http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
http://joannenova.com.au/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

BTW, there are far more religious freaks who are climate change deniers/ denialists than there are among climate scientists or environmentalists. And their grounds are very much the same claptrap as Creationists/ Intelligent Designerists/ Holocaust deniers/ Aids denialists.-whateverists .. the science does not fit in with their preconcieved “faith” so they must jump through all sorts of hoops usually circling back to something already refuted years ago … & so the process starts again. As an example, consult the ramblings of Sarah Palin, ex-governor turned celebrity, who believes God is too good to put such a nasty trick as climate change so lets drill burn merrily away.

LOL. It wasn’t me I promise, never heard of or been on that site in my life - you should be honored that Johan Cruff takes such an interest in you. Or maybe Jesus Christ?

Nonsense. ‘Denialism’ has not solely been used in reference to Holocaust denial for years. ‘Denialism’ has long since evolved to refer to the denial by proponents of whackjob conspiracy theories of established consensus knowledge and opinion.

Greg was the first to refer to fascism and in Brendan Walsh’s ‘Cool Dublin’ post and is the first to explicitly reference Hitler in this thread. Ergo he proves Godwin’s Law

You don’t seem to understand Godwins Law.

“established theories” ??

And here’s your question answered:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

It’s a pity people who don’t understand how science works feel so free to sneer at established theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

I didn’t call anyone a “denier”

http://andrewnorton.info/2009/12/01/tony-abbott-much-to-like-many-reasons-to-doubt/

“Was it the same JC that suggested that I fathered a child with Michael Crichton?”

LOL. This is a very bizarre accusation - I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.

Two degrees will not become more intractable over time. It is infeasible already. As any self-help book will tell you, if you want to achieve something, you should set yourself realistic goals.

Your take on our exchange is humorous. Of course a 2 degree target becomes more expensive and intractable for every year of business as usual emissions continue - it doesn’t take Steve Schnieder to work that one out (yet you produce this obvious fact like a magician pulling a rabbit from the hat and await the applause of your adoring audience). Concurrently our scientific understanding of impacts, eg: sea level rise, glacier melt etc hardens making urgent action more and more pressing. It is therefore a useful political target as was evidenced through its inclusion in the Copenhagen Accord.

” Well, thanks for that. He should have a blog.”

Do you have a blog?

Oh Great Master teach me, for I am ignorant of the way of your God.

If it is not east four times a day then tell me Master, is it West, North, South?

Master, I crave your wisdom.

Maybe it is all of those. North, South, East and West.

Help me Master.

Please answer my question.

“@ toby,

Please Sir. What’s a denialist?

Is it anything to do with that very bad man Hitler?

Or it’s just a load of Goebbels.”

Maybe your God doesn’t have the balls to answer a question.

Do you?

What I have learned is that Richard Tol thinks “these fellows” (nameless) are religious zealots. Well, thanks for that. He should have a blog. Some people might even perceive a meaning in its oracular utterances.

JC: I believe this because of A.
Tol: But A is not true.
JC: Fine, A is not true. I believe this because of B.
Tol: But B is not true.
JC: Fine, B is not true. I believe this because of C.
Tol: But C is not true.
JC: Fine, C is not true. I believe this nonetheless.

I respect faith. I don’t think it should dress up as reason.

@Toby
No. I do not think that people who research climate change are all religious zealots. Neither do I think that everyone who is concerned about climate change is a religious zealot. However, I do think that there is a number of people out there who mistake climate science for a religion, academics for priests, emissions for sins, and climate change for the apocalypse.

Please Sir. What’s a denialist?

Is it anything to do with that very bad man Hitler?

Or it’s just a load of Goebbels.

Richard Tol, as we know (because he said so), is not a denialist. He, coincidentally, just happens to occasionally parrot their propaganda, like the slur that climate change scientists are religious nuts (see the “these fellows” coments by Richard above).

To attack Dr Pachauri in a blog he does not read and where he cannot defend himself is pretty mean-spirited. I certainly never heard of him until I saw his name in this blog entry. Now I gather he is just a bit ahead of being a crook. This is not exactly “speaking truth to power” is it, Richard?

THIS IS A POST BY YANN AUER, NOT BY PROF HESLIN

Climategate is about data manipulation, that is, “climate change” rather than “anthropogenic climate change”. I think that climategate only marginally weakened the case for both climate change and anthropogenic climate change.

I discuss weather v climate lower down in the op-ed.

Both the floods and the big freeze were just weather, but the former is consistent with climate projections while the latter is not. (So, we learned little about the reality of climate change.) In both cases, improved foresight and a better response could have prevented a lot of the damage.

There are silly people (e.g., John Gibbons) who say that the floods were a sign of climate change while the big freeze was just weather. There are equally silly people (e.g., Richard North) who say that the floods were just weather while the big freeze was a sign that climate change is not real.

Sceptics accept that climate change is occurring, but it is just part of the natural cycle, therefore the statement below says nothing in relation to AGW,

“Climate change is as real now as it was before climategate.”

Is this trying to sow deliberate confusion?

When a flood or hurricane happens that could possibly be related to man made global warming we get statements along these lines,

“November brought rain and floods. Climate change will bring more winter rain in Ireland. The floods, however, were quickly blamed on bad planning and on faults in the response to the emergency. What could have been a rallying cry for emissions reduction became a call for reform in flood management policy.”

However, when we get an exceptionally cold winter, we get the standard line that you can’t link one weather event to climate change, so why not above? Which is it?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/americas/haiti+receives+us+aid+airdrops/3507437

I agree. People have to learn to accept that this is about decision making under uncertainty. That is scary and the answer for some people is to simply pretend that the uncertainty does not exist.

There was tv discussion between Minister Gormley and Oisin Coughlan of Friends of the Earth around the time of Copenhagen. Minister Gormley wanted to keep AGW to 2C, while Coughlan wanted 1.5C. All very well-meaning, but this is a how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-needle type debate.

IMO constant attacks by climate jihadis on richard tol’s well-reasoned opinions are a more sinister symptom of the same delusion.

“On what basis are politicians to (a) decide what action to take and (b) sell it to their publics, assuming that they won’t have the time to read all the scientific papers themselves?”

In addition to the impact on the climate, there are a number of good reasons for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, but the additional benefits vary from country to country (and in some cases are seen as disbenefits). Therefore politicians seek to avoid the difficult, but not impossible, task of addressing this variation in additional benefits, and require science to back up the case for saying CO2 emissions must be reduced by x to prevent global temperature increasing by y. In my view that is an impossible position for scientists.

People delegate responsibility to politcians to inform themselves and to make difficult decisions.

This is just a further example of politcians seeking to evade what they’re hired to do.