Friday Funny – You're a climate denier if:

By Mark Heyer – You’re a climate denier if:

– You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.


– If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.


– If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.


– If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.


– You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.


– You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.

Clouds cast a shadow over IPCC climate models.

Clouds cast a shadow over IPCC climate models.

– If you believe that around 2000, CO2 magically changed its mind and decided to warm the oceans instead of the air. Some scientists speculate that this is the case but there is little or no hard science to support the notion. Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.


– You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.



Don’t be an anti-science climate denier.

158 thoughts on “Friday Funny – You're a climate denier if:

  1. I know it’s a Friday Funny, but the fact that it’d be summarily ignored by anyone who’d actually use the D-word makes me sad.

    • Some people like visual stimulation.
      And it does add impact to the contrast between: He said – I show.

    • For a chap of your ability, no it doesn’t. But if you accept that those graphs provide the less-well informed with visual back-up to what otherwise would merely be a series of assertions, and that a picture paints a thousand words…

    • Disagree slightly. The graph of the model ensemble vs actual temperatures, overlain with the IPCC confidence trend is a beaut. Should be on every front page.

      • Pointman, one could argue to leave out the text and just leave the graphics. Antarctica would need to be replaced though with a graph of extent since 1979 though. A picture speaks a thousand words.

        The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2.

        The IPCC says this is not supported by the science. Once of the founders of the IPCC agrees too.

        “Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous have no support in the literature as having a non-negligible chance of occurring. For instance, a “runaway greenhouse effect” —analogous to Venus–appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities…..”
        Sir John Houghton
        Atmospheric physicist
        Lead editor of first three IPCC reports
        There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”

        Next time some idiot tells you about runaway warming tell them they are talking shyte. The IPCC said so.

    • I don’t agree mr.Pointman
      But what I would like to see is better, and by that I mean uncluttered simplyfied graphs, and only one for each bulletpoint. Maybe complimented with links to the official graphs.
      This article should be rewritten, not as a Friday funny, but something we can point to when asked to prove the globe isn’t warming. In my view it has that much potential.

    • I’d say the first graph is too busy for many people. The less interested will switch off immediately.

      • Count me among the many.
        Now if it wasn’t the very first graph, I would like it more. Further down, after other pictures have got my curiosity.
        But it is too busy anyway. And the non zero referenced scale is fraudulent.

      • Now, this is the real dilemma, isn’t it, Michael? The strategy of head-nodding, warmist leaning MSM is to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator and appeal to the grade 6 level masses. If we, as denialists .. yeah, I’ve gotten comfortable with that tag … follow suit, eliminating meaningful graphs because they are too busy, we become just like the warmists. Not sure what the answer is, but it will be something in the initial delivery of the message that must catch the reader’s attention. The average reader wouldn’t even catch the satirical nature of this piece, unfortunately

    • Well, you know the drill – all the warmists will call for the data if it isn’t spoon fed to them anyway, so perhaps
      this just saves time.
      All the warmists show us are projections and official homogenized graphical tamperings.

    • I must admit I do like the graphs, especially the one that plots confidence levels in the models.. ie. confident to increased confidence to likely to very likely to extremely likely. What is next?

    • Don’t get me wrong, I’m partial to graphs, powerpoint slides etc having produced more than my fair share of them. The point I’m making here is that the contradictions being highlighted here are strong and amusing enough to stand on their own merits. Whether we like it or not and irrespective of whether we’re comfortable with them, the eye candy in the presentation will very quickly lose the average reader. If you compulsively need to have references, that’s what footnotes are for but we know very few people look at them anyway.
      A simple list, intelligently and amusingly presented, would have done the trick and been accessible to a wider audience. eg.

    • Not to mention the opening sentence needs fixed.
      “You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2.”
      “despite” should be replaced with “because” or something along those lines.

      • Not to mention your opening sentence needs to be fixed.
        Sorry… I used to work with a bunch of people who dropped their ‘helper verbs’, and another bunch of people who were severely irritated by it. It left scars.

      • You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t.

        Actually, all that is needed is to move a period and change a capital letter.

        You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years. Despite rapid growth of CO2 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t.

  2. ” It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning.”
    Still can’t believe that one wasn’t 100%.
    Maybe it fall under the “3% of people don’t read the question thoroughly before answering?

    • I’d sooner think that 97% are literalists, who took the question strictly as it stood. The other 3% were the ones who read into the intentions of the questioner.

      • “I’d sooner think that 97% are literalists,”
        97% took question as: If you agree with the Mann, you will get unlimited funding from Taxpayer$.

    • I believe Mann denied [there] was a climate before AGW started. We just had ‘regional weather patterns’ like the Medieval Warm Period Climate Anomaly.

  3. Can anyone share what the definition of “Climate Scientist” is in the statement 97% of Climate Scientist?
    I’ve asked elsewhere and cannot get a serious answer. I’ve searched on line and find that 97% of the results are not definitive? (Little joke here, but serious question. I’d really like to know)

    • Danny, the problem is that there is no one specific field of study that is defined as climate science at any institute of public learning. There a myriad of scientific fields that are involved in studying the climate and those things that effect it. So, the term “climate scientist” has been applied to any practitioner in any of those fields who submits hypotheses concerning the climate, so long as those hypotheses support the theme. Scientists who propose ideas contrary to to the them are just practitioners of their specific field (see Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, Roy Spencer, etc.).

    • Well, if I remember correctly, the people who came up with that 97% consensus claim, defined a “Climate Scientist” as one who has more than 50% of his papers/articles published in peer-reviewed journals that purport to be concerned with climate issues.

      • I second what Keith W. just said. “Climate Science” includes such fields as Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, and Physics. And probably a few more that I didn’t mention, But those are the main ones.

      • Therin lies my trouble with term. It appears to me that there are just as many “Climate Scientist” on the “other” side (I just can’t use the “D” word). Sounds like much of it relates to volume of “peer reviewed” submissions and to whom. Just a numbers game.
        Helps me with developing a perspective.
        Thanks to you and Keith for your feedback.

    • “Can anyone share what the definition of “Climate Scientist” …”
      Sure, Money Grubbers.
      Cut off all Global Warming / Climate Change funding, and watch how many jump all over next Govt. Funded Faux Crisis.

    • “I’ve asked elsewhere and cannot get a serious answer.”
      You can’t because those people are not Scientists. No Scientist could continue to back or claim AGW; when original premise was increasing temperatures were result of increased Man-made CO2. Any Scientist would have to admit that was a false premise; being CO2 levels have defintely increased, while Global temperatures have not.
      1985 First warnings of Global Warming – CO2 less than 350 ppm
      1997 First AGW Panic Alarms go off – CO2 is at 364 ppm
      2014 AGW Alarmists still crying Sky is Falling – CO2 reaches 400 ppm
      Twelve years (1985-1997) CO2 goes up by 14 ppm – Global Temps rise 0.2C
      Seventeen years (1997-2014) CO2 goes up by 36 ppm – Global Temps rise 0.1C first 5 years, then flatten for next Twelve years.
      Conclusion CO2 does not effect Earth’s climate as claimed.
      Scientist looking at that info would ask questions, do more research. But they sure wouldn’t continue to proclaim AGW was fact.

    • a climate scientist is anyone who is willing to back the IPCC’s version of AGW. As opposed to the heretical, racist denier, who believe in a flat earth, that the moon landings were faked, opposed civil rights reforms (Al Gore), that it’s better to have a dentist perform major surgery (Michael Mann) and that the AGW theory might be flawed. These deniers should have their books burned (San Jose State University) be summarily executed during childhood (10-10 No Pressure video) and be given three hots and a cot while locked up with the other war criminals (Robert F Kennedy jr).
      Hope that helps
      Denyingly yours,
      Pat from Cork

  4. I’d also add:
    – You think the tropospheric hot spot that proves AGW is there, despite the fact the balloons and satellites can’t find it. (show graph)
    – You think sea level rise is accelerating despite the fact it’s tapering off. (show graph)

  5. Small quibbles:
    “ice extent around Antarctica in 1014 is the largest in recorded history” – s/b satellite era?
    “Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air” – it does sublime

    • “Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air” – it does sublime.

      Not only that but …
      What’s happening at the bottom of the ice is just as important as the air temperature above the ice. Sea ice melts like crazy even if the air temperature doesn’t go above freezing. The thickness of the sea ice is a function of air temperature. In the spring, the sea ice goes from 10 feet thick to only a couple of feet thick as the temperature goes from -40°C to -10°C. You can’t tell without measuring because the appearance of the surface doesn’t change. My memory of the exact numbers is hazy but I do remember that the DC-3 wouldn’t come to take us out if the ice was too thin. I always suspected (but can’t prove) that the CO occasionally mis-reported the ice thickness. 😉

      • I do not doubt that sea ice varies in thickness over the seasons, and the reasons how that happens we have more speculation than theory on. The issue is that the climate scientists suggest that CO2 is forcing surface temperatures to rise and thereby causing ice to melt. To support that all scientists have to do is show ice melting in sea water at -10 C faster than at -40C in their freezer at home. Which is silly of course as is there claims.

      • You do not recall correctly. At any temperature where the relative humidity is less than 100%, water will evaporate, if in liquid form, or sublime, if in solid form. Technically there is an equilibrium process going on, and some molecules of H2O are going back to the bulk liquid or solid, but the net flow is a diminution of the water reservoir.

        • Okay. I preface this with I’m a non scientist newbie trying to understand the whole rigmarole of CC. I’ve visited here, there, and places in between.
          But having said that, even I got this one. Dry ice? (Made that up in my itty bitty brain)

    • Ice does not melt in -30 C, but it does evaporate into dry air, and more importantly, under the huge pressure, it flows towards the sea, where it does melt.
      The question is how much mass loss there is and is that random variation or systematic loss, and do we have to do something on it. I do not believe we should, but lets not be ignorant about melting.

  6. Ok folks, I just scratched the surface of this concept. What else should be on the list? With all the great commenters, editors and fact checkers on WIWT, we should be able to come up with a really bulletproof list. Eventually people might even start to listen…

  7. This is mostly well done. However I have this against the “denier” label being used in reverse. I have read plenty of vitriol on this site regarding the “denier” moniker applied to skeptics by the “warmists”. Mark, I will not assume that you are one who is offended by it since you include it in your humor but I do find it odd that many who are offended at being linked to holocaust deniers by the term would then be just fine with it being applied to the CAGW proponents. Just a thought. Taking the gloves off in a fight for ideas is a worthy cause. Reverse name calling, especially with a term that is as loaded as “denier” is seems to be beneath the skeptic point of view. The facts as you have presented them speak much more loudly than the headline and finishing sentence.

    • Mirroring an accusation is a pretty good strategy. It gets attention. Many warmists are also engaged in conspiracy ideation (such as a belief that Koch brothers behind every denial). Revealing this aspect produces a probably useless but entertaining torrent of denial.
      Intelligent observers will realize that all normal human beings recognize or suspect the existence of conspiracy ranging from ordinary corporate boardroom strategy sessions to things more sinister.
      The effect therefore is to “take it off the table” of argumentation. If a warmist cites Koch brothers, the automatic response is to take note of his conspiratorial ideation. Thank you Dr. Lewandowsky for a bit of entertainment.

    • I didn’t intend to reply at all, but this comment speaks to me.
      I’m a denier. In fact I’m a sceptic, largely because the whole Global Warming sideshow just doesn’t feel like science to me, and never did. It feels more like the sort of politically motivated pseudoscience that I was always taught to distrust. But I find that even thinking about it makes me a “denier”.
      I never intended to take sides. I resent it that there even are sides. My politics are left of centre, I’ve never been accused of being a libertarian, and if I’m in the pay of Big Oil I wish their cheques would come through some time soon…
      All I ever wanted to do was look at the evidence and, once in a while, say “Hang on a minute…” And, boy, are there plenty of opportunities to use that phrase! Naturally. This isn’t the sort of subject where everything just lines up. (In fact the very monolithicality of Climate Research is one of the things that make me sceptical. They never seem to disagree with each other.)
      There’s something here that the warmists don’t seem to get. I don’t believe they’re wrong. I just don’t believe, truly, deeply, fanatically, that they’re *right*!

  8. “You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2.
    Shouldn’t there be a a “hasn’t” instead of a “had” in that sentance ? Or can’t I read?

    • Mike Submitted on 2014/10/24 at 8:45 am

      “You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 17+ years despite rapid growth of CO2.

      Shouldn’t there be a a “hasn’t” instead of a “had” in that sentence ? Or can’t I read?

      It is a difficult sentence to write right when there are 6 competing thoughts that need to be expressed through parady by exaggerating three of the six. I think you are reading it “straight,” as if you were the accused denier. Rather, the deniers are the CAGW catastrophysists who DO believe the atmosphere has warmed the past 18 years.
      Over last 18 years, temperature has not risen. A CAGW climate science denier DOES claim that temperatures are now “the hottest week ever”, “the hottest summer ever”, “the hottestest decade ever”, despite the world-wide satellite evidence.
      Over the last 18 years, temperatures have not risen even though CO2 has risen steadily. A climate science denier DOES believe as a matter of faith that any rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperatures.
      Over the previous 18 years as CO2 rose steadily, global average air temperatures did go up slightly, but global average ocean temperatures did not go up.
      Over the last 18 years as CO2 rose steadily, global average air temperatures were steady while global average ocean temperatures did not go up measurably. A CAGW climate science denier not only denies the “Pause” but also claims that ocean temperatures DID rise over the past 18 years despite the lack of measurements.

    • Read it with the introduction: ie “You are a denier if you believe the atmosphere has continued to warm”

    • That sentence is wrong, but because of the word ‘despite’. It should be replaced with ‘due to’ or ‘because of’.
      [Again: remember the intent and dilemma of writing sarcasm and parody correctly: If it were easier, more people would be successful comedians than successful (ie, rich and powerful) politcians. .mod]

  9. Oops – um, WUWT…
    Forgive me. While you all are just getting up and thinking clearly, for me it is two beers past 10pm where we just rolled in to Singh Reap Cambodia, a place full of wats of the Angkor kind. Hard to keep it all straight…

  10. Small correction. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air, but it can sublimate (transition directly from ice to water vapor).

  11. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.

    I think it does in climate models run on super computers which generate tons of heat.
    Drum roll please…

  12. I like this article, I’ve had many of the same thoughts myself. However I think it is oversimplifying things in a couple areas. Good point about the air temperature in Antarctica not being the cause of the shrinking Antarctic ice sheet, all areas of the Antarctic land mass have an average yearly temperature below freezing, the average for the continent is -37°C. However ice can melt in sub-freezing temperatures if it is in the sun (I think the dark soot on the Greenland sheet is causing an increased sun melting rate there, haven’t seen any evidence of that happening in Antarctica though), and ice can sublimate below freezing and lose mass also. And when people say antarctic ice is decreasing they are not talking about surface area generally, they are talking about land area volume or mass of ice since loss of ice mass on land sheets is what will raise sea levels. Antarctic ice volume is harder to measure, but NASA has a measurement here:
    The mechanism that the ice is Antarctica is decreasing (if it really is, not 100% sure I trust NASA data, they are getting fat off climate change study money too) is something I don’t understand, it may be due to a warming ground beneath the ice, volcanically, as you say, but as with many things related to global warming issues the more I learn the more complicated it seems.

    • In addition, the last measurements by some antarctic meteolorogical stations show that the last winter temperatures have reached record lows. In the french Dumont d’Urville never a june month was colder since that station was settled than june 2014.

  13. Mod– not sure why my last post is still in moderation. I can’t see anything in it that violates any of the rules regarding posting. Seems to me 30 minutes in detention is a bit long?
    [No. It is what it is when life happens. .mod]

  14. Just out of curiosity, what is the ‘likely, very likely, extremely likely’ style title for 97% sure? I’d just like to know in time for AR6 since they’ll obviously be that positive of their ‘Science’ by then.

    • I believe it is a measure of the confidence expressed by the IPCC at each stage, pointing out the preposterous way in which their expressions of confidence increase even as their models diverge.

      • Well, yes. But what I was asking was what you CALL a 97% confidence level. If >60% = Likely, >90% = Very Likely, and >95% = Extremely Likely, what does >97% equal? Super Likely? Incredibly Likely? Ludicrous Speed Ludicrously Likely? What’s the NAME for this ultimate consensus level of confidence?

  15. Danny: It’s not just strictly a numbers game. Remember, the “Climate Catastrophists” were the ones who claimed that anyone who agreed with them was a “Climate Scientist’. The people who are skeptics, among other things, insist that any claims made must be testable, verifiable and all data and codes be made available to see if the work is replicable. Unfortunately there are number of practitioners on the other side of the divide that refuse to do so. So yes, there are a good number of people on this side of the fence that are “scientists” who happen to study climate and climate related phenomena.

    • What did I miss, what did I miss?
      When I replied to you I was thinking about your previous:”Well, if I remember correctly, the people who came up with that 97% consensus claim, defined a “Climate Scientist” as one who has more than 50% of his papers/articles published in peer-reviewed journals that purport to be concerned with climate issues.”
      That made think that if “Climate Scientists” on this side could do the same? Score could be kept, uniforms, the whole bit. 🙂
      Heck, I was even thinking that if/when I gain enough of an understanding I might “become one” (When I grow up) (Not picking a side).
      As I’ve shared, I trying to learn enough to know what questions to ask? But you know that already.
      Thanks again.

      • Well, Actually I didn’t state that clearly enough. The source of that 97% of “Climate Scientists” say that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming comes from two now thoroughly discredited surveys that mailed out over 11000 questionnaires (with only 2 questions on it) to people who had published papers concerning climate. They got about 3000 replies. Then they used the criterion I stated above and narrowed it down some more. When all was said and done they had 77 answers and of those 77 answers only 75 of them completely agreed with their thesis. 75/77= 97.4%. The other source of the claim is from “the Hockey Team” (aka Michael Mann and company) who said that only those who published papers in journals they approved of could be called “Climate Scientists”. Anyone else was either incompetent, deluded, or in the pay of “big oil’ (ie a shill for the oil/gas or coal industries). Or worse yet… anti-science.

      • greymouser70
        October 25, 2014 at 3:44 am
        … The source of that 97% of “Climate Scientists” say that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming comes from two now thoroughly discredited surveys that mailed out over 11000 questionnaires (with only 2 questions on it) to people who had published papers concerning climate.

        First filter: I understand there were 5 questions on the original survey – but we have never been told what the other three questions were, not what the replies to those three questions were.
        Second filter: The second criteria used for ranking the few who did reply was number of publications – again, emphasizing the “appeal to authority” (listen to the consensus) needed by the ones in authority! Notice that the “person” was ranked. NOT the paper itself. If, for example, three people were compared: The first was thrown out because she had only 3 papers – even if they were very important. The second was thrown out because he had 12 papers written and 3 textbooks and over 12 years teaching had reviewed 232 papers. Who was accepted? The person who co-authored 42 papers pal-reviewed citing the work done by the first two, who closest approach to new data was sitting on the board approving next-years budget for the other two!
        Third filter: The resulting list was filtered by government money/government job: Those who worked in the private industry or a non-official institution were thrown out. This left 77 government-paid “officials” answering two questions out of 13,000 scientists who were originally asked five questions about climate.
        The proper summary to the 97% mantra is to agree: “97% (75 out of 77) of government-paid scientists agree that raising 1.3 trillion dollars a year in carbon taxes will be good for the government that pays their salaries and research grants and the government computer programs that they use. And I agree with them! “The earth’s temperature is rising, and mankind is responsible for some part of that increase in temperatures in recent years.”
        We profoundly disagree with them on how much the earth’s temperature is rising now – and if it is continuing to rise at all the past 18 years much less what the earth’s temperature will be in 100 years, how much of the latest increase is due to man’s actions, how beneficial increased CO2 and lower energy costs are to world at large, how much greater harm the government’s CAGW exaggerations are doing to billions of the world’s poor and suffering.

        • RA,
          Thank you. Gives me food for thought and more to research. Sure sounds like a “numbers game”
          You know, the irony of this all is that the reason I’m here it due to lack of comfort with what I was hearing, so maybe I’m “skeptical” after all. Shoulda started off with that.
          Grey, can’t help but believe you’ll see this to so will thank you (again) also here.

    • Absolutely agree! In fact, Moderators, in spite of the fact that I have seen no “sticky post” since the new format, I believe with a bit of grooming as suggested above, this should be the first.

  16. Yes, We believe that 97% of climate scientists
    support the claim that global warming is
    driven directly by man-made CO2.

  17. Hello Mark, We criticize others for having outdated material so we should be careful our own material is not outdated. Your first graph, in my opinion should only show RSS as follows:
    Hadcrut3 has not been updated since May.
    Hadsst2 has not been updated since June. And on top of that, Hadsst3 no longer shows a flat or negative slope for any length of time at all.
    As for Hadcrut4, it has not been updated on WFT since July. The reason is that WFT only shows Hadcrut4.2, although Hadcrut4.3 is now out. But WFT does not show it yet. September is not out yet, but the possibility is there that the slope may only be positive for all lengths of time. I understand it only needs to be 0.639 to have no negative slope and it was 0.669 last month.

  18. Good list, but I didn’t see anything about the polar bears. Don’t our friends on the left harbor the notion that they are on the brink of extinction?

  19. Oh! and don’t our very good friends on the left tell us that when the glaciers disappear that the rivers in those valleys will run dry?
    Such is not the case, it will still rain and snow, and the rivers will still flow.

  20. I’ve been suggesting for more than a year now that global warmists should be characterized as deniers of reality. Glad to see that someone finally did a full blown job.

  21. ” Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.” Uhm… Over simplified. My (Chicagoland) house faces south. In the winter (duh!), when we get a load of snow overnight and we have a clear sky the next day, my driveway will usually be clear of snow by the time I return home from work. The folks across the street, not so much. I think it has something to do with that big hot thing in the sky heating the black asphalt driveway. It always works better when I scrape a few lines with the snow shovel to uncover a bit of black. So, between melting and sublimation, the snow goes away. Temps can be near zero F and it still goes away.

  22. I fail to understand the issues some people seem to have with the word “denier”. I DENY the reality of Anthropological Global Warming and will say it in the face of anybody who believes what they have been told otherwise. That makes me a DENIER by definition. I am proud to be one.

  23. “Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.”
    Funny how they keep doing that…putting it somewhere that can’t be measured. Almost seems intentional 😉
    They’ve GOT to be running out of places though…

  24. Mark, Great work! And could make it even better with the good suggestions above. And then (maybe) we find money (out of our own pockets, if needed) to distribute it more widely. Or even get a TV stand-up comedian to do it as a gig (in simpler form), as a You Tube video. Can easily link to all the back-up graphs as proof to keep the loud mouth deniers at bay.
    I assume you seen the guy that does the “You might be redneck if you…..”

    And one more idea: You might be a denier if you think CO2 is not crucial to life on earth…”

    • Here’s a few oldies along the same line…
      Reed Coray
      August 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm
      Gunga Din says: August 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm
      If you’re idea of saving the Great Barrier Reef from human influence is for humans to throw a really BIG blanket on it …. You might be a Green-neck.
      Green-neck, now that I like. It opens up a whole new world of jokes–ala Jeff Foxworthy–e.g., “If your garden is used to power your car, you might just be a green-neck.”
      If your idea of saving the planet is to watch to watch an ice sculpture melt in DC, you just might be a green-neck.
      August 20, 2012 at 9:44 pm
      If you think we can save people from starving by burning the food, you just might be a green-neck.
      John F. Hultquist
      August 20, 2012 at 10:12 pm
      If your compost pile has a higher IQ than you do, you might just be a green-neck.
      If you would sign a petition to get all CO2 out of the atmosphere, you might just be a green-neck.
      Reed Coray
      August 21, 2012 at 11:54 am
      If the centerfold of your favorite magazine is Michael Mann, you might just be a green-neck.
      If your recently approved grant proposal was originally a story rejected by the SyFy Channel as being “to bizarre”, you might be a green-neck.
      If you’ve ever considered wearing a gas mask to capture your own CO2 emissions, you might be a green-neck.
      If you’ve replaced your black-velvet portrait of Elvis with a black-velvet portrait of Al Gore, you might be a green-neck.

  25. Mark,
    Excellent treatise, illustrating ‘humorous turnabout is fair play’!
    Made my day – Thanks!

  26. “They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.”
    Evidence shows us that the oceans have continued to warm, which is where 90% of global warming goes.
    Also, the past 12 months has been the warmest on record. The surface warming “pause” is over.

    • Hmmm…interesting wording. Exactly what is a “climate threat”?…is it the same as a weather threat?…if so, they most certainly will get to do exactly that at some point.

  27. The sad part about this is that most people don’t look any deeper than mainstream media freaking out about climate change. I myself totally believed we were doomed, until about a year or so ago I decided to delve a little deeper because I read something somewhere about the Texas drought and how it might or might not be caused by ‘Climate Change’.

  28. Like all habitual liars, they will continue the lie till beyond the bitter end, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. They have painted themselves in to a corner and must continue to tell new lies to maintain the line. The excuses get ever more bizarre to buy time. Like all liars, they hope to die before their lives of lies are uncovered.

  29. This should be a movie or video, put it on u tube with a great voice explaining the charts and hope it will go viral. Maybe some of those rich oilmen will pay to put it on the networks as an add.
    Great summary with a punch!

  30. The word ‘deny’ is a very descriptive and useful word. There is nothing inherently wrong with the word or with the process of denying certain things.
    The person who coined the phrase climate change denier was indeed equating climate crisis skeptics with Holocaust deniers. And that is where the issue lies; not in the word ‘denier’ but in the accusation of denying known facts. The real irony here is that climate crisis skeptics are not denying any known facts, while the warmests are continually denying many known facts.
    In psychology, there is a name for the behavior of accusing another of the crime you are committing. It is called ‘projection’. A very angry and attacking person will accuse the much calmer people around him of being very angry and attacking. This behavior is quite common in people who have serious personality disorders, although it is not limited to them. The behavior is completely irrational.
    So…when we became offended when an irrational person demonstrated the behavior of someone with a serious personality disorder, it actually gave credence to the deranged individual and his statement. It is like getting offended when a man you know to have Turret’s Syndrome calls you a foul name. You would only be upset if you actually believed the man was expressing a legitimate viewpoint. By getting upset, you show the rest of the world that you think there is something to the man’s insulting language, besides a bizarre mental issue.
    A more appropriate response to the initial ‘climate crisis skeptic/Holocaust denier’ connection would have been some compassion for the source, pointing out the irrationality of the statement, and expressing concern that the source would soon be receiving some psychological help. The above article would have been useful in cementing just how irrational the attempted connection was, and how the speaker was obviously ‘projecting’, similar to those with serious mental disorders. The whole thing would have ended right there.
    Instead…we became offended, giving the statement and the source legitimacy, while destroying the functionality of a perfectly good word. Articles like this one are a step in reversing our mistakes.
    Well done!

    • Thanks for the lucid analysis. Spot on. What got me going on this idea was an AGW zealot friend. I casually asked if he had seen a particular study mentioned on WUWT. He got a look of horror on his face and screamed, “Scumsucking denialist claptrap!” Explaining that this was just a summary of a peer reviewed study was useless.
      My desire in all this is that the counter charges would create confusion and like matter and anti-matter mutually anihalate the entire concept and use of the word.

    • Jim Clarke says:
      The person who coined the phrase climate change denier was indeed equating climate crisis skeptics with Holocaust deniers. And that is where the issue lies; not in the word ‘denier’ but in the accusation of denying known facts. The real irony here is that climate crisis skeptics are not denying any known facts, while the warmists are continually denying many known facts.

      True dat. “Denier” is a pejorative, and Margaret Hardman is attempting to mislead again. Columnist Ellen Goodman originally appended the “denier” label to scientific skeptics of catastrophic AGW. You could even look it up.
      It is true that the real deniers are Michael Mann’s acolytes. They believe Mann’s Hockey Stick chart that showed essentially no global temperature change prior to the Industrial Revolution. But of course, skeptics have always known that the climate always changes, and always will change.
      Further, CO2 has nothing measurable to do with global temperature. I invite Margaret or anyone else to prove me wrong: simply post a testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the specific amount of global warming due to human CO2 emissions.
      But so far, the alarmist clique has not been able to find a single verifiable measurement quantifying the amount of global warming that can be directly attributed to human activity, out of the total global warming of ≈0.7ºC over the past century and a half. For all anyone really knows, human emissions have zero effect on global T. Because their belief is based entirely upon their assertions; it is 100% measurement-free opinion.
      Catastropic AGW is ALL conjecture. Nothing more. It is simply an opinion, with no supporting measurements. Without measurements, it is hardly a scientific position, is it?
      So the alarmist crowd is left with very weak tea: they only have their Holocaust comparisons for their argument. But that is not science. That is desperation on their part. They are desperate to keep their carbon scare alive. But really, they have no supporting facts or measurements that are worth a fig.
      I truly wish that M. Hardman or anyone else could find actual measurements to support their True Belief. Then we could have a real science discussion, instead of having to endure their incessant religious beliefs and insults.

  31. “The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably
    not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.”
    — H.L. Mencken
    How else can one explain all the damage done to economies and people around the world by fools who thought that anthropogenic released CO2 had any measurable net effect on climate? I am becoming pessimistic that we can ever shake lose from this madness. After all, it is exactly as Mencken pointed out:

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed–and hence clamorous to be led to safety–by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    A tiny bit more CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the greatest imaginary hobgoblins that the governments have come up with yet. It means ever more power over people and is the “health of the state” as much as war itself is.

  32. Okay, I have a question: if 99.7% of articles don’t claim human caused global warming, but 0.5% do, how does that work. 99.7+0.5 = 100.2.

  33. Good article, ‘despite’ the grammar of the first sentence:)
    I dig the essence of the 97% vs. 99.7% graphic, but 99.7+0.5% doesn’t equal 100%, and people pick up on that right away.

  34. The Astrology Branch in the Physics Department at every State U must be getting nervous about future public funding. Must be hard for the astrologers to see their sister branch of climate science soothsayer ‘projections’ not working out too well.

Comments are closed.