It is amazing how that anyone wants to link to such discredited sites as WeUseWishfulThinking as cohenite does, they do not provide any credible evidence as neither does he. That site heavily censures people and self posts using other names to support their cause, it is not a free and open site, it also blocks everything it does not like, and is run by a non scientists. Then perhaps to some that is all they can understand and are easily taken in.

cohenite is anti-science all he can manage is calling people names as nothing he has linked to can be relied on or trusted.

The world is warming and no scientist are denying that, it is time for the deniers, they are not skeptics, to start reading and understanding.

PeterA says this:

"cohenite is anti-science all he can manage is calling people names as nothing he has linked to can be relied on or trusted."

One of the links was to OLO where a number of peer reviewed papers disproving AGW were discussed!

The Watts link is to a graph based on GISP2 data; any moron could draw the graph from the data, but PeterA says it is wrong because it is at Watts.

I present evidence from any source which comes from primary sources, such as climate data or peer reviewed papers; I even go to SkS or RC if they are discussing primary data.

But at the end of the day NO evidence is going to change the 'minds' of people like PeterA or the other believers; they are mesmerised by the UN and other 'official' science sources which have been proven to be wrong and to lie.

I am bemused by this mental truncation; the only explanation as Aitkin's article suggests, and has been shown before, is that AGW believers are not following the science, which is BS, but an ideology.

Anyway, I don't mind conversing with idiots; even with half a mind I am in front.

So climate change is, in the word attributed to Tony Abbott, crap?
I accept that there are those who have a quasi-religious belief in anthropogenic climate change.
This does not apply to the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate science papers. Like you, Don, I'm not an expert in climate science and, like you, I don't have a quasi-religious belief in anthropogenic climate change. I just think that the evidence for it is very strong.

Oh dear! The Professor Don has demonstrated that he is too intellectually lazy to bother to distinguish between probability-based decision making and belief in spirit friends.

Cohenite wrote:

"But at the end of the day NO evidence is going to change the 'minds' of people like PeterA or the other believers"

That's true to a point. Since they've arrived at their view not via the evidence but by sheepishly following what they've been told is a consensus, evidence won't disabuse them of their errors.
But as more and more scientists are emboldened to fight back against the so-called consensus we see a growing stampede of those trying to get off the AGW cart while they can still honourably do so. More and more science is fighting through the peer-review censors and the whole edifice is collapsing.
As it does so, the PeterA's of the world will follow the herd. Sure, in 10 years time we'll still have some die-hards telling us that 25years of no warming isn't enough to disprove the models, but most will have moved on to the next apocalyptic scare or (think Gore/Pachauri) to enjoy the millions they made from the scare.

And then the PeterA's of this world will be telling anyone who'll listen how they never really bought the myth. But they will of course totally believe whatever the next scare is. Its happened so often that it takes no real intuition to see the pattern.
We are told these days that no-one really bought the global cooling scare of the 70s or the Murray salinity scare of the 90s or the 'Population Bomb' scare of the eights or the resource depletion scares of the 80's etc etc and this will follow the same pattern.

So I'm afraid we just have to wait for the dullards to catch up and hope that they don't do too much damage in the meantime.

Excellent article Don. This makes the point well:

>“the doomsayers accuse old-fashioned empiricists like me of being 'deniers' or 'denialists' because we do not accept their faith, and the use of those terms has a strongly religious overtone. Even sillier is the notion that people like me are 'denying climate science', as though science too was a body of religious doctrine.”

This extract from a comment on Judith Curry’s recent thread about climate sensitivity makes a similar point a different way.

>“While many estimates have been made, the consensus value often used is ~3°C. Like the porridge in “The Three Bears”, this value is just right – not so great as to lack credibility, and not so small as to seem benign. Huybers (2010) showed that the treatment of clouds was the “principal source of uncertainty in models”. Indeed, his Table I shows that whereas the response of the climate system to clouds by various models varied from 0.04 to 0.37 (a wide spread), the variation of net feedback from clouds varied only from 0.49 to 0.73 (a much narrower relative range). He then examined several possible sources of compensation between climate sensitivity and radiative forcing. He concluded:
>“Model conditioning need not be restricted to calibration of parameters against observations, but could also include more nebulous adjustment of parameters, for example, to fit expectations, maintain accepted conventions, or increase accord with other model results. These more nebulous adjustments are referred to as ‘tuning’.”
He suggested that one example of possible tuning is that “reported values of climate sensitivity are anchored near the 3±1.5°C range initially suggested by the ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate (1979) and that these were not changed because of a lack of compelling reason to do so”.
Huybers (2010) went on to say:
>“More recently reported values of climate sensitivity have not deviated substantially. The implication is that the reported values of climate sensitivity are, in a sense, tuned to maintain accepted convention.”

Cont …