When people filter their news through Fox, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the religious fundamentalist and reactionaries in the blogosphere they can propagate almost exclusively their misinformation about global warming,and most of their followers never encounter anyone who will point out that these ideas are false.
Since the denialists have a position on AGW that is primarily political, they think that everyone else's position on AGW is primarily political. Kind of like the people who are sure that atheism is a religion, because they're religious and can't wrap their brains around the idea of someone who isn't religious.
They are called advocates because they are twisting the science to meet an agenda. The policies being proposed to combat global warming, would not change global temperatures according to their own models. You compare to medical science. But climate science papers would not pass muster in medical science, with all of the statistical legerdemain they use to create correlations out of thin air. It would be like if they did a drug study, and only reported the results for the population that showed a reaction in favor of the drug, concluding that the other population sample was somehow flawed.
Anthropogenic global warming, or man-made global warming is global warming strictly attributed to mans activities on the environment. Essentially the use of fossil fuels to create energy. People who don't believe that, point to variations in the sun's cycles that last decades, changing temperature in our past, and current global warming on other planets. They find tree stumps under melting glaciers, indicating it was warmer in past history and note the increase in artic ice this past year. CO2, currently at 395 ppm (0.0395%) of our atmosphere, was as low as 180 ppm in some ancient geologic period as long as 800,000 years ago. Carbon dioxide is of course a requirement for plant growth, and can be thought of as a fertilizer for plant growth, and responsible for increases in food production for the worlds burgeoning population. Carbon dioxide has a carbon cycle half life of about 14 years, meaning that if all human activity ceased, half the increased carbon dioxide would decrease by half in 14 years. On the other hand, the fluorocarbon spray used to clean your computer keyboard, that is touted as so environmentally correct because it doesn't break down the ozone layer, still has a "global warming" strength thousands of times higher than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis, and has a half life of thousands of years.
The people so involved in promoting the idea of anthropogenic global warming either are dependent on further governmental studies on global warming, or are government representatives that derive more power from increased rules and regulation. If people were really concerned about global warming, you would think they would take measures to deal with it, such as building more dams. Contrary to logic, no dams have been built in the United States in decades, and dams actually are being torn down by "environmentalist".
Mosquitoes who can migrate further north than before?
Bark beetles who can survive winters more often and ravage more forests?
Mideast terrorist groups who can gain new recruits in areas increasingly devastated by desertification?
Companies supplying FEMA?
Are fake question posers and duped deniers here "skeptical" about medicine because doctors who specialize in cancer and heart disease are "lymphona advocates" or "cardiac arrest advocates"?
What kind of perverse hatred of science motivates such nonsense when it comes to climate change?
Is there a branch of psychology that deals with such disorders?
