Astroturf is a kind of synthetic grass. The term Astroturfing means 'rabble rousing'. What you do is to employ a PR company to create a rumour, and make it appear to be a genuine grass-roots reaction, whereas it's really just fake grass.

Example:

In August 2006, a science journalist for the Wall Street Journal revealed that a YouTube video, "Al Gore's Penguin Army", which was claimed to be an amateur work, in fact came from the computers of DCI Group, a Washington, D.C.-based PR firm whose client list includes ExxonMobil and General Motors. (See Al Gore's Penguin Army video controversy.) This hoax was discovered when journalist Antonio Ragalado noticed that the YouTube video was the first sponsored listing when he performed a Google search for Al Gore. The fact that someone was paid to have the alleged amateur film promoted was in itself suspicious.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115457177198425388-0TpYE6bU6EGvfSqtP8_hHjJJ77I_20060810.html?mod=blogs

So do you guys call yourself "Astroturfs"?

Like 'Pump and Dump'

muso wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 10:05am:

In August 2006, a science journalist for the Wall Street Journal revealed that a YouTube video, "Al Gore's Penguin Army", which was claimed to be an amateur work, in fact came from the computers of DCI Group, a Washington, D.C.-based PR firm whose client list includes ExxonMobil and General Motors. (See Al Gore's Penguin Army video controversy.) This hoax was discovered when journalist Antonio Ragalado noticed that the YouTube video was the first sponsored listing when he performed a Google search for Al Gore. The fact that someone was paid to have the alleged amateur film promoted was in itself suspicious.

That doesn't surprise me. It would go on everywhere and the multinationals are the ones who can afford to Astroturf - particularly conglomerates like Exxon.

How many gullible people fall for this stuff? It's hard to tell today what's propaganda and what isn't.  It's a pity most people haven't got the funds or the motivation to uncover these cons.

Grendel wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 11:42am:

So do you guys call yourself "Astroturfs"?

Big Corporations do it Grendel. It requires injection of money to make it work. You really don't get it, do you? Look, here's a link to show you how it works:

http://www.one-blue-marble.com/astroturfing-and-misinformation.html

- Low bandwidth too.

Oh I hear Al Gore and the "industry" have lots of money.  Also lots of political support.

Grendel wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 2:53pm:

Oh I hear Al Gore and the "industry" have lots of money.  Also lots of political support.

Pretty broad-based political support when you include Nicolas Sarkozy and Arnold Schwarzenegger behind it. Even GW Bush called it a serious problem, although he didn't do anything about it.

Isn't it funny how the renewable power industry can be accused of 'propagating a myth' when even the big Oil and big Coal companies (the goliaths of the corporate world) are fully supportive nowadays.

The prediction of the IPCC is that over the next century temperatures might rise by a further 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade, and that sea levels might rise by between 15 and 95 centimetres. Some of that impact is probably unavoidable, because it results from current emissions.

Those are wide margins of error, and there remain large elements of uncertainty - about cause and effect ….and even more importantly about the consequences.

But it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.

The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven … but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part.

We in BP have reached that point.......

That speech excerpt was dated 1997 - 12 years ago. A lot has been done since then and Energy companies are taking it seriously.

The biggest myth of all is that it's all a socialist plot.

I can show you policies from practically every Oil and Coal corporation that show just how solid the support is.

and since then co2 emissions have continued to go up and the temperatures down

muso wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 2:34pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 14th, 2009 at 11:42am: So do you guys call yourself "Astroturfs"? Big Corporations do it Grendel. It requires injection of money to make it work. You really don't get it, do you? Look, here's a link to show you how it works: http://www.one-blue-marble.com/astroturfing-and-misinformation.html - Low bandwidth too.

Everything is big in America, even more so then in Queensland.

Was the "uncovering" paparazzi american or american queenslander?

8-)

Grendel wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 6:05pm:

and since then co2 emissions have continued to go up and the temperatures down

Temperatures go down? Well it was cold here last night, but that's irrelevent.

CO2 emissions have gone up  - Correct
Temperatures have gone down - Wrong

Exam score - 50% Sorry - no diploma in Climate Science from University of Alabama-Huntsville for you. You'd better remove your name from the petition, Grendel. (damn!)

While 1998 was an unusually hot year due to El Nino, the long term trend since 1998 is still that of warming.

Didn't you listen when I explained to you how moving averages work? It's a useful way of sorting facts from bs. You don't need to talk about it until the cows come home. There is a perfectly good statistical technique available.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

The easiest way to remove short term variations, revealing any underlying trend, is to plot a moving average. Figure 1 displays the 11 year moving average - an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side. They've used three different data-sets - NCDC, NASA GISS and the British HadCRUT3. In all three data-sets, the moving average shows no sign that the warming trend has reversed.

Look at the graphs folks.   ::)

---

I'm sorry....  all the graphs I look at except your cooked ones say its been going down even the one you posted on the other topic does..

Oh right...  junked that one now have you?

Oh but wait...  there's more.

Since you like HADCRUT so much   ;D
looks like you are gonna have to delete them off your list of sources eh.


Quote:

New scientific studies suggest a trend that may have started in the late 1990s. The earth may be cooling. The Hadley Centre for Climate Change, part of the UK Met Office, tracks global temperature and shows a big drop in global temperature anomalies since January 2007. Based on the HadCRUT3 system of observed temperatures, global surface temperature anomalies have been trending down since 2001. January 2008 had the coldest anomaly since 1995.

Now who here just through anecdotal evidence and quoting all those denialists has been saying that the trend has been downwards for quite a few years now?

Oh yeah...  it was me.

But hey I'm not a climate scientist...  what would I know.

Keep on Astroturfing Muso...  if it makes you happy.

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 10:28am:

Oh but wait...  there's more. Since you like HADCRUT so much   ;D looks like you are gonna have to delete them off your list of sources eh. Quote: New scientific studies suggest a trend that may have started in the late 1990s. The earth may be cooling. The Hadley Centre for Climate Change, part of the UK Met Office, tracks global temperature and shows a big drop in global temperature anomalies since January 2007. Based on the HadCRUT3 system of observed temperatures, global surface temperature anomalies have been trending down since 2001. January 2008 had the coldest anomaly since 1995. Now who here just through anecdotal evidence and quoting all those denialists has been saying that the trend has been downwards for quite a few years now? Oh yeah...  it was me. But hey I'm not a climate scientist...  what would I know. Keep on Astroturfing Muso...  if it makes you happy.

You're talking about a SINGLE MONTH, you *******(control yourself muso)**********. FFS can't you get it through your **********(voluntarily censored)  that one month's data is nada! You have to take running averages over at least 5 years.

Now, do you suppose that the article was actually issued by Hadley, or perhaps somebody is just using their monthly data to distort the facts? hmmmm?

Look at the blue line and the link on reply 9.

Give me strength! ::)   (I'm rapidly losing my hair from tearing it out)


Quote:

and shows a big drop in global temperature anomalies since January 2007.

What - for a whole two and a half years? ;D ;D ;D - that's hilarious.

No goober...  I am and always have been talking about 10 years.

Honestly why do I bother.

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 12:57pm:

No goober...  I am and always have been talking about 10 years. Honestly why do I bother.

Grendel, You are talking about a 'trend' over 10 years, aren't you? Be honest.

If you understood about running averages, you'd realise that 10 years is a single point on the graph. There are different ways to do this, but here:

Running average over 10 years where y1= data point for year 1 etc.

(y1+y2+y3+y4+y5+y6+y7+y8+y9+y10) divided by 10

Next point on the graph:
(y2+y3+y4+y5+y6+y7+y8+y9+y10+y11) divided by 10
and so on

ok?

I'm sorry I didn't think there were time limits on trends...  as I have said b4...  how many years are you going to settle for.  Another 10 andother 20 another 30 another 40...  100 years 1000 years...  how many times will you keep moving the goal posts.

I've been very patient and waited 10 years b4 mentioning there is a trend.  Oh and guess what...  there is.  And in another 10 years and every year in between I'll be pointing it out to you.

Oh and BTW global average temps are recorded on a graph every year not every 10.  

One day you'll learn to read and understand graphs.  I hope  ::)

Oh and here let me quote the article again for you...


Quote:

New scientific studies suggest a trend that may have started in the late 1990s. The earth may be cooling.

Afraid you'll have to get with the NEW scientific....  I note the words trend and cooling which I have already highlighted for you.  English cannot be that difficult for you.

NOTE THE USE OF THE DATE 1990S  GET IT YET?  HOW MUCH SIMPLER OR CLEARER CAN WE MAKE IT FOR YOU.


Quote:

The Hadley Centre for Climate Change, part of the UK Met Office, tracks global temperature and shows a big drop in global temperature anomalies since January 2007. Based on the HadCRUT3 system of observed temperatures, global surface temperature anomalies have been trending down since 2001. January 2008 had the coldest anomaly since 1995.

HADCRUT...  GET IT?  TRENDING DOWN?  GET IT?  SINCE WHEN?????

nOT LAST MONTH BOYO... :D

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 2:50pm:

Oh and BTW global average temps are recorded on a graph every year not every 10.   One day you'll learn to read and understand graphs.  I hope  ::)

That part may be the case - however, in order to make any sense of it, we need to take moving averages.  Annual data is too unreliable.

Take NOAA, NASA GISS and Hadcrut data. Now superimpose annual data - see how different they are if you just take the data on a year by year basis? There is no point in trending raw annual data.

Climate is longterm. We need to take at least 4-5 year moving averages to show any trend. Monthly temperatures are even more meaningless. Once you actually take moving averages, the different datasets start to match up. Actually HadCrut doesn't show such a pronounced rising trend because it misses a lot of polar data. This is not deliberate - it's just a consequence of having fewer resources.

By the way, I think all the geologists in Australia are jumping on the bandwagon to have a go at Ian Plimer. This time it's David Karoly from the school of Earth Sciences in Melbourne.

Given the errors, the non-science, and the nonsense in this book, it should be classified as science fiction in any library that wastes its funds buying it. The book can then be placed on the shelves alongside Michael Crichton's State of Fear, another science fiction book about climate change with many footnotes. The only difference is that there are fewer scientific errors in State of Fear.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm


Do you want to read what Kurt Lambeck said about it?

Today Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science, discusses Professor Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm

Spreading confusion through poorly argued science does not help in addressing this question.

---

You just cant accept it can you?

oh dear abandoned by HADCRUT....  what shall I do?

hello?  hello? is anybody home?

Get with it Muso...  1+1+1+  etc =10  the trend is DOWNWARDS
I've told you.
Other people I've cited have told you
The data tells you
the graphs show you

Yet still you choose to live in denial...  

The trend IS downwards...  repeat after me...  the trend is downwards.

Sheesh.

Grendel wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 4:32pm:

You just cant accept it can you? oh dear abandoned by HADCRUT....  what shall I do? hello?  hello? is anybody home? Get with it Muso...  1+1+1+  etc =10  the trend is DOWNWARDS I've told you. Other people I've cited have told you The data tells you the graphs show you Yet still you choose to live in denial...   The trend IS downwards...  repeat after me...  the trend is downwards. Sheesh.

What are you talking about? The graph was your precious Hadcrut.

Why this obsession with what is probably the least representative of all worldwide global temperature datasets?

Read the link that I provided before. The trend is not downwards unless you cherry pick the data.  

Talking about trends in climate for an 8 year period is a nonsense.

Is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology astroturfing too? Format might  be a little strange.  

WAITING FOR GLOBAL COOLING
by
Robert Fawcett and David Jones
National Climate Centre
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Melbourne, Australia
April 2008
Corresponding author:
Dr David Jones
National Climate Centre
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
GPO Box 1289, Melbourne, Vic 3001
Tel: 03 9669 4085
Email: d.jones@bom.gov.au

Summary

There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.

Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-toyear fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend.

Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since 1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling trend has established itself.

All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidently asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or so, but the data do not support them.
2
Data
We use here three of the most prominent globally-averaged annual mean temperature anomaly1 data sets, one British and two American. Northern and southern hemisphere data sets are also available from these three sources. Australian (national) annual temperature data
have been obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology.............


(from Fawcett,  Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
December 2007) Edit - added full reference.

Yeah 10 years is enough to see a trend....  and the trend is DOWN...  so much denial must make you and your compatriots heads ache.

here let me try to dumb down something for you...

If you draw a line from say 1970 to the latest yearly temp the trend is UP.  Which is what you keep citing ad infinitum ad nauseum...

But..

If you draw a line from 1998 to the latest...  the trend is DOWN...  why do you and you cohorts and dumbos like you just quoted just admit the truth instead of lying about it so blatantly.
Anyone not blind can see the difference.
And apparently 10 years is fine to note a trend...  woo hoo.

SO LET ME TYPE THIS SLOWLY FOR YOU...  SINCE 1998 THE OVERALL TREND IS D O W N...

nOW i'VE TOLD YOU THAT AND EXPLAINED IT SEVERAL TIMES...  

My cohorts now include the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Do you want me to quote some more authorities? I can if you like. Then it will be Grendel versus the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the British Met Office, NOAA, NASA, Météo-France, and the World Meteorological Organization.

Ok Don Quijote de la Mancha - We'll put it to a poll - not that polls are proof or anything.

http://www.lamoradadevargas.com/img/quijote.jpg

No don't bother just stick to the name calling and ridicule...  that's your strength.

I've explained things simply and often enough for you..  denialist.  ;D

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 10:46am:

No don't bother just stick to the name calling and ridicule...  that's your strength. I've explained things simply and often enough for you..  denialist.  ;D

You've yet to explain what you think I'm denying.   Why don't you just email Dr Jones and tell him he's wrong?

I gave you his email address.

---

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is "Da BOM". Word!

It is pathetic to go back to this garbage, to even try and argue that every year must be hotter than the year before, to accept Global Warming, is just reducing the argument to childish naivity.

The inconsistency of just what the denialists are arguing against becomes befuddling in itself.

1998 hottest year ever? Why? CO2?
No Way Jose, says the denialists, it is?
Solar activity.
Of course the fact that science disagrees with this contention does not deter them from repeating the lie ad infinitum.

Of course the fact that nine or ten of the hottest years ever recorded have been during this "cooling" period since 1998 does not rate a mention by denialists.

The "COOL" year of 2008, tied with 2001 as the eighth hottest year ever recorded.
2005 tied with 1998 as the hottest ever.
The 12 years from 1998 onwards include the ten hottest years ever recorded.
The decade from 1998 to 2007 was the hottest decade ever recorded.

Quite a cooling trend there Grendel.

Oh, you want to forget that stuff, and start again starting, Now, no Now, how about Now?

Push the start and finish points of where you want to measure from, or to, around, and I am sure you can find cooling periods in every set of data ever recorded, but it takes a denialist to then call that "evidence"


So, if you can tear yourself away from the denialist propaganda for a minute, try reading this brief scientific explanation Grendel.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-climate-warming-or-cooling.html

If we look at the models, we will probably not see the trend change upwards again until 2010, so then you can start blaming the sun, or something else again, but you just need to hold out until the next period of declining temps, to start rehashing this particular line of BS.

The trouble is that each decline in temperature, will be a "Temporary" decline from a new "RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURE", and despite the protestations of the belligerently and wilfully ignorant, Global Warming will continue on, unabated, and unaddressed, if this lunatic fringe of spoilers have their way.

I could ask that if the period from 2010 to 2016 does happen to provide new record high temperatures, would you desist from rehashing this particularly silly line of denialist BS?
I think we both can predict an accurate answer to that one can't we Grendel?

ROTFLMAO

hONESTLY mOZZ YOU HAVE TO STOP LISTENING TO mUSO

Not arguing about every year before  gotta be hotter etc.  

Quite the contrary...  I'm talking trend.

Your last post is full of crap which shows you don't understand the arguments.  So if you could please don't comment or make up stuff ok.

Hottest decade...  ? Well Mozz if you are starting from a high point and trending down it'll still be hot for a while statistically speaking.  (You do understand that don't you?)

It aint rocket science Mozz.  do try harder.  Your arguments are spurious and shallow.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:29am:

It is pathetic to go back to this garbage....

Some good points Mozza.

Really?  what were they?

Professor Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science


Quote:

It is important to recognise that scientists are not consensus animals. We are all driven by our own demons: the satisfaction of being able to understand a particularly complex question, a desire to use science to improve the human condition; a search for recognition and fame and the next Nobel prize or a search for notoriety in the public gallery. Thus the concept that hundreds of researchers are conspiring to defraud the world's policy-makers requires a level of conspiracy theory that not even Dan Brown has reached.

Even for those of us that have pedestrian - average understanding of the scientific diciplines involved should understand this comment alone as common sense. Much of the other science at a general level is not insurmountable for the layman.

Much of the very detailed and complementary data does require a choice of where you confidence lies. Which does not mean that I expect the pro-warming science or statistics to be 100% accurate or understood. But I expect that with any science that is still learning, that being all of them.

From what I can understand Grendal, the denialist camp is the one you are sitting in.

What am I denying loc?

LOC...

the world is flat Columbus, sail too far and you will fall off the edge.  Scientific Concensus 1492.

I don't think they were trying to "defraud the world's policy-makers" either.  Nor the general population...

But ah...  they were wrong.

I'd be quite happy to cut CO2 levels just on a "pollution" basis.  But don't try to tell me that global warming is driven by man and will be catastrophic and  not have the proof to back it up.

I do not believe you Grendel.
The fact of the matter is that you have firmly wedded yourself to the denialists arguments and their ongoing campaign of misinformation, so much so that you refuse to even examine refutation of the silliest denialist claims, and repeat them ad infinitum, even after they have been thoroughly discredited.

That is wilfull ignorance.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 12:42pm:

LOC... the world is flat Columbus, sail too far and you will fall off the edge.  Scientific Concensus 1492.

Actually no. Wrong again. That was more religious edict than scientific consensus. Columbus was inspired by 'scientists' who dared to think otherwise. If you disagreed with the religious position back then it was more a question of whether you valued your theory better than certain bodily extremities.

The Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was approximately spherical. So did the Arabs who taught Columbus navigation.  

Mozz unless you believe Muso I am neither willful nor ignorant.

I find it sad you continually abuse my good nature on subjects you are blinkered on.

Show me the money Mozz and I'll be only too happy to agree.

I will be happy if you just stop repeating discredited misinformation as if it is some new revelation.

You still refuse to even look at how it is discredited, so it really is difficult to see how anyone can show you the money, because scientific evidence is not a currency you deal with.

But its not discredited
its merely dismissed
by Muso
who seems to be your world authority on all things climate  :D
at least I quote scientists

and just because I didn't look at 1 of musos bandwidth eaters doesn't mean I'm not widely read on stuff you know...  thats closed eyes hands over ears lalala stuff you are spouting now.

Did u check out the link to skeptic sciences I posted earlier, which deals with what you are putting forward?

Nope?
Thought not.
Nuff said.

If you want to discredit the denialist debunkers, go to 'realclimate' and go through their list of debunked denialist claims.
They have it in both laymen, and scientific terms, and provide links to research papers that support their position.
So see your denialist claims, see them refuted by scientists, then show them where they are wrong, then come back here and tell me about your victory.

It's not going to happen is it?
I half wonder if you really do recognise the amount of BS in the denial case, but because you are so wedded to it, you must try to just ignore that fact.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

These sites are both easy to understand, and will patiently explain it to you, if you really want to learn, and you may be able to convince them of the scientific merit of a denialist argument, good luck.

There's no use me putting forth what I think Mozz...  you just disbelieve me I'm not a climate scientist.

Yet when I put forth dissenting opinions from other people and scientists which BTW proves I'm not the only one who thinks differently on the subject you ignore it as if it is irrelevant and wrong.  Oh dear.

I see both sides refuting the other Mozz... You just see one side as being right.  Yet you don't know if they are...  you take it on faith like a religion.  You believe...

I wouldn't touch realclimate with a barge pole even though I have read stuff there many times before.  (Yes it is that biased).

For every site you cite so can I...  for every scientist you quote so can I...

Unlike you I am happy to admit that there is no concensus and no proof.

I'm still waiting for the proof.  And its a bit like "Waiting for Godot" mozz.

I know the IPCC has been wrong.
I know that Gore's film was erroneous.
I know Gore has a belief in an old teachers theory for his belief.
I know the models are flawed.
I know the IPCC base their conclusions on this modelling.
I know there is a downward trend in global temperatures and has been for the best part of a decade so far.
I know climate is vastly complicated and we don't understand it all yet.
I believe that before man can control weather he'll be spending an awful long time adapting to it.

OK, provide one of your myths that was debunked on real climate, then show me a link to the skeptics proving the debunking invalid.

Even one false debunking will strengthen your case significantly.

Even one example of scientists agreeing with the original denialist claim, rather than the debunking of the claim, will illustrate your point.

I have never seen one, and I too have looked at denialist sites, and real climate scietist sites as well.

I have plenty of bandwidth, and when you post your new(rehashed) claims, I look them up, see what the spruikers say, then see what the scientists say.

So far I have always found the scientists far more convincing, and they even cite real data from peer reviewed science journals, an extraordinary example not followed by denialists.

I cant believe you.

You think an Inconvenient truth is 100% true.
You never heard that the IPCC models were flawed.(wrong)

Thats just 2 things that nearly every literate person would know.

Google it do your own work like I do.

You do yourself no favours Grendel, when you refuse to look at these sites, they are balanced, and give credit, and a fair hearing to people who have valid points to make, even skeptics, if they deserve credit, receive it.
Of course there will be errors, and no sensible person denies that, it is not the errors that are contentious, it is the deliberate misinformation campaigns that upset people.

You will see many cogent and relevant replies from people who agree with you that aspects of Global Warming are ridiculously over hyped, but it does not lead them to wish to throw the baby out with the bath water, just to help improve everyones knowledge and understanding.
They will say when a graph is poorly plotted, and the people who overhype the Warming side of the argument are roundly condemned if seen to do so, it works both ways.

The one aspect we can totally agree on is that we have much more work to do, to come to a better understanding of all the influences which effect our climate, so keeping denialist rubbish out of the mix is better for everyone, because it just detracts from the credibility of real scientists who do have real issues to raise, that sometimes support current ideas, and sometimes do not.

I am not saying that all climate scientists always get it right, or that some ongoing revision will not be needed, just that it should be contained to a more objective line of enquiry, rather than just having people trying to disprove the whole theory as a fraud, which is just ridiculous.
Flawed, quite possibly, but honestly flawed, and we need the same honesty from skeptics, and that is not what we are seeing.

Honestly wake up to yourself.
Its not about you lied no you lied...  who told the most lies.
Its about WHAT ARE THE FACTS.

I've put up heaps of links and articles and quotes and obviously you haven't read a single one.

If you think realclimate is balanced and unbiased think again.

The people you ignore don't try to do anything except tell you the truth as they see it.  There's no conspiracy you know even though your side of the debate has tried to claim so.

I could provide you with a comment from Hansen one of the glowing lights of your side.  It's sad and pathetic at how low the man will sink.  How alarmist and obsessive he is.  How he refuses to admit he could be wrong when patently he has been.

So how about you list these valid points from the skeptics you claim to know?

Sounds to me those balanced critics are just like me Mozz...  then time you gave me some credit eh.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 10:02pm:

... If you think realclimate is balanced and unbiased think again. ...

There are some variables that work against us and we rather have to look for additional heat to compensate:

All radioactive material dispersed throughout our planet with passing time gives off less and less heat.

Crust of our planet gets thicker and so called "unlimited geothermal energy" in fact is limited and despite crust being good insulator, that heat permeates toward the surface and radiates to disappear into the abyss.

There are some valid points that actually our planet also shrinks because of cooling core (some of the Earth’s tremors could be attributed to that), and marginally but our planed this way receives just a tinier amount less of Solar radiation due to reduced total surface area.

There is also reflection that depending on colour of our planet can change.

There are also tiny pollution and dust particles that prevent solar radiation reaching surface our planet on top of preventing excess heat leaving us.

Obviously computer models take more factors into account, but I just cannot see the accuracy needed for such a certainty displayed by various models authors.

As for me, I don’t know who is right, and I would just in case reduce impact of human race and concentrate on both phenomena rather than just on global warming alone.

ahhhh... you did read everything didn't you happy?
Not sure why you quoted me.
You do realise that "realclimate" is a website pushing AGW don't you?

Grendel wrote on Jun 17^th, 2009 at 11:52am:

... Not sure why you quoted me. You do realise that "realclimate" is a website pushing AGW don't you?

But do they take into account all the variables of shifting target?

None of the models take in all climate factors Happy.

GIGO...

Realclimate is as much a propaganda site as a science site.