# Climate change deniers like Anthony Watts and the Republican leadership got a boot to the head. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 28, 2011, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041 "2011-10-28T05:00:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/61 "2011-10-31T23:55:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And it is still really silly to claim you looked at all the UN reports just for shits and googles, 🙂 if you had read them, you would not had arrived to your original line of questioning I’m afraid you’ll have to clarify; are you referring to how my original line of questioning involved asking you for your goalpost, at which point I promptly looked for the raw numbers you specified rather than anything else in the reports? I couldn’t have done otherwise. > [@](#): > > What is important, is that all get aware that many of our leaders have been taken by the denialist information out there and it is very important to be aware of that. What’s important is that predictions are falsifiable; your original was; you eventually moved the goalposts to another falsifiable point; I commend you on both. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/62 "2011-11-01T00:24:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh, it is just **Waldo** , still playing in the branches of the tree I see. 🙂 And picking at his nits. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/63 "2011-11-01T01:56:46Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > And picking at his nits. Yep, it is interesting that picking at nits is the all important thing and so he can avoid to even have to comment on why Judith Curry has egg on her face for doing the 100th version of “warming has stopped” “in the last ten years or so” argument. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/64 "2011-11-01T12:57:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yep, it is interesting that picking at nits is the all important thing It’s only all-important in that it comes before everything else. When confronted by a prediction, step one is to discover whether it’s falsifiable; we shouldn’t get to step two or step three or whatever until we’ve answered that first crucial question. > [@](#): > > and so he can avoid to even have to comment on why Judith Curry has egg on her face for doing the 100th version of “warming has stopped” “in the last ten years or so” argument. If it were still relevant, I’d comment on it. I surely would’ve commented on it had you posted that when your original goalposts were in place; you’ve since moved the goalposts, such that the argument at issue (a) is no longer relevant and so (b) no longer requires a comment. At present, we’re on the same side. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/65 "2011-11-01T17:26:19Z")
[Same old song-and-dance](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HAjhtPZGDY). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/66 "2011-11-01T18:28:02Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > [Same old song-and-dance](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HAjhtPZGDY). Yes, everyone come gape at the guy who (a) invariably asks that predictions be falsifiable, and (b) swiftly agrees to the other side’s moved goalposts of choice. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/67 "2011-11-01T19:06:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The biggest single thing we can do on that front is adopt policies that internalize the costs associated with fossil fuels for U.S. businesses, and then let the free market work its magic. Right now, U.S. businesses’ incentives are skewed by the fact that people don’t have to pay for the costs of the damage they cause (not even talking about climate change here, but much more direct stuff like asthma). If you make them pay for the consequences with a carbon tax or carbon cap with marketable permits, then you encourage them to innovate cleaner, cheaper solutions that can be sold abroad. The problem I have with this approach is the vagueness of it all. With a physical object (car, gasoline, clothes, food) I can see (and possess) a tangible asset. With services (doctor’s exam, car repairs), I can see the person “leanding” me their skills and training, and I grok the benefit. With a “carbon credit” (or tax), it’s an item (not tradable by myself as the end purchaser) that doesn’t seem to _do_ anything. It’s value is whatever some faceless beaurecrat says it is. (I bid 200 quat-loos!) Considering the point that the OWS are trying to make in that money corrupts both buisness and politics, can you not see where I would worry that such a system [carbon tax] could be abused? It smells like a scam in the making… ☹ ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/68 "2011-11-01T20:26:27Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > [Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real.](http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html) The irony is that his studies were funded by a denier organization. I saw a program on it the other day. They used a billion data points and the studies they were claiming were flawed all over the right wing mainstream press a couple years ago, were all found correct. It will not get the play the old stories got though. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/69 "2011-11-02T00:22:00Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > The problem I have with this approach is the vagueness of it all. > > With a physical object (car, gasoline, clothes, food) I can see (and possess) a tangible asset. With services (doctor’s exam, car repairs), I can see the person “leanding” me their skills and training, and I grok the benefit. > > With a “carbon credit” (or tax), it’s an item (not tradable by myself as the end purchaser) that doesn’t seem to _do_ anything. It’s value is whatever some faceless beaurecrat says it is. (I bid 200 quat-loos!) > > Considering the point that the OWS are trying to make in that money corrupts both buisness and politics, can you not see where I would worry that such a system [carbon tax] could be abused? It smells like a scam in the making… ☹ > **[The Great American Bubble Machine](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/)** > > Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to d Old, but still relevant. Not sure how reliable of a source Michael Savage is, but yeah… Good in theory, but in practice, it could prove to be an issue. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/70 "2011-11-02T00:53:04Z")
Which Savage? The “Savage Love” guy or the troglodyte radio host? 🙂 It all depends on the details, as for that last cite, I do not think that Goldman would be able to benefit now as it was drubbed by the meltdown and it is currently still losing money. What is needed then is to learn from past mistakes and make well designed Cap-and-Trade and carbon tax programs. [http://www.ucsusa.org/global\_warming/solutions/big\_picture\_solutions/cap-and-trade.html](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/cap-and-trade.html) > [@](#): > > Cap and Trade Alone is not Sufficient > > A cap-and-trade program alone would not be sufficient to meet the challenge of climate change. While a cap-and-trade policy would address the failure of the market to account for harm to the climate, it cannot by itself provide sufficient incentives for the technologies and other measures that will be needed to establish a true low-carbon economy. The government must implement parallel policies alongside a cap-and-trade regime to ensure development and deployment of the full range of clean technologies. These policies include requiring utilities to generate a higher percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources, requiring automakers to increase vehicle fuel economy standards, stronger energy efficiency policies, incentives for investments in low-carbon technologies, and policies encouraging smart growth. Studies have shown that a comprehensive approach including these parallel policies would lower the price for allowances, cut emissions, and save consumers money by lowering their electric and gasoline bills. > > What about a Carbon Tax? > > A well-designed cap-and-trade program has an important advantage over a carbon tax. The former would require the specific emissions reductions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, while a carbon tax by itself cannot guarantee any particular level of emissions reductions. Moreover, a cap-and-trade program would more easily dovetail with similar existing and proposed regimes in other countries and regions.In addition, allowing developing countries to sell carbon credits from avoided tropical deforestation emissions reductions would provide a powerful incentive to address the source of some 20 percent of global warming pollution emissions. > > Nevertheless, a carbon tax, like a cap-and-trade program, would use the power of the market to achieve cost-effective emissions reductions, and both would generate revenues that could be used for the public benefit. It may be possible for the two policies to co-exist and complement one another. > > Any effective U.S. climate strategy must cut global warming pollution deeply enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change, which means at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. Emissions trading and carbon taxes are both tools we can used to achieve these reductions, as are technology standards, incentives, and public investment in clean technology and infrastructure. What’s most important is that we move aggressively to address the climate crisis, and that we begin the transition to a low-carbon economy without delay. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/71 "2011-11-02T01:37:00Z")
The OP is a canard. While GIGO assails Anthony Watts for being a hypocrite and a slinger of mud and arrows, he and his ilk are happy to resort to ad-hominem attacks in attempting to discredit skeptics, who by and large _agree_ the earth has warmed in the last 100 years, but disagree there is irrefutable proof man has caused most or all of this warming. The complex factors that create our global climate (and warming) remain poorly understood. Indeed, virtually all models that predict catastrophic causes from increased CO2 emission rely on a speculative, unproven (some might say fictitious) “multiplier effect” on water vapor. Otherwise, the [logarithmic diminishing effect on climate](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/#more-17114) of increased CO2 emissions can’t be accounted for. That is, each additional amount of CO2 [warms the climate far less](http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/index.html) than the other CO2 did before it. Without the invention of a multiplier effect, the dire predictions intended to shock and scare people into action fall flat on their faces. The Skeptical Science site that GIGO links to most frequently is decidedly pro-AGW. That is, it generally advances the viewpoint that man has caused all or most of recently observed warming, and consists of a nicely blended mixture of facts, propaganda, and omission. Yet GIGO likes to pretend this site is objective, while labeling Anthony Watts a “denier.” Anthony Watts’s site is more transparent than many of the pro-AGW sites out there, including your favorite pet site “Skeptical Science.” Watts generally makes very few bones about what his positions are (and why) unlike [that site](http://skepticalscience.com/about.shtml). The fact that GIGO and his ilk deplore Watts while ascribing to the views of advocates-in-scientists-clothing, such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, is amusing. There remain many important, unanswered questions about our climate. Is current warming [simply part of a much longer scale trend dating to the Little Ice age](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/)? Does the water vapor feedback effect really exist as theorized by CAGW proponents? What kind of dampening effect does increased CO2 absorption by plants have? What other feedbacks (dampening or positive) are we not yet aware of, or have misunderstood, or have improperly quantified? GIGO would like you to ignore these questions, because the science is “settled.” What I think that GIGO and many on this board do not appreciate is that the reason that people—sorry, “deniers”—are hostile to climate change scientists is that many of these men and women have abdicated their spots on the sidelines. They are instead performing research and publishing while actively trying to promote political agendas and advocate for outcomes. **It is politics, not science.** I believe GIGO understands this, as he appears quite willing to level this charge against the very “deniers” that he loathes. Hilariously, GIGO fails to appreciate that this exact behavior is being engaged in by bad actors on the side that advocates the belief that man is in the process of causing catastrophic climate change. Politics, not science. Hence the vitriol, the recriminations, and everything else. And as far as politics go, I’d rather not see sweeping changes enacted on me, the United States, or anyone else based on what is still little more than glorified speculation that man is going to cause dire warming in the next century and beyond. This, I suspect, is the underlying root of Scylla’s skepticism, as it is mine. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/72 "2011-11-02T02:01:52Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > The OP is a canard. While GIGO assails Anthony Watts for being a hypocrite and a slinger of mud and arrows, he and his ilk are happy to resort to ad-hominem attacks in attempting to discredit skeptics, who by and large _agree_ the earth has warmed in the last 100 years, but disagree there is irrefutable proof man has caused most or all of this warming. Post #11 and the links showed otherwise. Watts and Co. want to tell others to forget all their previous efforts made to undermine the evidence for that warming. > [@neuroman](#): > > The complex factors that create our global climate (and warming) remain poorly understood. Indeed, virtually all models that predict catastrophic causes from increased CO2 emission rely on a speculative, unproven (some might say fictitious) “multiplier effect” on water vapor. Otherwise, the [logarithmic diminishing effect on climate](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/#more-17114) of increased CO2 emissions can’t be accounted for. That is, each additional amount of CO2 [warms the climate far less](http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/index.html) than the other CO2 did before it. Without the invention of a multiplier effect, the dire predictions intended to shock and scare people into action fall flat on their faces. who are the “some” who say it is fictitious? > [@neuroman](#): > > The Skeptical Science site that GIGO links to most frequently is decidedly pro-AGW. That is, it generally advances the viewpoint that man has caused all or most of recently observed warming, and consists of a nicely blended mixture of facts, propaganda, and omission. Yet GIGO likes to pretend this site is objective, while labeling Anthony Watts a “denier.” Because Watts is. And Skeptical Science links and refers to the published science and evidence. > [@neuroman](#): > > Anthony Watts’s site is more transparent than many of the pro-AGW sites out there, including your favorite pet site “Skeptical Science.” Watts generally makes very few bones about what his positions are (and why) unlike [that site](http://skepticalscience.com/about.shtml). The fact that GIGO and his ilk deplore Watts while ascribing to the views of advocates-in-scientists-clothing, such as James Hansen and Michael Mann, is amusing. Far more amusing is to see that you have to rely on lies to make a point. James Hansen and Michael Mann are scientists and respected, Watts claim to fame was eviscerated by Muller and there is no retraction whatsoever from Watts regarding **his once again demonstrated** shoddy climate station work. > [@neuroman](#): > > There remain many important, unanswered questions about our climate. Is current warming [simply part of a much longer scale trend dating to the Little Ice age](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/)? Does the water vapor feedback effect really exist as theorized by CAGW proponents? What kind of dampening effect does increased CO2 absorption by plants have? What other feedbacks (dampening or positive) are we not yet aware of, or have misunderstood, or have improperly quantified? And here you link once again to the discredited source, ignoring the evidence and research done at NASA and others. > [@neuroman](#): > > GIGO would like you to ignore these questions, because the science is “settled.” What I think that GIGO and many on this board do not appreciate is that the reason that people—sorry, “deniers”—are hostile to climate change scientists is that many of these men and women have abdicated their spots on the sidelines. They are instead performing research and publishing while actively trying to promote political agendas and advocate for outcomes. **It is politics, not science.** I believe GIGO understands this, as he appears quite willing to level this charge against the very “deniers” that he loathes. Hilariously, GIGO fails to appreciate that this exact behavior is being engaged in by bad actors on the side that advocates the belief that man is in the process of causing catastrophic climate change. The overwhelming evidence wrought forward just by the BEST team alone shows that you do not have a clue about what you are saying here. > [@neuroman](#): > > Politics, not science. Hence the vitriol, the recriminations, and everything else. And as far as politics go, I’d rather not see sweeping changes enacted on me, the United States, or anyone else based on what is still little more than glorified speculation that man is going to cause dire warming in the next century and beyond. This, I suspect, is the underlying root of Scylla’s skepticism, as it is mine. Then it is demonstrated to be an unfounded skepticism, and the evidence points to very powerful forces playing you like a fiddle, the discussion now has to focus on what to do, are you cowards willing to continue complaining about the overwhelming supported evidence when the only result is to let groups like Greenpeace dictate the future solutions? > **[Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss](https://skepticalscience.com/scott-denning-reaching-across-abyss-iccc6-heartland-conference.html)** > > Going virtually unnoticed in the climate science world (except for skeptic blogs and certain fair minded mainstream scientists), from June 30 - July 1, 2011, an international conference on the subject of climate change took place in Washington DC,... ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/73 "2011-11-02T02:19:08Z")
GIGO, the fact that you appear to have more zeal than anyone else on this board on the topic of global warming does not make you any more correct. In my estimation, you are nothing more than a tireless (and loathsome, to the extent you engage in name-calling tactics) political operative that advocates for a position that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Keep up the good fight by citing Skeptical Science until you’re blue in the face. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/74 "2011-11-02T02:30:17Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > GIGO, the fact that you appear to have more zeal than anyone else on this board on the topic of global warming does not make you any more correct. Sorry, I came to this discussion from an historical angle, the reality is that after 100 years of research it is really clear that me and the overwhelming number of researchers and scientific organizations are more correct than ever. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) > [@neuroman](#): > > In my estimation, you are nothing more than a tireless (and loathsome, to the extent you engage in name-calling tactics) political operative that advocates for a position that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Keep up the good fight by citing Skeptical Science until you’re blue in the face. Piffle, they are mostly the messenger (as the science is linked on the posts for everyone to check) and you resorting to the killing the messenger fallacy just shows how dishonest you are. And it is not just Skeptical Science BTW, you and Scylla need to do a lot of remedial reading: > **[RealClimate: Start here](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/)** > > RealClimate: \[Note this is page is updated regularly. Please notify us of any dead links. Last update: 10 May 2022.\] We're often asked to provide a one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change, and... But if you do not like that, just check what \*\*Republican \*\*scientists are saying about the issue. [http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/04/09/richard-alley-pbs-special-on-climate-change-and-sustainable-energy-debuts-april-10/](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/04/09/richard-alley-pbs-special-on-climate-change-and-sustainable-energy-debuts-april-10/) > **[Climate Asylum](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/)** > > A Republican Scientist Advocates Sane Energy Policies And then what conservatives that do care about the climate say: > **[HOME - Climate Conservative](https://climateconservative.org/)** > > \[et\_pb\_section fb\_built=”1″ \_builder\_version=”4.0.9″ custom\_margin=”0px||0px||false|false” custom\_padding=”0px||0px||false|false”\]\[et\_pb\_row column\_structure=”2\_3,1\_3″ use\_custom\_gutter=”on” gutter\_width=”2″ \_builder\_version=”4.0.9″... ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/75 "2011-11-02T13:22:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And it is not just Skeptical Science BTW, you and Scylla need to do a lot of remedial reading You’re passing up a golden opportunity with these two, GIGO. If you want to convince them as you convinced me, address their objections the same way. You’re posting in reply to **neuroman** ’s claim that you advocate for _“a position that cannot be objectively demonstrated”_; he believes that as I used to; show him your position _ **can** _ be objectively demonstrated by simply naming it. Tell him what you mean when you predict “global warming”: you have a specific amount of temperature change in mind for a specific timetable, you can spell it out in one sentence. I’d bet you could make him realize you’re right by just posting your prediction. Instead, you post – other stuff. **Scylla** mentions the early snowfall before adding that there’s _“a mile of space between believing and knowing for sure.”_ One sentence from you can _ **explain** _ the irrelevance of that snowfall by shrinking the space between believing and knowing. Upthread, you wrote this about me: _“as I said before, I do post not for him but for others.”_ So post for them _ **by** _ posting your earlier reply to me: tell 'em what you’re predicting, and upon so clarifying see if they don’t suddenly realize that it’s (a) perfectly consistent with all the evidence and (b) something we all need to take seriously. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/76 "2011-11-02T13:30:20Z")
[Snowfalls Are Now Just a Thing of the Past](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/77 "2011-11-02T15:58:38Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > [Snowfalls Are Now Just a Thing of the Past](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html) Linky not working at this time, But even before looking at it, I knew what it was: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/lY-nb4rPcUs/hqdefault.jpg "BP oil spills and an end to snow from potholer54") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY-nb4rPcUs) One of the big reasons why I trust this science writer, is that he also does put down alarmist items that are unfounded, in this case the piece from the Independent was eviscerated for the author not bothering to check on the published science before relying on speculations. What is important to get from this is that it is a link made to the popular press in an attempt to discredit all scientists, it is another trick from the deniers, so instead of dealing with the conservative estimations (yes, the predictions are conservative, but never mind that, even conservative estimations are despised by the deniers) of the published science regarding global warming, deniers just try to make a caricature of what most scientists agree with, it is a straw-man argument. > **[Does record snowfall disprove global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html)** > > The 2009/2010 winter saw a number of dramatic, record breaking snowstorms. Early February saw two 'once in a 100 years' snowstorms hit Philadelphia, now being dubbed 'Snowmageddon'. Does record snowfall prove that global warming isn't happening? What... > [@](#): > > Based on some of the comments below, a few clarifying points are in order. Global warming cannot be said to cause a specific snowstorm or any extreme weather event for that matter. An appropriate metaphor to explain the difference between weather and climate is the rolling of a die. An extreme precipitation event is like rolling a six. The result is based on random, chaotic processes. However, if you weight the die, this increases the chances of rolling a six. Similarly, global warming increases the chances of extreme precipitation events. > > Global warming does not lead to increased snowstorms everywhere. They only increase in colder regions where the temperature still remains below freezing despite warming trends. Snowstorms are currently decreasing in warmer areas. Overall, the total amount of snow cover has shown a long-term decreasing trend. > > So to summate, record snowfall neither proves nor disproves global warming. However, the increasing trend in extreme precipitation events is consistent with global warming. And this will lead to increased snowstorms in certain, colder regions. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/78 "2011-11-02T16:35:18Z")
Here’s a link to Matt Ridley’s recent Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of the Arts, in which he outlines much of the pseudoscience from the global warming zealots: > **[ScientificHeresy.pdf](https://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/102468/14944004/1320269922797/ScientificHeresy.pdf?token=4qREEmLhtGgq%2Bge3q8V5Xclk9M0%3D)** > > 1864.95 KB ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/79 "2011-11-02T16:42:54Z")
> [@Surreal](#): > > Here’s a link to Matt Ridley’s recent Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of the Arts, in which he outlines much of the pseudoscience from the global warming zealots: > > [SAKURA188: Situs Live Casino Online Terbaik Indonesia 2025](http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf) That one’s not loading up for me, but [SAKURA188: Situs Live Casino Online Terbaik Indonesia 2025](http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html) is. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041/80 "2011-11-02T17:13:14Z")
By the way, I don’t engage with **GigoBuster** anymore because of his persistent failure to respond to reasonable questions about his position. Probably they should call him “GoogleSpewer,” because it seems for the most part, he just does key word searches on warmist web sites and then posts lengthy quotes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers-like-anthony-watts-and-the-republican-leadership-got-a-boot-to-the-head/601041.md?page=5)