Chris Winter (19:15:05) :

Anna V, You miss my point. Let me state it as a general rule: It is absurd to claim that a prediction of a future happening is wrong because the predicted event has not happened yet.

Just ask Nostradamus, right? Eventually something will come along that resembles the “prediction”.

“We are being undermined by some secret cabal pouring money into disinformation campaigns and is controlled be faceless political groups and monolithic corporations oppressing all those around them…”

Continuing my earlier response:

“Groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), MoveOn, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) are part of a growing coalition of social welfare, labor, religious, and healthcare organizations joining forces with the traditional environmental lobby.”

Read the rest at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6146

Just ask them about their opinion about nuclear power.

If they are against it, like Joe Romm, then their alarmist stance cannot be real, only a front.
Because, if AGW and the predicted consequences were true, then the rather insignificant risks posed by nuclear power should be acceptable.

It is after all, the largest CO2-free energy producer.

Reply by Anthony:

REPLY: Hey, he’s angry and puts that anger into angry words, what can I say? There’s not much to do except watch the show, though I will tighten up my moderation policy to ensure we don’t get the same kind of angry rhetoric here. – Anthony

To which I respond, perhaps pushing the envelope:

Grrrrrrrrrr!!!

Thanks to both of you for leading us to cross-sectional animations. I’d bet what has me and others confused about ENSO behavior the last 6-9 months lies therein.

Wikipedia won’t let you even post any type of counter AGW material anymore. As soon as you post, they remove to archives for some foolish reason. It is so biased that one of the more agressive “editors” wrote me and said – why do even waste your time, you know we aren’t going to allow any debate ! Wow !!!

Which gives rise to the question, why give any credence to an information tool steeped in censorship? If it were a truly “open” information tool, it would not indulge in data bowdlerization. Rather, this is a propagandist tool that defeats its credibility with cognitive dissonance. More accurately, “wikopinionia.”

The title ‘Dr.’ as referring to the bearer of a higher degree only came into common usage in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, when science became more a paying career rather than a hobby for the wealthy. Before that it was only in common usage by physicians. Surgeons pointedly call themselves ‘Mr.’ so as to distance themselves from the quack ‘Doctors’.

OR: perhaps more appropriately for AGW, from the Cambridge Online Dictionary:

doctor
verb [T]
to change (something) in order to deceive people
eg. ‘He claimed the photo had been doctored.’

As a working scientist for more than 20 years (without a PhD) I may be a little biased.

You really encapsulate the problem in a nutshell. I think with the help of a cooling globe, which might just as well not have happened, that ongoing scientific arguments and data will quell the hysteria. At the very least, that is my hope. But much damage has already been done, though the future possible damages by this horrific policy error do entail damaged entrails of the whole world’s economies. What magnificent healing, to prevent the suicide, that might require is difficult for me to imagine.
========================================

Despite all the rhetoric of record temperatures, which decade is the warmest, etc… satellite sounding data from UAH and RSS have shown remarkably little change since 1979. We are about the same place we were in 1979, give or take one hundreth a degree C or so.

Following 60 year trends, we are entering a period that will be dominated by La Ninas. El Ninos will occur, but thier life span and intensity will be short and weak.