Oh, Lordy, the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to changing the subject. Astute readers here will see Ben has still not refuted a single word I say about the smear of skeptics.

Regarding the ‘sky dragon’ thing, I did Google search it just now, and the top result leads right back to Ben’s comment above. I think I know who Ben is referring to, but am at a total loss of how on Earth he can establish that I have any association with those folks. Unless he thinks the free reproduction of my articles at sites having an association with them is supposed to somehow convict me.

He may decline my invitation to carefully examine the origins and people surrounding the long-term smear of skeptics all he wishes, but the continued failure to do so instead ends up looking like a combination of ‘whistling past the graveyard’ and sheer negligence when it comes to asking due diligence questions on whether the fossil fuel funding corruption accusation actually holds water.

But yes, let’s all carefully analyze the statements of a attention-seeking retired graphic artist and self-described “Mainstream Media doubter” who was part of the nutbar ‘sky dragon’ gang! (You’ve really got to Google ’sky dragon’.)

“Decide for yourselves” says Russell, but read an unscientific partisan response (for balance) every time you see a real scientific statement. Your tactic is to rely on repetition to overwhelm thought. If you tell someone “1 + 1 = 3″ enough times you’ll dull them into instinctively giving the same false answer.

Problem is all these ardently spouted “skeptical” perspectives drain down to the same willful partisan deceptions. After 20 or 30 attempts at trying to make sense of them you can pretty easily judge the book by the cover.

So I decline your daring suggestion that I let you lead me by the nose. Been there, done that, wanted the time back. Guess I wasn’t suggestible enough.

Astute readers here will readily see I don’t ‘repeat disproven claims’
but instead suggest in low-volume non-emotional tones for people to
consider both sides and decide for themselves.

Aren’t you worried that readers will compare what you say to what I say
and conclude that you are the one relying on ill conceived debate
tactics when it would be far more convincing to use science and logic to
wipe out the skeptics when it comes to their assessments and the
accusations against them?

I have a degree in Biology.

If you have a problem with it take me to court.

Please “bring me to justice”. I’d love to square off with you in a courtroom. I won’t travel to Seattle to do it, but if you’d like I’ll gladly give you my contact information so you can file a suit.

You posted a graph that makes fun of Anthony Watts and global warming deniers like you?

Is it spelled watt or wot?

Good job!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G-ozEvSFVg 

That of course was completely wrong, and 2011 was almost a tie with record-low 2007.

I sure hope no one makes a copyright claim to disappear that Youtube clip of Bastardi’s prediction.

If I could, I’d have my articles placed at every such left-wing site there is. So, if this is the best you can do, that doesn’t exactly work in your favor, does it?

I’m already fully aware of what it says at the NASA site. Are you fully aware of how it is contradicted by what skeptic climate scientists have to say? I have no expertise to say which side is right, but as I have abundantly shown in my articles, the manner in which we are told to ignore the skeptics is highly questionable.

While your comment is carefully worded, I took the time to read through some of the stories on American Thinker.  This site is a repository for right wing screeds against the President, gays, and others your site mocks for being liberal.  ”Thinker”  is an example of what Thomson meant when he wrote: “ Saying “some people believe” that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere affect the climate system is as absurd as saying that “some people believe” in evolution by natural selection or that “some people believe” in the laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, etc.

This is another case of politicizing science, pure and simple. 

Take a look at what that wacky group of crazy scientists at NASA have to say on the issue of climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/ 

The net of this is that the net rate (emission minus absorption) that energy is radiated is lower then it would be without the greenhouse gases and that the surface is warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases.

Roy Spencer set up a simple experiment to show this, and given the wall of denial he ran into (see the comments), anyone claiming that those in denial about climate change believe in the greenhouse effect, is simply blowing smoke. 

based on his understanding of atomospheric physics, Bastardi should stay with his area of expertise (meteorolgoy). This is not an insult, it’s a reminder that one can’t just make stuff up becuase it’s what you want to believe and expect those that see the laughable error/ logic to ignore it. Even in the managerie of professional skeptics, I would bet that those that do understand climate, like Roy Spencer (“God’s clouds will save us”), Lindzen (“the ‘iris’ will save us”), or Pat Michaels (“climate sensitivety is low, trust me, we will set a new LS temp record soon, but it’ll be OK”) cringed when they heard Bastardi’s comedy routine.