It's hard to know where to begin with these posts, but since it's just so easy to discredit these people, I thought I'd begin here:

"Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate."

If being a specialist in climate is a prerequisite to be involved in this debate, then how is Thomas Sowell, an economist, and the author of this paragraph, in any position to make commentaries such as the ones contained in this editorial?

"It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming” conference has to be canceled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold we...

It's hard to know where to begin with these posts, but since it's just so easy to discredit these people, I thought I'd begin here:

"Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate."

If being a specialist in climate is a prerequisite to be involved in this debate, then how is Thomas Sowell, an economist, and the author of this paragraph, in any position to make commentaries such as the ones contained in this editorial?

"It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming” conference has to be canceled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather."
- This shows a complete misunderstanding of climate change. First, two definitions are necessary. 1) Weather encompass short-term atmospheric motions, like storms, cold fronts, etc (on the order of hours, or days) 2) Climate encompasses the gradual long-term trends in weather (on the order of months or years). What this author is talking about is weather. A single event like a snowstorm or cold weather has relatively little to do with climate change. On the other side of the coin, people who contend that Katrina is an example of global warming are incorrect, too. Katrina is a statistical blip, not necessarily a trend.

Another important point to make is that global warming refers to the overall, average temperature of the earth. That does not necessarily mean that warming occurs everywhere. Some places will cool dramatically because of Anthropogenic (human-made) influences, some places will warm. Overall, the Earth's average temperature is expected to rise.

I'm out of room in this comment, nor do I have the time to deconstruct the entirety of this misleading editorial.

If being a specialist in climate is a prerequisite to be involved in
this debate, then how is Thomas Sowell, an economist, and the author of
this paragraph, in any position to make commentaries such as the ones
contained in this editorial?

That is not what he said. Since it is "so easy to discredit these people", why not address what he actually said? Or, is it your intention to say one cannot have an opinion unless one is "qualified"?

"It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming”
conference has to be canceled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold
weather."

- This shows a complete misunderstanding of climate change.

To ...

If being a specialist in climate is a prerequisite to be involved in
this debate, then how is Thomas Sowell, an economist, and the author of
this paragraph, in any position to make commentaries such as the ones
contained in this editorial?

That is not what he said. Since it is "so easy to discredit these people", why not address what he actually said? Or, is it your intention to say one cannot have an opinion unless one is "qualified"?

"It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming”
conference has to be canceled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold
weather."

- This shows a complete misunderstanding of climate change.

To attack irony shows a complete misunderstanding of climate change or at least the ability to argue in defense of it. LOL.

Another important point to make is that global warming refers to
the overall, average temperature of the earth. That does not
necessarily mean that warming occurs everywhere. Some places will cool
dramatically because of Anthropogenic (human-made) influences, some
places will warm. Overall, the Earth's average temperature is expected
to rise.

Wow, that's interesting. You don't say? That must be why global temps have trended downward since 1998.

But climate models have proven themselves pointless. In fact we are not able to make accurat climate models because we do not know enough about the climate.

If the smartest climatologist in the world knew 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our best math model would be, if that perfect world existed? It equals a little more than 36.6 percent. Remember, this is IF the scientist knew all the variables, feedback loops, and variables on feedback loops to an accuracy of 99 percent.

Furthermore, anthropogenic CO2 is dwarfed by the natural variation in green house gases.

"That is not what he said. Since it is "so easy to discredit these people", why not address what he actually said? Or, is it your intention to say one cannot have an opinion unless one is "qualified"?"
________________________________
- Nope, I'm definitely not saying that. He said that. His statement

"They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis"

implies that there is an inherent problem with not scientists being involved in this debate. That's a perfectly fine assertion, but then how can he seriously publish a column like this?
____________________________
"To attack iro...

"That is not what he said. Since it is "so easy to discredit these people", why not address what he actually said? Or, is it your intention to say one cannot have an opinion unless one is "qualified"?"
________________________________
- Nope, I'm definitely not saying that. He said that. His statement

"They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global-warming crisis"

implies that there is an inherent problem with not scientists being involved in this debate. That's a perfectly fine assertion, but then how can he seriously publish a column like this?
____________________________
"To attack irony shows a complete misunderstanding of climate change or at least the ability to argue in defense of it. LOL."
-Huh?

"But climate models have proven themselves pointless. In fact we are not able to make accurat[e] climate models because we do not know enough about the climate."
- I recommend that you cite this claim because it is not a widely held view.

"Furthermore, anthropogenic CO2 is dwarfed by the natural variation in green house gases. "
- The mass amount of natural CO2 in the atmosphere is far larger than the amount of anthropogenic CO2. That is true. However, the problem is the perturbation that anthropogenic CO2 causes. All it takes are small changes in initial conditions to cause huge impacts that the earth will take centuries to recover from.

jatfla...
"Natural cycles...nothing more.

People b...

"But climate models have proven themselves pointless. In fact we are not able to make accurat[e] climate models because we do not know enough about the climate."
- I recommend that you cite this claim because it is not a widely held view.

"Furthermore, anthropogenic CO2 is dwarfed by the natural variation in green house gases. "
- The mass amount of natural CO2 in the atmosphere is far larger than the amount of anthropogenic CO2. That is true. However, the problem is the perturbation that anthropogenic CO2 causes. All it takes are small changes in initial conditions to cause huge impacts that the earth will take centuries to recover from.

jatfla...
"Natural cycles...nothing more.

People build their reputations with superficial data, seek grants from intellectual institutions, gain press with outlandish claims, receive $$$ to continue to *research* their hypotheses, promote 'scare tactics' to continue the cycle...It's ridiculous the drama these people create. Adjust."
_____________________
There is zero evidence that the changes are due entirely to natural cycles. Cite this claim. I can tell you as a scientist that "people" build their reputations through hard, well-thought out work that pays no attention to bias or expectation. That is the essence of science. Very few scientists resort to scare tactics, because the results are pretty scary in and of themselves. And at least they are there to balance out the reassurance tactics of the skeptics. It's too easy to scare or to reassure. There is a huge middle viewpoint, and you should seek that. You won't find it in the blogosphere or the media, but you will in any scientific journal you crack open.

skwirlinator
"It has all happened before and will happen again, just like the magnetic pole reversals."
- What about magnetic pole reversals?

Man, You sure can pile on the crap! The fact there is zero credibility in a single point you make seems to matter very little to you. Obfuscate, throw out every sort of material fallacy, make head-spinning and ridiculous assertions, then hide behind some heightened sense esoteric and cynical infallibility, the whole time inferring reputable scientists are shills and without integrity. Then you accuse me of slander while the entire time committing it yourself.

I notice you never seem to make proof of your claims an issue, though you demand it from others, even regarding obvious truths. Though when a fact is given you ask for a citation as if you are alarmed that someone would assert such a ...

Man, You sure can pile on the crap! The fact there is zero credibility in a single point you make seems to matter very little to you. Obfuscate, throw out every sort of material fallacy, make head-spinning and ridiculous assertions, then hide behind some heightened sense esoteric and cynical infallibility, the whole time inferring reputable scientists are shills and without integrity. Then you accuse me of slander while the entire time committing it yourself.

I notice you never seem to make proof of your claims an issue, though you demand it from others, even regarding obvious truths. Though when a fact is given you ask for a citation as if you are alarmed that someone would assert such a fact against your parade of utter nonsense. Only a slight wedge of criticism about that which you disagree seems to be your intent. Otherwise you would offer actual science. But wait..no, there is none. You would rather just make claims such as... "refuting these ridculous claims is not worth my time" like you have on other clips.

The whole of the evidence and facts against AGW, and those that do not accept AGW, is of little concern to you. You never confront facts, you make assertions about the motivations of those with whom you disagree. It is clear you are motivated by something other than the facts.

I do not get offended and I certainly never feel insulted but your level of intellectual dishonesty is alarming and I am not interested in it.

I get enough propaganda without facts and honest appraisal. I do not need it from you.

Besides don't you have an ELF convention or some Herbert Marcuse Society meeting to attend?