have a non-fascist ideology, but your methods are totalitarian.  I can't help that the fascists are also totalitarian.  

Of course the way this thread reads someone is going to be insulted that I just called them a commie...

If you use denialist rhetoric, based on a very discrete set of social and political manipulations, then you can't get upset when people show the parallels to other categories of denialist rhetoric, charged though they may be, because while the topic of the narrative changes the language is the same.

I'd come up with an equally unpalatable denialist faction for the AGW side to be tainted with, but unfortunately I can't find any...Maybe you guys can help me out?  The "AGW Religious zealot," which several people have brought up, is a little too ludicrously ironic for me to really cling to...

I hate Florida anyway, bring it on!  Six meters could really do us some good, but that bastard Greenland isn't going to cooperate...

It's mostly shoot-the-messenger with the 'settled science' crowd.

Anecdotal evidence is pretty much useless but for what it's worth people have been claiming that this year has been a cold winter in the east. While that may in fact be true for the southeast the northeast has been balmly by my figuring. I still haven't had to wear a hat even once this winter. When I first came to Boston in the early 70's if you walked a mile in December let alone January without a hat your ears would fall off.

The last time I wore a hat was the last time I went skiing and don't try to tell a northeast skier (or a southwest smokejumper) that there is no global warming.

I think from now on I'm going to stick my head in the sand, put my fingers in my ears...

...there, that's better - no such thing as AGW

If we have some warmer summers in my few remaining years what do I care what happens next.
Suddenly I feel so much better

This is why I try to use "climate change" when I'm involved in these discussions. Here in North Florida, we've just broken some cold records older than I am (45), the most important one being just how many parent-frakking days in a row we've had to suffer *hours* of sub-freezing air. Anecdotally, it's every bit as 'wrong' as you strolling around outdoors with nekkid ears and not getting frostbit.

But at least we might be getting a break with our python problem.

The seventies were the end of the last cycle, the bottom of the normal climate curve for a place as far north as Boston.  Comparing that to the tail end of the warming cycle is obviously going to leave a comparably warm state.

GW, not much hope there, Florida is fairly well balanced due to lattitude.

Surprise, surprise, Britain's Daily Mail and Fox News actually mischaracterize reports supportive of AGW and claim that they actually deny it.

Why am I not surprised?

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/01/daily-mail-bends-science-support-global-cooling

Also if you claim the 70's were the bottom of the curve and assumedly that today we are at the top of the curve then another 5 to 10 years of warming should convince you. Can you at least admit to that much?

I expect to still be here in another 5 to 10 years. It will be very sweet for all of you to be forced to admit that you were wrong. The question is are you man enough to do so?

Care to make a long term wager?

I don't know, I actually watch it, so I have an excuse to not be surprised.  Somehow I doubt you bother with the whole 24 hour news stuff, so haven't a clue how grossly inaccurate MSNBC is by comparison...

If investigative reporting weren't all but dead, and news outlets actually got their own news instead of almost entirely reporting from AP submissions, you'd be going somewhere.  Instead, you're just being a dick over something all of them do.  Next time, why don't you pick on something else?  Al Gore for instance, that lying shitbag has his own portable sewage system to handle the bullshit he spews.

I have no children and am 57 years old. I have no idea why I should give the slightest fuck about the planet that I leave for those that follow, because there's no way I will live to see the full consequences of inaction.

But yet I do.

Because comparing a skeptic -- someone who is not convinced by the evidence to support a hypothesis is NOT anywhere near the same as someone who denies well documented facts or believes/supports irrational things.

The fact that the word "denier" is being used is little more than an infantile attempt to lump people in with holocaust deniers. It's a disgusting trend that I see no reason to put up with here. I suspect if people started to refer to AGW supporters as "eco-fascists" there would be some angst. 

In another post, you and others demand that we "prove" AGW wrong. As if the onus on us disprove a claim.  

I've had a decade and a half of time to read through the issue at length and I don't find the evidence that human produced CO2 is going to have a measurable effect on the temperature. That's my opinion.  I don't ask anyone to agree with me. I don't care if someone agrees with me or not.

As soon as the people who claim this is a serious issue start acting like it's a serious issue then I'll take more notice of the issue.

Triple posting...

I don't need to explain it to anyone.  That I bother telling you the same thing that's already been mentioned a few dozen times in these threads is probably a sign of severe mental defect.  It's not my fault if someone else is wrong, regardless of which tree the stupid monkey decided to climb.

My claim?  You know this shit's in your own links right?  All that debunking regarding the impending ice age.  The reason it didn't have the backing of science was because the scientists were saying it was normal, cyclical climate patterns, and that we'd already reached the tail end of the cold spell and would be warming back up for roughly thirty years.

I don't gamble, feel free to remember it though.  I don't expect to die of old age before then either.  You should probably figure out what you expect me to admit though.  If it's discovered that we warmed up the poles because of CFC's, I'll have guess right.  If you're hoping they can prove anthropogenic global warming via CO2 through a green house effect, wish in one hand and...

Are you asserting that the term “denier” is intrinsically linked to the holocaust? and if so, is the fact that the label is attached to tobacco denialism, AIDS denialism, immunisation denialism, creationist denialism etc just part of a rhetorical trick to lump them in the same camp as holocaust denial? Or do they perhaps fit a similar modus operandi in terms of their tactics with regards to denying established science?

Torquemada coulda used you, Raistlin.

What, are you seriously asking people to put their values first when they decide what to do for money?

If the nation were really ready to put faith before prosperity, the GOP would have a lock on the Catholic vote and even the most serious of tree-huggers camping in a Redwood would have to be talking about how the outdoorsy-industrial complex got them up in those branches to start with...

Lol, the continued attempts by “sceptics” to make opposition to dishonest junk science analogues with some kind of religious dogma, is quite amusing.

i notice you also completely ignored the fact that you used mojib latif as an example of a climate scientist who doubts AGW, when in fact that assertion was completely, undeniably wrong  

Could you tighten those nipple clamps just a bit more, please?  Ooh, there... that's better.

haha. one of the main differences is of course that i actually hope you guys are right.

Actually, David Rose did.  Credit where credit's due.  And Latif himself says he was half right.

But speaking to the Guardian yesterday, Latif pushed back hard against the Mail, saying that the tabloid took his comments out of context to make an editorial statement. "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming," he said. "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."

I'd like to point out that Latif compromises himself as a scientist by making such statements.  He made up his mind years ago, since then it's been a downward spiral of reducing estimates on the contribution by CO2, it went from most or all down to 50% in just a few years time, and now they can't even figure out where 25% of the CO2 went.