Many times we want to live our life consistent with our believes. I believe in Zion and I do what I can but I’m not ready yet to go in all the way. Still I teach of Zion. I work towards it. I recognize that it is a true principle. Your standard for Gore is not only misguided but it would negate any kind of transition that moves from poor to better to best. Pity. Much is done though growing awareness and small steps. But then you don’t believe in Zion, right? Your clearly not living it as it should. (Forgive me for judging if you’ve given all your money to feed the poor and are writing from the public library. I didn’t know. )

Oh, and my six year old paper by Historian Oreskes has turned into a full length book, called Merchants of Doubt that traces the movement of key individuals who moved from Tobasco Company payrolls to Oil Company (she as access to the records, she is a historian). How the same people (same people!) fighting to cast doubt on cancer links to tobacco became doubt on anthropogenic climate change. You may want to ask yourself why the evil and designing men of the last days switched from tobacco to climate change. Why are you on their side?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

The blog you provided that climate change papers don’t reflect the reality is because most papers on climate change are not about the change. This is like saying most economic papers don’t talk about money. It’s true but it doesn’t mean that that is not assumed. Talk to anyone but TV weather people and I know of no one that is not seeing the changes on the ground. I see it in the ecology of Africa everywhere. But my papers are about the local movement into new areas they have not been in geologic time scales. I just write about the movement. I would not show up as anything but an implicit CC change paper. 97 % of scientists studying the climate believe it is anthropogenic. Traveling to Ecology meetings and places where this is discussed I’ve never met that 2%. Likely they are talked about in Oreskes book. I just came from the biggest simulation modeling conference ever held. Many were on ACC. I met no one, saw no presentation, that was not supporting ACC. That’s because to do so gives up science as a way of knowing. I am struck by the dishonesty, the lack of integrity, of the denier crowd. They have sold a bill of goods to the American public. Go back to the tobacco adds from the 50s and 60s and you get a feel for how good they are. It’s the same people. Older, but wiser from having lost that battle.

Look, flattery will get you everywhere, so keep it coming, but the bottom line is you need to face the fact that you are now communicating with a skeptic who has more information than you do. I can guarantee you I have read more about global warming in the last 20 years than you have. Dozens of books, literally thousands upon thousands of articles. As you have noted, it is a passion. This doesn’t necessarily make me right — time will prove me right or wrong. I would say that, based on the evidence I have seen, so far I have been spot-on correct. If you read the links I sent you with a fair mind, you will see that I counter your points with data that builds up my case.

Many years discussing this subject with believers has shown me that only time convinces people to give up on the fantasy of manmade global warming causing irreparable harm. I am confident that time will prove me correct — 10 years from now the climate will very likely be cooler than it is now and the extent of Arctic ice will be greater than it is now. More and more people will look back at these years and wonder why they were so concerned about this issue.

Extremist, alarmist and believers are all used in these threads as short-hand. Bruce has settled on the term “AGW believer,” which I can’t completely support, but it is as good a term as any.

Of course you are right that we all need to be doing more. No one who believes in AGW argues with the need to do more. Ever. I know I can do lots more, but not because I feel answerable to your criticisms but because I believe in the science. I have said to you before that lots of people are doing things to reduce their impact. I thought that would be patently obvious to anyone. The fact that you seem to be unaware of the efforts of AGW believers doesn’t diminish their inspiring efforts. Congregations across the country are making incredible strides in all religions–Evangelicals, Baptists, Muslims, Jews. Need I mention the efforts of lots of businesses and far too few politicians? I know of people creating and using community supported agriculture, people buying wind power, who eat less meat, etc. etc. Perhaps you have heard of a church that will now build all of its chapels LEED certified with, ahem, carbon meters. Do you really know no one? Why do you feel compelled to belittle their efforts?

You still have no data to prove that believers aren’t doing anything. You simply repeat that assertion. And my point is still this: this has nothing to do with what the science is saying and should not be the ultimate litmus test of the science. The test of the science is in the evidence provided. If you read the science, even as I do as a non-scientist, it is plainly obvious that dismissing AGW is a really, really steep mountain to climb in terms of the evidence you need to dismiss it. I have yet to talk to someone who denies it flatly who admits as much. Even if you remain skeptical, an honest response is to admit it is a challenging case to make. Skeptical scientists admit as much.

Not admitting it is proof that they are not thinking objectively or rationally about the science but are instead emotionally and politically driven. And everyone I know who denies the science likes to cite the same pet theories and websites and ideologically driven “primers”. In my view, this isn’t science–it is politics.

BTW, what is the difference between an extremist, an alarmist and someone who just believes in AGW? I can’t tell why you use one term or another. As far as I can tell, they are unhelpful terms used to stereotype. For the record, I don’t think you are an extremist or indifferent or unethical. You are bright, articulate, and passionate. I just don’t agree with you.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

This was from an on-line poll in which only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Please look at the details in comment #34.

As for global temperatures and their connection with manmade emissions, take a look here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/a-primer-for-disproving-ipcc%e2%80%99s-theory-of-man-made-global-warming-using-observed-temperature-data/

I have been waiting for several days now for some global warming alarmist to step forward and say, “you know, you are right. I really need to do a better job of keeping my emissions down. You have inspired me to bicycle to work more often.” I would take ANY sign that alarmists are practicing what they preach as a positive development. I have yet to get that response. Instead, we get a lot of excuses and long comments saying how we shouldn’t concentrate on others’ hypocrisy, etc, etc. I think it is extremely telling that global warming alarmists are not willing to make any significant changes in their actions — can we possibly believe them when they claim we must act immediately because of the coming global warming catastrophe?

Regarding the burden of proof, actually you are completely wrong. I believe there is no reason to do anything about global warming. If there is a need for any drastic action, the burden of proof is instead of global warming alarmists to prove the need. As for the “consensus,” I address that red herring in #34.

These are not scientific studies themselves, so what about the science itself? What’s the evidence to back up your claim about the climate since 1998? This is Lord Monckton’s favorite statistic and it gets repeated in the denier industry, but it doesn’t coincide with the data. The data are too interrelated, there is too much corroboration across many related fields of science for warming to be dismissed in one statement like that. You can’t get away with this by isolating one statistic. You have too many correlated statistics across the globe to have to explain away–ocean temps, biodiversity loss, coral reef degradation, acidification of the ocean, biogeographical shifts of flora and fauna, weather patterns, glacial patterns, droughts, floods, atmospheric data, etc, etc.

But on the question of consensus, EOS recently published an update on Oreskes’s study in 2009 (vol 90, no. 3 @ tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf), finding 97% agreement. But that really isn’t the issue. The issue is the science itself.

I accepted your invitation to read your posts. I hope you don’t mind if I disagree, and strongly.

I think this whole discussion of hypocrisy is a red herring. It is specious to make these generalizations about all these folks who are apparently not doing enough to move you. You have no data as far as I can tell to prove that believers in AGW are across the board hypocrites, your frequently mention of Al Gore notwithstanding. Since you have no such data, I also assume you have no data about how much evidence is actively denied or willfully ignored by those in a position to make a big difference. Wouldn’t that be as important to acknowledge? Indeed your frequent reliance on Gore and mention of extremists raises the eyebrow in suspicion that you are ideologically motivated. I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but how many passionate believers in AGW do you know personally? We are from all walks of life, from across the political spectrum, and the way this smacks of an ideological attack on the left just misses the boat altogether. Not to mention, it is a tad condescending!

Most of us understand that individual actions are not going to make enough of a difference and while we do what we can individually, there is only so much that can be done in a complex economy like ours that is so entirely dependent on fossil fuels. We urge, write, speak out, and work to get politicians, businesses, and cities on board because they are the big players. Can’t you respect this? This in your view is hypocrisy, I guess, or socialism, but it is how I understand democracy to work. It is something I am proud to be a part of and proud to join others in. Some of us are better than others in the individual arena, but that is not the only arena of concern by any stretch. To conclude that the appearance of hypocrisy (and it is nothing but speculation) is enough to decide you don’t have to listen to the science is strange, frankly. Any Mormon can recognize how wrong it is when people judge the gospel based on individual members–I think others have refuted your argument on this pretty persuasively. Besides, AGW doesn’t boil down to a question of belief and integrity of action, but is rather a matter of empirical evidence. It is either happening or it isn’t. The earth and its atmosphere don’t care about Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh–the needle doesn’t move according to political party or passionate conviction. You are either earnestly and honestly exploring the science or you have decided it is corrupt, inevitably leading to forms of government you don’t like, or false. As Steve points out, if the preponderance of evidence at this point doesn’t provide enough evidence for you, then it would appear that you have no standard of judgment to assess empirical reality. What is your standard? It would seem you are more driven by ideology than by evidence. The burden of proof is in your hands as a denier. Show us the scientific evidence that we SHOULDN’T be deeply concerned about CO2 emissions. Which scientific studies, which scientific research are you drawing from to come up with your views?