So: Rebranding really is in place, as you will notice if you read the latest material from the AGW cult. The use of “global warming” is discouraged. Yeah, the old term is uttered from time to time; I still call the refrigerator an ice box, but the gizmo really has been renamed.

Folks should look at the nine crucial errors in Gore’s film and decide how crucial they are. How convincing and urgent would Gore’s message be, if all nine were removed from his film? Or what if they were left in, but exposed as errors, so everyone could see what the original version of the film was? That would speak to its motivation, wouldn’t it? Have a look.

More on Gore the Oscar winner here.

Here are two reports on a fairly recent debate ( Part I and Part II) in which the hockey stick graph is mentioned. Its attempted resuscitation has failed; it was, don’t forget, a deliberate hoax from the first. Reinstating a fraudulent concept (as opposed to a flawed one) is not easy — imagine trying to reintroduce Piltdown Man into primate evolution.

Then there’s good old Jim Hansen. Begin with a discussion of just how much freedom of speech we should permit in the AGW debate here; it refers to “balancing freedoms,” which strikes me as a scary concept. Those who appreciate and promote censorship won’t be alarmed.

If Jim Hansen can say that disagreeing with him means distributing “…misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into
school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime,” yet he means to create a new type of crime without conviction or punishment, then yes, he’s not saying anybody should go to jail for publishing the facts. This is the guy who has promoted illegal activities in support of the AGW cult, though, so I’m take him literally when he talks about criminality. I accept that he would not be above locking me up for what I have to say, if only he could. He honestly believes those who attack the AGW cult are extremely dangerous, rather like terrorists with a nuke. Hansen’s no angel.

Then there’s the matter of accusations of lying. Honest folks may make errors in judgment, but they don’t lie, and decent folks don’t accuse others of lying unless malice can be proved. Or…? Read “How we know they are lying.” This religious war is pretty nasty.

–Hey, PJM! How about giving us a Preview function? Editing a comment that includes some URLs is too error-prone for plodders like me, if we can’t check it in another format before submitting. Heaven knows how many hyperlink mistakes I made in this comment (apologies in advance, gentle Readers). Come on, PJM, give us a break!

Not a hoax. Largely vindicated by later research. Its general conclusions were supported by the NAS.

“agree that Al Gore’s film includes nine crucial errors”

There are certainly errors in Gore’s film, but none are “crucial.”

“and explain why you have had to re-brand “global warming” as “climate change?”

Rebrand how? Both terms are still in use. Climate change takes into account more effects than warming–e. g. changes in precipitation, sea level, storm intensity, etc.

“Can you face up to the devastating implications of the time gap in the ice cores that shows CO2 levels following temperature levels?”

Only people who don’t understand the issue think this is devastating. No one ever argued that CO2 was the beginning cause of deglaciations, only that once it was outgassed from the ocean that it contributed to the warming. This is supported by well established physics.

“Are you ready to stand with Jim Hansen when he calls for imprisonment of those who disagree with him?”

You are lying about what Hansen said.

Come on, Straw, this is too easy. Carbon is increasing in the oceans in every form. This is undisputed. Now, how can the ocean be a source of atmospheric CO2 if it taking up carbon?

Also, where does the carbon from fossil fuels go?

Also, Why does the rise in atmospheric CO2 follow a trajectory defined by human FF burning?

By all means keep making yourself look stupid.

Careful, you AGW cultists out there — do you really want to take a vote on this, which would involve telling the losing side to shut up? You sure did a year or two ago, when every other word out of your mouths was “consensus,” but do you now?

Or are you ready to admit that science is a matter of facts, not a matter of polling and voting and counting who has the biggest crowd?

Are you willing to admit to the hoax of the hockey stick graph, agree that Al Gore’s film includes nine crucial errors, and explain why you have had to re-brand “global warming” as “climate change?” Can you face up to the devastating implications of the time gap in the ice cores that shows CO2 levels following temperature levels? Are you ready to stand with Jim Hansen when he calls for imprisonment of those who disagree with him?

There are fads in science, and we are just starting to emerge from a particularly damaging one. We’ll complete that process by following the truth wherever it leads, not by preaching that we sinful humans are responsible for provoking earth-wide catastrophe by being greedy and failing to respect Gaia.

It took a while to get past the ignorant myth that the earth is the center of the solar system, and then…in the “scientific” twentieth century…”Penicillin sat on the shelf for thirteen years, while I was called a quack.” That from Sir Alexander Fleming.

Man’s role in affecting global temperatures is no longer commonly portrayed as a matter of skeptics vs. scientists. It’s finally being recognized as a struggle between genuine science and the irrational dogma of a cult. That’s the direction in which the facts point.

1 says they don’t have good data, and proposes a “model” (and if you don’t see the problem with that, this is pointless).

2 is a trivial statement of the obvious, but doesn’t address what the ultimate disposition of the C is.

3 is an editorial.

4 is a dead link.

5 is a windy IPCC-like report that addresses consequences from a presumed acidification, and provides a theoretical basis for why it should, but doesn’t actually present robust data.

BTW, just to be perfectly clear (as some people’s messiah says), there’s never been any controversy over the fact that half of the anthropogenic carbon disappears. That’s basic mass balance. We don’t have good data on how much disappears into the biosphere (and contrary to myth, there’s no law that locks the animal and plant kingdoms into carbon balance), and (I’m giving the whole thing away here, since once again Boris completely mangled the question) how much leaves the dissolved state for sequestered solid fates.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119087640/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314

I doubt you’ll find a single climate scientist who disputes that the CO2 rise is man made. Well, maybe Roy Spencer.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5693/abs/277205a0.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n6711/abs/396560a0.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/edsumm/e071122-11.html