1. 

just open the window and look outside

I was actually considering sending an email to the guy that wrote your link (at least you gave the link this time, but you still should have cited him), until I realized that he was head of the Marshall Institute. For those who don't know the history, the Marshall Institute has been on the wrong side of multiple causes, attempting to stir scientific doubt and generally delaying action against real problems.

For example, they tried to convince us that cigarette smoke wasn't bad for us--and were paid to do that by the tobacco industry. Time and time again the Marshall Institute has been on the (clearly) wrong side.

So since I'm not going to send an email to this guy, I'll answer his editorial here:

People are called "deniers" when they deny things that are commonly accepted as true, such as:

Deniers deny that the planet has warmed

Deniers deny that man can have an effect on climate "The Earth is too big for puny man to have an influence on climate"

Deniers deny that carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas

Deniers deny that carbon dioxide has increased because of human emissions

Deniers claim that the theory of global warming is some vast conspiracy of scientists and Marxists

Deniers will believe anything--no matter how far-fetched or tenuous the science is--if it acts to refute

Deniers make ridiculous political claims "Global warming was invented by Al Gore"

I could go on and on Deniers will make whatever ridiculous claims they think will help their cause. As I've always said, they really shouldn't complain about the term "denier", because what they really are a bunch of liars.

The word "denier" was around long before anyone heard of Nazis.

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." - Mark Twain, who died in 1910.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes...

Wild Man and Kano



Earth

<"(a) warming did not stop.>

Warming didn't stop.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...

<(b) models work pretty well">

Any source that isn't a video of a graph taped to a see-saw that says they don't?

It is deliberate. Michael Mann in his book talks about a scientist who survived a concentration camp, how this scientist was hurt when someone referred to 'cleansing' with regard to his work, and how horrible this was. Now he is engaged in the same thing, also calling anyone who disagrees with him as being in the employ of Big Oil, and being anti-science. Yet he feels free to use graphs upside-down, and when pointed out to him, tries to make the accuser seem like an idiot.

" ... Facts matter and ultimately they prevail. "



"(b) models work pretty well, particularly considering the random environment."

ROFL. Thanks. I had a tough day at work and needed a good laugh.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a0105...

kano --

>>Hmm Lin Lyons. says the warming did not stop and the models work well, and WE get called deniers, he has obviously lost all touch with reality. THE WARMING HAS STOPPED FOR 17YRS 10MTHS and NONE OF THE MODELS PREDICTED A PAUSE, they are totally useless.<<

Once again - considering the fact that no one on earth has provided test results (scientific evidence) that support your claim - either tell us what the appropriate mathematical test is or stop the damn lying. Don't you have even a shred of self-respect?

Hmm Lin Lyons. says the warming did not stop and the models work well, and WE get called deniers, he has obviously lost all touch with reality. THE WARMING HAS STOPPED FOR 17YRS 10MTHS and NONE OF THE MODELS PREDICTED A PAUSE, they are totally useless.

By definition a person who denies something is a denier. A person who questions something is a skeptic. If people object to being called deniers then perhaps they should stop denying and start questioning.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/07/16/climate-denier-a-tool-to-intimidate/

" ... There is no doubt that members of the climate orthodoxy started using the word denier to equate anyone who did not support their point of view with holocaust deniers. Making such a comparison goes beyond insulting. The objective is to intimidate and silence. Science is about the search for truth using a process that questions conventional wisdom about how the world works in an effort to find better explanations. “Scientists” who use the term denier are undermining their profession. Demonization is a tactic when someone cannot prevail in an open debate. ... "

" ... So, why are we called deniers? Because we reject the vision of a climate apocalypse if CO2 emissions are not drastically reduced. Models that forecast runaway global temperatures have been shown to be seriously flawed. They are based on the hypothesis that there is a strong causal relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature increases. As a result, the models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) drastically over estimate temperature increases. They are unable to replicate past temperatures without adjustments and they did not forecast the halt in warming that began around 1998. That halt in warming is why the true believers changed from referring to global warming to climate change. ... "

" ... Facts matter and ultimately they prevail. "

Not sure what the question is but I would ask any person that believes in Global Warming or Anthropogenic Climate Change, what is your response to the Heartland Institute's report "Climate Change Reconsidered"? Oh wait, you don't have one. I'm sorry. You haven't even looked at the U.N. IPCC report, paid any attention to the leaked emails from Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 or noticed that at around the time those e-mails were leaked, global warming advocates scrambled very quickly to re-brand themselves trying to distance themselves from the fraud of global warming -- the e-mails between U.N. climatologists which are all over the web have indicated that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change (global warming) is extremely weak. The Heartland Institute Report basically makes U.N. IPCC report look like a lab report written by a politician using fudged data. Now which one do you wish to believe, the organizations like the IPCC and others that get $2.5 billion to prove there is "man made" global warming/climate change, OR the non-profit, non-partisan $325,000 budget independent that has nothing to lose by publishing the truth? I'll give you a hint. The Heartland Institute hasn't had to re-brand its position or change its name to an acronym yet. What would happen to the money if there really was no global warming? Gee a lot of unemployed discredited scientists.

Skeptics do. Deniers do not.

"(a) warming did not stop. (b) models work pretty well"

What planet are you talking about Lyn?

It is because that is the main tactic that leftists employ. For example, they nominate a black candidate so that any opposition can be called racist and yet they don't hesitate to mock and insult any black that isn't on the leftist plantation. Look how Clarence Thomas and Herman Caine were treated. In my opinion, it is a tactic chosen by those who have lost the argument. They can't resort to facts so they resort to insults. It is a tactic that is doomed for failure. They can hope that most people remain ignorant and fall into line behind their lies but as it stated, facts do matter and I believe they will ultimately prevail.

Sure, ground on a flat earth