It's interesting that those who resent being called denialists are comfortable with calling AGW supporters "believers" or "alarmists".

Scientists are trained be skeptics. We have the example of Muller who employed the science to find empirical evidence. He was known and supported as a "skeptic", and he found that his studies concurred with the majority of climate scientists.

The "skeptics" then dumped him in no uncertain terms, calling him a fake skeptic.

Denialist seems a more accurate term for those who reject the majority findings of climate scientists, especially when the arguments in favour of rejecting AGW emanate in the main from people who are not climate scientists.

You've just got to shake your head at what's been postulated here.

Quite a few posts have mentioned the unassailable fact that there has been no warming in the past decade and a half. That seems rather important...its hard to have AGW without the "W". But those who want AGW to be true, just ignore that point on the basis, it seems, that any data that doesn't comply with cherished beliefs must be wrong.

The halt in rises, apart from giving cause to doubt the theory, should also cause people to evaluate the predictive abilities of the combatants. Who among the so-called consensus predicted the halt in the temperature increases? Which model predicted it? None? Well why think they'll be any better predicting what will happen in the next 10, 20 50 years?

On the other hand, there were people who predicted it. Primarily they are solar scientists and/or those who put greater weight in the effect of the sun as against a trace gas. Who'd have thunk it...that big yellow ball in the sky has an effect on the climate.

So do we follow those who have been monumentally wrong about the past 15years? What do those who were right say about the nfuture?Well they predict a slow decline in temps over the next 20-30 years followed by another jump similar to the 1975-1995 jump followed by a further decline with 2100AD having a similar climate to now. How can they be simply dismissed as tools of Big Oil or whatever?

We also seem to have a large group who simply accept the AGW story because, they opine, there is a consensus of scientists who accept it. And how do they know there is a consensus? Well people who claim to be in the consensus told 'em! A bit like being told by a priest that there is a consensus that God exists...and believing it.

There is no consensus. Its a political confection. The various petitions disputing the consensus are next to useless but they do indicate that their thousands of scientists prepared to stand up for the truth.

mhaze,

Cherry-picking short-term trends while ignoring the long-term trend is standard "skeptic" practice.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

yada,yada, yada..."believers", yada, yada.....

It's a hollow analogy...a desperate hollow analogy from those who reject the conclusions of people who are trained in the various disciplines.

Sad really.

Poirot,

It may be beyond your calculation skills but when we talk of no warming for the past 16yrs our starting point is 1997 not 1998. But off you go and find a polemic site that says its invalid to use 1998 as a starting point and then pronounce yourself vindicated.

I guess this is as far as your understanding goes, but I would point out that warimist organisation like the MET and high-priests of the consensus like Phil Jones have also conceded that there has been no warming since since the mid-1990s. But if you don't want that to be true, then just go on pretending it isn't.

As to the solar scientists, I pointed out that they were among those who predicted the lack of warming. So off you go and find some article that says that the IPCC has pronounced that one solar scientists theories are wrong. And again you pronounce yourself suitably convinced. Might I point out that Svensmark hasn't completed his experiments ( and unlike climate scientists his is doing lab experiments) so how they can know he's wrong is a puzzle. And this is the same IPCC who declared that those who said there would still be glaciers in the Himalayas after 2035 were wrong. And you know how that turned out, or do you?
Besides, even if Svensmark turns out to wrong, that hardly invalidates ALL solar science.

Poirot, if you want to remain convinced in your ignorance and to continue to run off to activist sites to find out how to ignore unwanted data, so be it. But don't pretend that this gives you any insight into the issue.

Quote mhaze
"Quite a few posts have mentioned the unassailable fact that there has been no warming in the past decade and a half. That seems rather important...its hard to have AGW without the "W". But those who want AGW to be true, just ignore that point on the basis, it seems, that any data that doesn't comply with cherished beliefs must be wrong."
End quote

______________________________________________________________________________________
The above claim in no way gels with the evidence, at this point you are entering the realm of irrational beliefs which is ironic considering the point of the original article.

Would you care to explain why 2/3 of the recent summer ice loss in the Arctic has occurred over the last 12 years?

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/1800tsuws5obkjpg/original.jpg

http://io9.com/5945658/what-the-hell-is-happening-to-the-arctic-sea-ice

mhaze,

"...our starting point is 1997 not 1998..."

Well, that makes all the difference!

There's nothing like a formally defined cherry pick to debunk AGW.

(smile)