And Mann and the crew at East Anglia aren’t? At this point, the issue is so politicized that everyone is an advocate for their side rather than being a dispassionate observer.
Let’s the guy’s work speak for itself. He’s a legitimate scientist who, as an expert in remote sensing, brings an important perspective to the debate. Let other scientists review his work. If it passes peer review and other critical examinations, it doesn’t matter if he’s Jack the Ripper.
Agreed. The Yahoo link was rather less than objective, so I felt compelled to point that out, is all.
How do you plan to stop the warming? By having big government interfere with the free market? If so, that’s going to make 'em skeptical as the default.
Shucks, imagine two impossible things: first, that I have access to a working time machine and so can now talk my skeptical younger self into getting right on this problem; and second, that I at present give a crap about global warming. How would the conversation go?
“So here I am in 1998, to help the government mess with the free market!”
“What? Why?”
“Impending global warming!”
“You mean it’ll get warmer next year?”
“No, cooler. You’re thinking weather, not climate.”
“Ah. But it’ll get warmer between now and 2000?”
“No, cooler. You’re still thinking short-term.”
“But it’ll get warmer by 2001?”
“No, cooler. Keep going.”
“So, '02, '03, '04…”
“…cooler, cooler, cooler.”
“Does it get warmer by '05?”
“Yes.”
“Really?”
“Er, no.”
“How about '06?”
“Considerably cooler.”
“Or '07? '08? '09?”
“All cooler. See the looming threat?”
“The threat of global cooling?”
“We call it ‘climate change’ now.”
“But it’ll get warmer between now and 2010?”
“Not exactly. But in a very real sense…”
“So that’s a no.”
“Well, if you want to get all technical about it.”
“And 2011?”
“It’s too soon to say; I just got here from there.”
“For some reason, I’m not convinced.”
“About the time travel?”
“No, that’s slightly more plausible.”
And it’s so bad it’s bleeding over to Mars! 
Can I ask you, are any of the various things you’ve been wrong about since you made that account sinking in?
Pat Michaels, one of the few remaining skeptical scientists said it best. Do not use this point of "it has not warmed or that it is cooling in the last few years. You will kill us (skeptics in the public arena).
It seems that The Other Waldo Pepper likes to massacre all deniers and skeptics. 
Oh, I’d never point to the last few years. Your criterion of choice is fifteen years, right? We’re most of the way there.
It is still a dumb point to make, most scientists began to worry in the 50’s and most predictions expected a warming trend… even though there was a cooling one going in 60’s and 70’s. It is more than 15 years already and the only reason why to concentrate on years like 1998 is only to confuse people.
So call your shot: if fifteen years aren’t enough, then how many years would it take? I often enjoy hearing what hypothetical evidence could falsify someone’s predictions, and can assure you that this is no exception.
I saw this one a few weeks back. The alarmist Yahoo article alarms me by talking about alarmist computer models. Sweet Eris, it’s a badly written article. (Did you know that scientists use alarmist computer models? Frankly, I think this is a good idea, as these types of models typically have long run times and an alarm to let you know when it’s complete would be handy.)
But that’s bad reporting. On to the bad science. Here’s some of the rebuttals to the paper:
Just Put the Model Down, Roy | Climate Asylum (Technically, I don’t think this is in response to the paper, but his modeling technique in general.)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/
Everyone can see that you are ignoring on purpouse the predictions made in the past so, not playing your “confuse others” game.
Far from ignoring predictions made in the past, I’ll gladly quote predictions you’ve made in the past right back to you: “for the purpose of falsifying the theory I would not expect to see increases … The point is that if in the next 10 years the temperatures remain constant or cooling that then the theory will suffer a huge blow … A temperature decrease in the next decade should indeed count against the current theories regarding AGW IMHO.”
I’ve merely been waiting since then to see whether it plays out that way. You wrote: “It is clear to me that that it can be falsified in less than 20 years (as 10 or so years of ‘apparent cooling’ showed up)” – and sure as fifteen is less than twenty, twenty gets closer every year…
And that will discredit what scientists said in the past? What you are doing here is just a form of a strawman argument. As I said many times before what it counts is what scientists said. What I said was just a “humor him” “bet”. A not very useful one as it is clear you are using it to ignore what the cite said.
Escentially that the 1998 and other recent years to start counting are made just to confuse people.
Hey, if that’s the best you can offer when asked what would hypothetically falsify your claims – if it essentially makes you a strawman – that tells me something interesting about you: you’re not making falsifiable claims. If any scientists were posting here, I’d ask them what would hypothetically falsify their claims – and if they backed away as quickly as you just did, specifying that they can only offer a “humor him” bet, I’d be just as delighted.
Well, that’s pretty much the whole reason I asked you to call your shot; if you think the problem is “recent years to start counting”, then by all means spell out how many more years it needs to go on for until “recent” eventually morphs into a long enough stretch of years for you.
Unless, as you suggest, you’re not the one with an opinion that counts.
Piffle.
That is another way of saying “I hope no one notices I avoided dealing with the cite”.
Ding Ding Ding!
We have a winner!
It seems that for some reason you are ignoring that I agree with the (in real life) science writer that is known as Potholer54 on youtube. What it matters is the positions of the experts, and when even the very few scientists that are skeptics have dropped this silly point, then one can say safely that whoever wants to press it is just pushing ridiculous points.
Quoth The Other Waldo Pepper:
What free market? A very large part of the problem is that we don’t have a free market for energy, since one of the major costs is externalized. But just let the government try to implement a free market, and oh, boy, do the right-wingers get up in arms about it.
So long as we first make clear that I’m asking for what would falsify your claims, and you’re refusing to answer in earnest, I’ll gladly then move on to what would falsify the claims of folks you’re citing:
So, as I said: what does that “(in real life) science writer that is known as Potholer54 on youtube” say would hypothetically falsify his claims? Ten years? Fifteen years? Twenty years? Copy-and-paste his response and I’ll treat it just as seriously as yours.
Cite?
And then you ignore it again… pathetic.
:rolleyes:
His point was that his opinions were not important what counted was the positions of the scientists, and when even the minority skeptical scientists are telling you to drop this silly point…
I’ll gladly drop it in favor of a better one. Don’t just tell me this won’t falsify his position; go one step further, tell me what would falsify his position, and I’ll run with that instead.