I’m happy to use ‘Deniers’ as most accurate and applicable. ‘Contrarian’ if I’m being very polite. A lot of other names that aren’t so printable when not.

(“Trump voters” may apply too but am guessing / hoping that’ll be a very short lived reference!)

I just don’t have a car*, have rooftop solar panels and try to plant local natives and generally do my best for our environment and natural spaceship in a lot of much smaller ways.

You, OTOH, well see first sentence here.

* Never had a license, never had money or really that much desire to drive. Lucky with family & friends can get lifts and usually cycle or walk everywhere possible.

Now that’s just outright wrong. Science is a lot more than guesswork and the reason and evidence are just overwhelming. There;s about a metric F tonne of real observed science and years of research by experts who know their sh .. stuff.

Go look at NASA’ s page on it here :

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Go read this book :

http://www.amazon.com/Poles-Apart-Beyond-Shouting-Climate/dp/1869790456

Go look at some of the hundreds of thousands of papers summed up by the numerous IPCC reports if you can or their entertaining popular summaries like this one if not or as well :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&index=64&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33

Seriously.

Please.

If you are reading this and have a microgramme of integrity do that and then come back and talk.

Personally I’d rather he didn’t.

I’d rather he went home and rethought his life.

Especially his Climate Reality Denialism here.

(& FWIW I’m living proof that’s possible – many, many years ago I was a”skeptic” (fooled by Plimer) myself – to my eternal shame.)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/09/im-skeptical-of-denialism/#.VgkgSuyqqko

is still spot on here.

* “Aeons” being well, June 2009 but what’s a few aeons & a wee trifle of hyperbole between friends? Still true as ever anyhow.

His crime is worse than that; he wants us to believe that leaving out all of the observed feedback mechanisms is some how legitimate. That is the behavior of a politician. We already see more warming that human-released CO2 accounts for; we already see lower albido caused by human activities; we already see humans are cooling the planet about 60% as much as we are warming it. In fact, without human-caused cooling, Earth’s current global temperature increase would already be very close to “RickA’s” imaginary maximum. Instead of the current 1.6 watts per square meter caused by humans, we would be causing about 2.6 w/m^2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#/media/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

No surprise that you decided to select Lewis & Crok, and ignore the other observational estimates that are all higher.

1.2 C is observationally based. It takes the .8C from 1880 to present, and linearly projects it to obtain 1.2C. It is not ECS or TCR.

The 1.8 is the latest Lewis and Crok ECS. The Lewis and Crok TCR is about 1.3C.

So the observations are tracking pretty close to TCR (1.2 vs 1.3) – and if we can hold everything constant for 1000 years (impossible), we could actually see if ECS was 1.8C.

Then why did you refer to the no-feedback ECS and suggested the current T-rise did not allow for much feedback?

“Direct observations are not showing we will hit 2 – 4.5C per doubling – but are showing more like 1.8C or less.”

Gee, you already added another 0.6 degrees to your earlier statement that “we are on track for the 1.2C, with little or any feedback amplification (the indirect warming) supported by the direct observations.”

Please be consistent when JAQ’ing. You make it a little bit too obvious you are trolling.

UPDATE: AP reporter: ”I won’t follow new rule banning terms ”climate denialist” or climate denier” ” [Rebellion in the corps!]

Dear Paul,

I sent this note to Kristen Hare at Poynter Org and to other journos and editors around the world, AP people, too: This FAUX AGW denialist brouhaha news story has gotten a lot of ink worldwide but nobody has asked what the heck the AP term “guidance” actually means!

This climate GUIDANCE thing from the AP was not an iron RULE set down in concrete by the AP, nor even a REGULATION that AP reporters must follow or lose their jobs.

No it’s just a “guidance.”

In other words, a considered and much-debated and much-discussed in the editorial offices of the AP “suggestion” for what the AP considers to be better and more accurate and more fair reporting on these contentious issues.

But no media outlet anywhere has emphasized that this is mere GUIDANCE/suggestion and not a hard and fast rule. The GUARDIAN Graham Redfearn got it wrong from his LEFTWING POV and Anthony Watts at WWUT on the RIGHTWING got it wrong too.

So the leftwing is crying foul at what they see as an AP RULE that has been set down by AP editors and the rightwing is rejoicing at what they see as an AP RULE that they are happy to finally see in print.

BUT it is not a rule.

It is a mere suggestion, and reporters at AP and other outlets are FREE to follow however they wish to write the news. Yes or no?

I am asking you, dear Paul Colford, to clarify and offer some guidance on exactly what the AP term “guidance” actually means in plain English.

Your response?

UPDATE! AP journo: ”I won’t follow new rule banning terms ”climate denialist” or ”climate denier” [Rebellion!]

UPDATE: VICTORY! AP has corrected its error, and created a new guidance recognizing that it is perfectly fine to call ”climate denialists” and ”climate deniers” by what they really are, which is climate denialists and climate deniers.

There appears to be open dissension at the Associated Press (AP) over the media entity’s new ”mis-guided” “guidance”, announced last week, not to refer to rightwing climate ostriches (RCO) with their heads in the sand over AGW as climate denialists or climate deniers, no matter what the very excellen climate science reporter Seth Borenstein said in his guidance.

Here is AP’s new policy:

Forget the earlier “guidance.”
In response, a New York-based AP reporter , who writes about climate issues for the media company, just told a fellow journo by email, on the record:

The AP style guidance will have no effect on how I write about about climte deniers and climate denialists.
This response means one of two things. Either there is open revolt at the AP over the new policy, or AP management decided to throw irate climate activists a bone by claiming that while the AGW policy will remain, it won’t really be implemented (which is BS). Either way, the policy is still on the books, and this controversy will continue to grow. But if this is truly sign of dissension in the ranks at AP, that’s good news, not just for climate activists, but for journalism overall.