What Should Believers in Manmade Global Warming be Called?

Climate Alarmists
40% (1603 votes)
Climate Pessimists
2% (90 votes)
Greengos
9% (348 votes)
Hot Heads
4% (161 votes)
IPCC Adherents
1% (41 votes)
Warmaholics
4% (180 votes)
Warmers
2% (84 votes)
Warminators
2% (82 votes)
Warm-mongers
20% (793 votes)
Warmophobes
16% (650 votes)
Total votes: 4032

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NBers

February 18, 2008 - 21:19 ET by Noel Sheppard

NBers,

As of this posting, over 4,500 people have responded to our “What Should People That Don't Believe in Manmade Global Warming be Called?” poll, and “Climate Realists” has won with an alarming 79 percent of the vote (pun intended!).

We at NewsBusters thank you.

However, your work isn’t done, for now we need to decide what to call folks that believe man is indeed responsible for warming the planet. With this in mind, all those that gave suggestions in today’s Open Thread are humbly thanked. Your assistance is greatly appreciated, as several of your suggestions made the options list.

Before we get there, some folks from my e-mail chat groups need to be recognized for their contributions to both polls:

England’s Richard Courtney stated:

Please feel free to say that I prefer the description "climate alarmist" for a person who shares the views of e.g. Al Gore.

In my opinion, the descriptions "climate realist" and "climate alarmist" are the most accurate of the non-emotive terms for those in the two groups.

Anthony Watts, who we are all indebted to for his fabulous work exposing the absolutely abysmal weather stations around the country, added a choice that hit the options list:

Warminators. (because the application of their ideas terminates our standard of living).

Delicious!

Marc Morano, of EPW fame, interjected:

I like climate realist, but I also like dissenters from so-called consensus.

Skeptic is still not a bad word and will be included into mix.

For the other side, I often use "promoters of fear" or "promoters of a climate crisis."

Alister McFarquhar humorously added:

I really think labels are counterproductive. Bound to be parodied by the enemy.

"Realists" begs the question…with my science hat on I am an Agnostic, with my statistician hat I dont [sic] see reliable evidence that climate has changed in any meaningful sense of the word.

The climate debate seems driven by religion and mammon…so whats [sic] Science got to do with it? [pace Tina Turner]

Bryan Leyland from New Zealand also quipped:

From my friend Dr Jim Sprott:

Climate gullibles.

Conveniently abbreviates to "C-gulls".

Exquisite!!!

Alfred Pekarek marvelously asked (and added an option for us!):

How about warmophobe? And warmophobia? Or is that too politically correct?

Hardly! Arthur Rorsch also offered a suggestion that had to be included as a poll option:

Over the last months I have used in our country [the Netherlands], in correspondence and articles, to identify the believers as IPCC- adherents, or shorter as ‘warmers’. And the opponents as IPCC critics, not as ‘sceptics’.

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen offered a variant that deserves consideration as a “skeptic” alternative: "I like the neutral IPCC/consensus critics."

I do too, Sonja.

Finally, out of the Open Thread, the best suggestion I saw – and one that deserves very serious consideration – is “Greengos” from NBer zf. I like this one on a lot of levels.

Thanks to all for your suggestions, and happy voting.

Noel: thus far, none of the above

February 18, 2008 - 22:15 ET by lotr

None of the above.  All these terms are all pejorative.

American Geophysical Union Position on Climate Change

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125154628.htm

Excerpt:

"Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956--2006."

Actually they got a bit of

February 18, 2008 - 22:58 ET by Apache

Actually they got a bit of 'heat' for that statement as it was not formed as a result of polling it's members but just a statement from their board.

A statement such as this is

February 19, 2008 - 11:02 ET by lotr

A statement such as this is based upon the vast number of research papers published in AGU publications: Eos Transactions AGU, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres and Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans; it can't be formed by polling thousands of members.

An oreskes style search?

February 19, 2008 - 17:13 ET by Apache

An oreskes style search? Haha

This is pure nonsense. 

February 19, 2008 - 17:24 ET by NL207

This is pure nonsense.  Professional societies routinely poll their memberships.  In most of them, usually once a year, there is a general election to select officers, dircetors, etc.  Many times there are specific propositions.  An endorsement of this moment is something that would be a likely candidate for a poll of the membership.

Obviously you don't belong to one of these associations.  No surprise there.

Really?  For what it's

February 19, 2008 - 17:47 ET by lotr

Really?  For what it's worth, I have been a Member of AGU and AMS for the past 8 years, and I read their publications (Eos, BAMS).  I am also a regular voter in both the AGU and AMS annual elections, and I carefully base my votes on the candidate bios.  I am ususally quite impressed with the credentials of the candidates.

Look, if you want to dismiss the position statements of these professional societies, there's nothing I can do to stop you.  I'm just bringing your attention to them FYI.

If you really ARE a member

February 19, 2008 - 18:56 ET by NL207

If you really ARE a member of these bodies, then you must also have a fair picture of what the rank-and-file membership actually thinks about the proposition that AGW is a critical problem worthy of the crippling government intervention.  My guess is it does not concur with what this 9 man policy committe at AGU thinks. 

AMS is similar. Their policy committe also has about 8 or 9 permanent members, only two of whom are actually Phd meteorologists.  Look at their website.  It has a bio on all these people.    I have met at different times about two dozen regular members of the AMS.  If YOU really are a member of the AMS and you also agree with the position statement of the AMS policy committe as well as the AGU's, then you are the ONLY rank-and-file AMS member with whom I have ever discussed the topic that does support the AGW-is-crisis thesis.

Now, since YOU are a member in good standing of these societies, it should not be difficult for you to explain what the Beer-Lambert Law is and why it is germaine to this discussion. 

Beer's Law

February 20, 2008 - 15:15 ET by lotr

That's funny -- I can't think of one person whom I associate with (and respect), both in my office or any of our collaborators, or anyone else I have come into contact with at professional meetings, who does not acknowledge the anthropogenic CO2 forcing to the earth radiation balance. This is not to say that there are no skeptics out there (I am aware of precisely 2 whom I know and respect, both retired faculty), just that they are a distinct minority.

Beer's Law describes the attenuation of radiation, dI_v, through a medium.  The differential form of the equation is as follows:

dI_v / ds = - a_v(s) * I_v(0),   (1)

where v (nu) is wavenumber (1/cm), ds is the path length, a_v is the volume extinction coefficient (comprised of a scattering term and an absorption term), and I_v(0) is the incident radiant intensity in units of mW/m2/sr/cm-1.  This equation may be solved for the radiance at an arbitrary point s':

I_v(s') = I_v(0) * exp(-tau_v),   (2)

where tau_v is the optical depth (the integral of a_v(s) over the path).

Your point?  Let me venture to guess, though.  The clear-sky atmosphere is virtually transparent (small optical depth) to the solar spectrum, but not for the infrared spectrum where the peak Earth emission occurs.  From Eq. (2), what that means is that in the case of the solar spectrum, the radiance reaching the surface, I_v(s'),  is close to I_v(0) (the incident radiance at the top-of-atmosphere).  In the case of the IR Earth-emitted spectrum, however, there is a prominent CO2 absorption band in the longwave portion (around 600-700 cm-1), where the optical depth is large (approaching infinity).  In this spectral band, the radiance leaving the surface reaching the top-of-atmosphere is practically zero.  Of course, the intervening atmosphere also emits its own radiance to space, but it is at a cooler temperature, which, from the Planck law, contains less energy -- the remaining energy is retained, eventually realized as thermal kinetic energy.  This is the essence of what is coined the "greenhouse effect" (actually a poor terminology -- "atmosphere effect" would be more acurate, but so it is with convention).  The larger the quantity of the absorbing gas (CO2), the more net absorption of upwelling infrared radiation.  Intuitively, we would expect a global warming in surface temperatures.

I really do not wish to be drawn further into this somewhat hostile discussion -- I am not a climate specialist, but my intent has been to provide access to what professional scientists (the specialists, so to speak) are saying.  You are free to take it or leave it -- just know that evidence continues to mount in our circles.

So are you claiming only

February 20, 2008 - 15:52 ET by dscott

So are you claiming only CO2 is absorbing energy in the IR band?  What about water vapor? What about Nitrogen and Oxygen?  How many more times is water vapor in the air than CO2 by volume or weight?  Surely even you recognize that attributing all change/effect to one component in a multi-component system is a logical fallacy? Claiming a change in the smallest component of the atmosphere is causing the whole system to change defies logic and ignores feedbacks and other variables.  The butterfly effect is a logical fallacy as it is based on circular reasoning. 

The whole claim of CO2 based climate change is based on an elaborate structure of circular reasoning and it starts by assuming the claim "all things being equal".  All things are not equal as history teaches us.  The fact that the Little Ice Age ended around 150 years ago demonstrates all things are not equal, never mind static.  Everything is constantly changing, from the output of the sun (TSI, solar wind, cosmic rays, etc.), the tilt of the earth, the shape of earth's orbital path, the precessional movement of the earth, vulcanism gas & particle output, etc. Until science can definitively explain the cause of the Ice Ages, Roman Warming, Medieval Warming, Little Ice Age, etc. no one has any business trying to claim AGW for this current period.  AGW doesn't just fly in the face of logic, it makes a mockery out of science itself. 

One should never confuse the difference between an assertion, hypothesis and theory.  Elevating an assertion based on circular reasoning to the level of theory destroys the very foundation of science because to do so requires denying the sum total of all the facts.  Science is not some courtroom where a judge dismisses various facts on the basis of some perceived relevance. Once done, it destroys the credibility of logical thought and reason.  We might as well go back to using beads and rattles or tea leaves if assertions are treated as fact.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Lord Vader

February 20, 2008 - 16:38 ET by lotr

First off, no, I have not claimed CO2 is the only absorbing gas, but it is the one most germane to the discussion of AGW.  It is correct to say that H2O is the primary absorbing gas -- thing is, though, H2O readily precipitates out of the atmosphere on meso-timescales, whereas CO2 does not -- CO2 has a centuries-long residence time.  A miniscule amount of time on a geologic time scale, to be sure, but many generations on the human time scale.

Secondly, everything you have just said in the second paragraph is correct enough (although I would disagree that the Ice Ages haven't been explained).  That's why we devise physical models.  Mind you, a physical model not about the computer -- only the human intellect comes up with models -- computers are introduced to solve numerically equations that usually are not amenable to analytical solution.  In the case of climate models, all the factors you have mentioned, to varying degrees, are taken into account.  That's not to say it's perfect -- they aren't -- but I cannot emphasize enough that they represent the very best anyone can say about the subject.  We can use little thought experiments like above as a sanity check, but ultimately everthing we say here is nothing more than handwaving in comparison.  One can have a mistrust of the individuals who work on this stuff -- that they have some sort of agenda, but again, science is the toughest place to get away with this sort of thing.  For one thing, there are numerous modelers out there -- I don't think they are all out with an agenda, and even if they do have one, their results are always and forever subject to scrutiny.

Regarding assertion, hypothesis and theory, again, I completely agree.  My personal (and professional) opinion is that AGW is certainly a hypothesis, but it is coming very close to theory as we continue to gather data.

Respectfully, lotr

Thank you for raising the

February 20, 2008 - 17:59 ET by dscott

Thank you for raising the subject of models versus analytical solutions.  All models use the assumption of "all things being equal" in omitting variables such as clouds and albedo.  The willingness of a computer technition to excuse omitting variables because they are too complex speaks to the incredible complexity of climate itself and thus lowers not inceases the confidence factor of the results.

You have heard of garbage in equals garbage out?  I have a favorite saying similar to this based on the concept of "false proof" in Geometry.  "Start with a false assumption, apply flawless logic and come up with a flawlessly false conclusion."

When it comes to computer models one doesn't need a conspiracy theory to question their results when all the data is not entered.  The bottom line is unless the model can run "all" the variables of a particular system, any omission of a variable is misleading at best and subject to circular reasoning at worst.  If you will remember Chaos Theory, this is where the true butterfly effect occurs, where was it discovered? IN COMPUTER MODELS by omitting some decimal places: http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html  The butterfly effect is a metaphysical description using a butterfly flapping it's wings to make a minute change which in turn causes something else to change in computers, it doesn't work that way in nature with individuals but it does with systems and variables. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Last point

February 20, 2008 - 22:25 ET by dscott

Last point lotr, http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1  Scientists are beginning to call for the disbanding of the IPCC due to systematic analytical and ethical failures.  As a professional yourself who depends upon the judgement of others and must give the benefit of the doubt, i.e. not being mistrustful, what Dr. Gray reports of his first hand experience in being a reviewer involved at the IPCC should give you pause for concern as to the information that is being disseminated by the IPCC.  All Science depends upon accurate, ethical handling and gathering of the data.  I suggest you read what he found, what he says here is damning.   Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

dscott

February 21, 2008 - 12:56 ET by lotr

I've taken a quick link at Dr. Gray's letter.  While he may raise valid points about IPCC procedures based on first-hand knowledge, I simply disagree with his dismissal that there is even a measured warming trend -- he would fall into an extreme minority on that one -- virtually everyone recognizes there has, in fact, been a warming over the past century.  Following his line of reasoning, we cannot make any statements whatsoever about climate, nor Earth history for that matter.  If he has problems with taking the average of two daily thermometer measurements, then he would have even more problems with so-called "proxy" measurements, the ones that allow us to reconstruct climate from the prehistoric past.  I think it is a copout to insinuate that "because we don't have global, onboard-calibrated, validated, hourly satellite measurements of the earth's atmosphere prior to the 1970s, we cannot say anything about the climate."

I believe I've read somewhere on this blog that you, dscott, are an engineer, so I would presume that you are a "real-world problem solver."  We simply don't have the data-perfection that Dr. Gray requires (and even if we had a satellite dataset as I described above, there could still be ill-founded skepticism, since there are old-fashioned types who altogether reject satellite data as being valid: "How can you measure the earth's temperature from space?!") -- maybe in a classroom we can impose such demands, but not in the real world.  So, we do the best with what we have; these data (proxy and weather station thermometers), while they are flawed, do provide valuable information about the earth's climate (mean atmospheric state).

Yes, as an enginer my

February 21, 2008 - 17:07 ET by dscott

Yes, as an enginer my career is mainly solving problems.  But the problems that should be solved should be real or significant ones, not those measured by tenths of a degree.  When I went to school eons ago when the calculator was just beginning to supplant the slide rule, we were shown how to use a slide rule.  One of the most innocuous of lessons we learned in math class was "significant digits" in reference to the accuracy of any result of calculation.  I find it amazing that such a lesson is lost in today's world.  The concept of significant digits was lost when calculators came into vogue. When you start multiplying numbers together, the accuracy of any result is determined by the least accurate number (fewest digit places).  E.G. when you multiply 10.1 x 2.46 x 5.736 you get 142.51665 by the calculator, however that result while technically accurate as to the mechanical computation is not any more accurate than 142.5  As you can see with Chaos Theory in computer models, omitting digit places can radically change the results of the model. 

This is even more so where error bars are concerned, when the results of any calculation fall into the range of the error bars, the results are an esoteric exercise of math.  Such a result is merely a curiousity not a firm number to base policy upon. This doesn't give me any confidence in the results nor should anyone base policy on such a modeled result. All computer model results are basically esoteric points of interest that must be validated against the real world.  All of the IPCC models don't even predict past climate without adding fudge factors (adjustments), so why should anyone accept such results for the future? A fudge factor or adjustments is just another way to say, "all things being equal", as stated before, that in itself is a logical fallacy.  In fact, computer modeling as used by the IPCC is just another logical fallacy, extrapolation is not prediction any more than correlation is causation.

I have a saying borrowed from a very wise man, Engineers are concerned with not swallowing camels while scientists busily strain gnats. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

dscott

February 21, 2008 - 18:03 ET by lotr

I know we are beating a dead horse at this point, but I just want to say that I have a great deal of respect for engineers, especially those who grew up using slide rules as opposed to calculators.

You are absolutely correct about significant digits.  Although I've never used a slide rule, I was fortunate to go to a public school that was, believe it or, very conservative and therefore very rigorous (by today's standards).  Calculators were absolutely forbidden, and they were useless anyway in our high school math classes.  Computers are a powerful tool, nothing more.  The science lies in our models (again, "model" here means a set of state equations, rooted in theory).

Anyhow, there was one other thing I wanted to mention in response to concerns you raise about "chaos."  Unfortunately, I can only go by what I learned in graduate paleoclimate, but I recall the professor telling us that numerical climate models are fundamentally different from numerical weather prediction models in that the latter are "initial value problems" whereas the former are not.  This means that while weather predictibilty is limited by chaos, this is not necessarily the case with climate.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but my understanding was that climate models "spin-up" to an equilibrium state in a way that is not "chaotically" sensitive to initial conditions.  Of course, I could be totally wrong about this -- I'll admit I am stepping a bit out of my league here (relaying my recollections of a graduate class that I took over 10 years ago), for what it's worth....

This is the essence of what

February 20, 2008 - 16:06 ET by dscott

This is the essence of what is coined the "greenhouse effect" (actually a poor terminology -- "atmosphere effect" would be more acurate, but so it is with convention).

I'm glad you acknowledge this poor terminology since the greenhouse effect works both ways not unidirectionally.  Just as a greenhouse "traps" heat due to a lack of convection, thus causing the temperature of the enclosure to rise above the ambient in the daytime, the reverse happens at night when the heat in the greenhouse radiates out of the enclosure causing the temperture to DROP BELOW the AMBIENT at NIGHT (Black Body radiation).  Thus the other intuitive expectation is the diurnal temperature difference must increase. Has it?  NOT!  The properties of CO2 or any other gas don't change by the hour or time of day, again it's circular reasoning to pick and choose the properties of any substance in order to prove an assertion.  The validation of a hypothesis is based on all the facts, not the exclusion of some of them.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

You expect to sally in here

February 25, 2008 - 14:56 ET by NL207

You expect to sally in here and dump your pseudo-scientific, liberal pablum on this board under the guise of 'providing ...what professional scientists are saying' without getting into a debate? If you quoted the Climate Realists one-for-one with your quotes of the politically corrupt IPCC, Dr. Michael Mann, Jim Hansen, the political policy committees of AGU and AMS, etc. you might avoid a debate. But I haven't seen you quote anything from the Realist side. You, sir, are by your actions a partisan, a Climate Alarmist partisan. Expect to be received as a partisan.

Faculty? Most of the AMS members I know are Meteorologists. Almost all of them agree that metrology shows a warming over the last century and a half and all to the last man reject the notion that man is the primary term in the warming function. Maybe you should expand your circle of aquaintances to include people who actually do meteorology instead of just talk about meteorology?

Now, to the Beer-Lambert Law. I think what you wish to avoid is one of the salient fallacies of the CO2-as-catastrophe Global Warming thesis, nor do you see my point at all.

Let's look at your equation (2). It may be re-written in terms of absorbance as

                                 A = a(lambda) * b * c

In fact, this is the more common representation of the law where a is the molar absorpation of the absorbant species as a function of wavelength, b is the thickness of the cuvette and c is the molar concentration of the absorbant species in the medium.

Applying this to the atmosphere, is nontrivial because there is more than absorbant species, their a(lamba) functions overlap and these species are not all uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Consider the product b*c, if you will as it applies to the atmosphere, where c is a function of b. When you do, I think you will see that variations of CO2 where the concentrations in solution remain small, as they are in the atmosphere, will produce a diminishing absorption effect as CO2 increase in concentration where the absorption effect rapidly saturates and further increases produce little or no net effect.

I will continue on another thread, since this one is more or less dead.

Lotr. I got my

February 19, 2008 - 20:15 ET by danbo

Lotr. I got my undergraduate degree back in ancient times. Continental drift was not fully accepted yet. Though we occasionally heard the words plate tectonics. It hadn't yet morphed into what we call plate tectonics yet.

As a result I got a a bit of both and the older theories.

 I remember my old geology professor discussing the theory that the crust due to changes in the mantel and apparently deeper. Would flex down ward to cause the oceanic rift valleys. Then after they filled with  sediments. The pressure from under would shift. Pushing them upward  in the reverse. Causing oceanic rift valleys to bulge upward and become mountain ranges. Thus according to that old theory, oceanic rift valleys were the locations of future mountain ranges, and the locations of present mountain ranges where the location of past oceanic rifts. 

It's one of those discarded theories. But I can't remember the name of it. And I'm a also a history buff and would like to look it up. What was the name of that theory?

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo

February 20, 2008 - 14:50 ET by lotr

I always found plate tectonics interesting.  I can't be sure if the process you describe is still valid, or what its name might be -- I could probably find the answer in one of my undergrad textbooks, but I really just don't have time.  I will say that on the surface the process would seem to make sense given the fact that the sediments, originating from the continental crust, are less dense.  As they get subsumed below the crust (from the collision of the two plates), they melt, but because of their low density, they then obtain a buoyant force to push them upward, possibly resulting in volcanism and the building of new land masses.  But this is a stab in the dark -- I am not a geologist, so don't quote me on it.

Seems they approved two

February 19, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Apache

Seems they approved two position statements at the same meeting. Guess which one the alarmists use and which one they ignore? This is the problem I have with alarmists. Every "fact" they use traces back to another fact they like to hide. It also seem the choice was made by about nine members for each position. So they have the same weight. Granted the weight for both is nothing.

 http://climatesci.org/2008/02/01/position-statement-of-the-agu-on-meeting-the-challenges-of-natural-hazards/

Except for all these Papers from their Journals of Course...

February 19, 2008 - 21:52 ET by PopularTech

It must be convenient for the 9 member panel to ignore all these papers...

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20717, 2005)
- Albert Arking

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo

Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, 2006)
- Petr Chylek, M. K. Dubey, G. Lesins

Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2003)
- Edward Hanna, John Cappelen

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
(Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002)
- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L17718, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, No. 23, PAGES 3195–3198, 1995)
- Judith Lean, Juerg Beer, Raymond Bradley

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2, Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L14703, 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung

Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 66, p.273, 01/1961)
- Stuiver, M.

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie W.-H. Soon

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels

Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 183–186, 2001)
- Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris

Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas

Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 18, pp. 2905–2908, 2000)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D06102, 2007)
- John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L06211, 2004)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

lotr

February 18, 2008 - 23:37 ET by Noel Sheppard

lotr,

So, what do you suggest? ns

Noel

February 19, 2008 - 11:11 ET by lotr

Sorry for the delay in reply -- I posted that last post before retiring last night.

Not sure -- I, for one, am a "believer."  I wasn't a believer in the 1990s -- I was a skeptic then (although even then I knew there was an observed warming, but I was not convinced it was anthropogenic).  I wouldn't use any of those terms to describe myself.  Here's a stab, though: "AGW theorists."

lotr

February 19, 2008 - 12:23 ET by Noel Sheppard

lotr,

You can't use AGW, for a very small percentage of the population knows what it stands for.

Look, I understand your position. I'm probably not pleased with the choices either. Sadly, no one has come up with anything better. Keep trying. :-) ns

a better choice..

February 19, 2008 - 13:16 ET by wizardjr

how about "moron" ?

anyone who deliberately ignores solar cycles and orbital mechanics in favor of cow farts and mammals exhaling qualifies

lol!

February 19, 2008 - 13:22 ET by RJ

Nicely put.

Disregarding juvenile insults, FYI:

February 19, 2008 - 13:58 ET by lotr

Climate Warmer Than in Past 400 Years, Panel Confirms

Eos Trans. AGU, 87(27), 4 July 2006, p. 266. 

Except: 

The Earth’s climate in the late twentieth century was the warmest in at least the last 400 years and likely the warmest in the last millennium, a U.S. National Research Council (NRC) panel confirmed in a 22 June report.

“The committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the twentieth century than during any comparable time during the previous millennium,” said panel chair Gerald North, a geoscientist at Texas A&M University, College Station.

The U.S. Congress requested the report after controversy arose over a 1998 Nature article by Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues that concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 1000 years. The paper also presented the ‘hockey-stick’ curve that has since been widely used to illustrate rising temperatures.

Again, these are the published findings of scientists, which have nothing to do with liberal media bias.

Another 9 Member Conclusion that is WRONG

February 19, 2008 - 14:30 ET by PopularTech

20th Century Climate Not So Hot (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
Greenland's Ice Yields Further Clues About Climate Change (Science Daily)
Marshes Tell Story Of Medieval Drought, Little Ice Age, And European Settlers Near NYC (Science Daily)
Middle Ages Were Warmer Than Today, Say Scientists (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Tree Rings Show a Period of Widespread Warming in Medieval Age (The New York Times)
Tree rings show Earth was warm 800 years ago (USA Today)
Warmer Periods In Alaskan Area Not Confined To Modern Times (Science Daily)

A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
(Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, p.127-132, 2004)
- P.A Mayewski, K. Maasch, J.W.C White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Sourney, K. Kreutz

Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period
(Science, Vol. 288. no. 5474, pp. 2198 - 2202, 23 June 2000)
- Peter deMenocal, Joseph Ortiz, Tom Guilderson, Michael Sarnthein

Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
(Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002)
- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)
- De'Er Zhang

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)
- Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur

Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau)
(Paleooceanography, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1044, 2003)
- Carin Andersson, Bjørg Risebrobakken, Eystein Jansen, Svein Olaf Dahl

Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability
(Science, Vol. 295. no. 5563, pp. 2250 - 2253, 22 March 2002)
- Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber

Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia
(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 209, Issues 1-4, Pages 113-125, 6 July 2004)
- K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 36, Issues 1-2, March 2003, Pages 17-29)
- T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, D. A. Willard

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal
(Energy and Environment, Vol. 14, Issues 2 & 3, April 11, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea
(Science, Vol. 274. no. 5292, pp. 1503 - 1508, 29 November 1996)
- Lloyd D. Keigwin

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa
(South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126, 2000)
- P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss

The 'Mediaeval Warm Period' drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China
(Holocene, Vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 511-516, 2002)
- Guoqiang Chu, Jiaqi Liu, Qing Sun, Houyuan Lu, Zhaoyan Gu, Wenyuan Wang, Tungsheng Liu

The Medieval Warm Period in the Daihai Area
(Journal of Lake Sciences, Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 209-216, Sep 2002)
- Z. Jin, J. Shen, S. Wang, E. Zhang

Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)
- Ricardo Villalba

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
(Science, Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1497 - 1499, 23 February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

warmest in at least the

February 19, 2008 - 14:52 ET by dscott

warmest in at least the last 400 years and likely the warmest in the last millennium

Except in how they are presented it in glossing over the surface by distraction from critical thinking.  The statement examined by critical thinking says the temperatures were the same or warmer 400 to 1000 years ago.  By claiming a time line, the writer admits it was warmer before then even though the implicite intent was to say that todays temperatures are warmer than during the last "interval" of 400 to 1000 years.  No one disputes it is warmer now than during the Little Ice Age, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minimums.  A simple exercise in logic, that's why AGW falls flat when examined.  In order to accept AGW you must only accept the statement at face value without examining the underlying facts.  That lotr is how propaganda works. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

I for one will not say

February 19, 2008 - 18:14 ET by danbo

I for one will not say it's the warmest it's been in 400 years. I'm not sure about the 30's. If may be slightly warmer now, it may have been warmer then.

The surface records have been so adjusted and manipulated I can't say which was warmer. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

OK, this is a valid point

February 19, 2008 - 18:24 ET by lotr

OK, this is a valid point -- it was warmer during at least one period in the historical past.  However, I don't take it as propaganda -- I didn't dig this stuff up out of Newsweek.  Our best physical models predict a warming (in agreement with physical intuition), and, interestingly, we observe a warming, one that has accelerated over the past century.

Computer Models are Irrelevant

February 19, 2008 - 21:30 ET by PopularTech

What part of it does not matter what the models show do you not understand? If those models include 1 thing that does not relate to the real world 100% exactly then their results are meaningless. I already explained this to you. Computers cannot fill in the blanks for the climate physics you are missing or have gotten wrong. They can also be programmed to get any result you want. Only a fool or a computer illiterate would believe them as proof of anything.

What dishonest scientists such as yourself are doing by lying to those who do not understand computer models is beyond maddening.

What you stated is propaganda and not based on science.

Recently observing a warming of 0.6c over 100 years is not proof of anything other than what it is. Kind of hard for the warming to "accelerate" when it dropped after the 1940s.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

In case you missed it. Mann

February 19, 2008 - 16:07 ET by danbo

In case you missed it. Mann has been shot to hell. Just ask Steve McIntyre. There are other reconstructions of climate history, as. 

And for the last 17 years of satellite data.

Source

Since these experts disagree with Mann. Seems we don't have a consensus.

 Everyone else. I found Spencers "Disclosure" at the bottom sad but funny. It shows how science has stooped.

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo

February 20, 2008 - 16:56 ET by lotr

Interesting web site -- thanks.  I will say that it doesn't "shoot Mann to Hell" -- it claims that he "erroneously minimized the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)".  The Figure 2 is consistent with the RNC panel conclusion.

Michael Mann may not be

February 19, 2008 - 16:21 ET by NL207

Michael Mann may not be directly associated with the MSM, but he is most ceratinly imbued with liberal bias.

As has been pointed out before to NB poster, 'Giles Winterbourne', Mann's paper of 1998, which is what is being quoted by your expert, has been thoroughly debunked.   Aside from its staistal flaws which are sufficient to invalidate it by themselves, Mann grafted instrumentation data onto the end of his proxy reconstruction.  Even YOU should be able to recognize the fallacy this represents.

wrong reference

February 19, 2008 - 17:59 ET by lotr

If you take a look at the excerpt, you will note that this clip is not about the 1998 Mann paper, but rather about a 2006 U.S. National Resarch Council panel findings in response to his paper, published in the AGU journal Eos Trans. AGU. 

Again, I am just providing information found in professional journals FYI.

Irrelevant

February 19, 2008 - 21:32 ET by PopularTech

I posted an excess of citations proving your excerpt irrelevant.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Exactly the point.  Your

February 20, 2008 - 00:05 ET by NL207

Exactly the point.  Your quote is BASED ON THE MANN PAPER.  Its validity rests on the validity of MBH99, which has been debunked, proven invalid.  Therefore, conclusions based on MBH99 are by implication, also invalid.

Again, I am employing critical thinking.  You should try this sometime instead of swallowing the opinion of some committee of policy wonks who are prostituting the good name of a scientific society.

I will ask you yet again, What is the Beer-Lambert Law and what does it have to do with this debate.  You can't answer?  Then you are no scientist with any sort of credentials consistent with the AGU or AMS.  In case you have trouble understanding this, you've just been called out.

Ok NL, given I am just an

February 20, 2008 - 11:36 ET by dscott

Ok NL, given I am just an engineer, I did a search on it and came up with this: http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/beers1.htm

So, if all the light passes through a solution without any absorption, then absorbance is zero, and percent transmittance is 100%. If all the light is absorbed, then percent transmittance is zero, and absorption is infinite.

I assume you are referring to CO2? So could you "enlighten" us on the topic?   This radiation deal is a little out of my league.  I'm more familiar with radiation in terms thermodynamics of a heat transfer method like convection and conduction rather than optical qualities.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Obviously you have not

February 20, 2008 - 14:36 ET by lotr

Obviously you have not employed critical thinking, else you would've caught on that NRC panel is not "based upon" the Mann paper -- it was formed to examine the findings of that paper, in light of the so-called "controversy," and it found, quite independently, that "the conclusions of the Mann study are 'essentially valid' for the last 400 years, but the evidence from further in the past is more 'murky'."  So, according to this 2006 study, highlighted in the Eos Trans. AGU (one of many I have "stumbled upon" during the past 8 years as I browse them) the Mann paper is not fully debunked -- in logic, this is called "begging the question."

Regarding Beer's Law -- see above.  I do have work to attend to outside of this blog, so you'll pardon that I threw it together during lunch.  While you are free on this blog to employ a patronizing tone, realize that it does nothing for intellectual discourse aside from creating hard feelings with those who actually care enough to have it with you.

Except that the 'debunking'

February 26, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Giles Winterbourne

Except that the 'debunking' of Mann, et al has been debunked.

Which is why their studies, along with several others are in IPCC4th corroborating the evidence.

 

Mann, et al was reviewed and found to be basically accurate. My bet is that you know that and have chosen to either ignore it or hope that the general reader will take you at face value.

 

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th
century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at
least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been
supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes
in a variety of local proxy indicators," http://books.nap.edu...

 

"Altogether new reconstructions over 1400-1980
are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which
demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the
proxy-based criticisms addressed." http://www.cgd.ucar....

 

Some points about using 'the hockey-stick' http://www.realclima...

NRC Confirms Heating, "Hockey Stick" Study

http://www.heatisonl...

"

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some
business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create
an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm
periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National
Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they
saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or
methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure." http://www.nytimes.c...

"

 

 

 

 

Noel

February 19, 2008 - 14:05 ET by lotr

Thing is, it's an ill-posed survey question.  If it is aimed at a media label for "believers," then I suppose "global warming proponents" might be another option (I don't like "proponents" because it is a political term, but it does sound like a catchy media label).

I wonder how long the

February 19, 2008 - 01:33 ET by NL207

I wonder how long the AGU will continue to support this crap. 

The important points are these: 

1. The warming rate observed recently is neither unprecedented nor is it outside the range seen in the recent geologic past during comparative interglacial periods.

2. There is no proof that man has caused the majority of this warming.  Indeed, there have been numerous papers published, some in the AGU's own journal, demonstrating that at least half of the warming seen over the last century is solar in origin.

3. There is no proof whatsoever that such warming as has been seen recently, or enough more to equal the peak of the last three previous interglacial periods [that's right, it was warmer than the present at some point in all three of them] is in any way of net harm to this planet and the life upon it.

To prove the case of the AGW'ers means proving all three of these assertions false, and YOU sure as h*** can't do it.

 Notice that there is nothing in this position of the AGU that contradicts what I have just said.  The facts they have presented are consistent with this picture.  They simply have restricted their discussion to the last 150 years.

I'll agree with point 3, but

February 19, 2008 - 18:08 ET by lotr

I'll agree with point 3, but not point 2.  Most of the reputable sources I turn to, for the most part, agree that the warming is, at least partially, anthropogenic in origin.  Hence the position statements....

Then please provide the proof

February 19, 2008 - 21:36 ET by PopularTech

If you disagree then please provide the proof via the scientific method that man is causing climate change.

Position Statements from 9 member panels are not Scientific Proof BTW.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

AGU Position Statement Represents 9 Not All 50,000 Members

February 19, 2008 - 09:40 ET by PopularTech

How much longer are these lies going to go on? Why do they continue to lie about an imagined consensus that does not exist and keep using committee member decisions to lie about the position of an organization's membership? This deception is dishonest and needs to be exposed.

"...we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science." - James Inhofe, B.A. Economics

CO2 Science Challenges AGU’s Official Position on Global Warming (Canadian Free Press)

AGU Climate Consensus Statement: 9 Speak for 50,000? (The Politics and Environment Blog)

"The AGU Board issued a statement on climate change without putting it to a vote of the group's more than 50,000 members. Its sweeping claims, drafted by nine committee members, rely heavily on long term computer model projections, cherry-picking of data and a one-sided view of recent research. As with the recent statements by the AMS and the NAS, this is the product of a small circle of scientists who all share the same point of view, and who failed to put their statement to a vote of the AGU members on whose behalf they now claim to speak. As such it amounts to nothing more than a restatement of the opinion of a small group, rather than a consensus document."

Should Scientific Societies Issue Position Statements? (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics)

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Pop Tech. I really liked

February 19, 2008 - 09:48 ET by danbo

Pop Tech. I really liked this photo. Thank you. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Right to the point

February 19, 2008 - 10:46 ET by PopularTech

Yeah, that says it all in nut shell.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

AGU is a professional scientific society -- MSM it is not

February 19, 2008 - 11:30 ET by lotr

I suppose then that we should disregard position statements of other professional societies?  Here's a good one:

AHA Scientific Position: Cigarette Smoking and Cardiovascular Diseases

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/3243

There must be thousands of members of AHA -- I don't think they conducted a straw vote to arrive at this wording -- someone wrote it on behalf of the thousands of members.

Muddying the waters by

February 19, 2008 - 11:37 ET by dscott

Muddying the waters by dragging in unrelated organizations to the issue at hand? Please, we don't fall for that line of distraction here.  That only works on libs and the un-cynical.  Try again with a more reasoned argument.

You might at least try to offer that leadership committees at professional organizations are people who have been recognized as leaders in their field of study...  Of course I will counter that such leadership positions are purely political based on popularity or the chutzpa of the individual seeking public acclaim or accepted a post for an impressive line on their curriculum vitae (CV) or as in most organizations many positions are filled by default of those who show up to the meetings. By my experience, as in most public organizations, it's those who show up who make the decisions, in this case, people with an agenda are the most likely to show up. Most professionals are not interested in spending time on committees, they have better things to do with their time.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

No, it is an example

February 19, 2008 - 14:28 ET by lotr

No, it is an example that debunks the notion that a position statement by a professional society isn't worth anything, which is utter nonsense.

For what it's worth, AGU did offer the following "disclaimer": 

"AGU formulates and maintains a number of position statements that reflect the concerns of the Union, none of which extends beyond the range of available geophysical data or the norms of legitimate scientific debate."

The only nonsense is your Propaganda

February 19, 2008 - 14:32 ET by PopularTech

A 9 member panel decision does not represent the consensus view of it's 50,000 members. If you have proof of the 50,000 member's positions please let me know, otherwise stop repeating the propaganda.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Position Statements = Manufactured Consensus

February 19, 2008 - 13:54 ET by PopularTech

Are you now saying that position is supported by all 50,000 members when no vote was taken? It is a very simple argument and if you are unable to be rational about it then you have no business bringing it up. If you believe that all 50,000 members support this position then please prove it.

Any position statement by any organization of which no vote was taken cannot represent the scientific opinion of anyone except those who approved the statement. That is the reality of science and scientific opinion. The same would hold true of the AHA. Though in their defense their is actual science to back up their position.

Otherwise science could be easily hijacked as it has been by getting a small few to approve a political position and then dishonestly claim through affiliation all it's members as in support and a manufactured consensus.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

See comment above.

February 19, 2008 - 14:26 ET by lotr

See comment above.

Please provide evidence of the 50,000 Member's Positions

February 19, 2008 - 14:34 ET by PopularTech

Please provide evidence of the 50,000 AGU individual Member's positions. I would like the proof.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

My favorite didn't make the

February 18, 2008 - 23:42 ET by danbo

My favorite didn't make the list. Goebbelite or Goebbelist. Named after Joseph Goebbels.

Who said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will believe it to be true. And that the people had to be shielded from the political, economic or military truth. Therefore, the state needed to use all it's poweres to repress dissent. Because truth is the enemy of the lie.

After all in fairness to the attempt to claim we deny the fact that people were murdered. But who minimizes the death of those who died due to the supression of DDT.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Mine didn't make it either

February 19, 2008 - 09:45 ET by WildBill

I prefer idiot. 

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln

Noel, Quick

February 20, 2008 - 18:04 ET by Leon

Noel,

Quick question.

If Man has been proven responsible for destroying our forests, rivers, oceans, & animal populations...

Why is it so outrageous to also think that we might be destroying our climate?

I don't get it.  I continually hear people claim that believing in Global Warming is arrogance, yet we can point to innumerable examples where man has clearly destroyed his own environment.

PS Don't you find this little label game to be a little Goebbels-esque?  Just a thought.  The constant drive to dehumanize their enemies is a scary aspect of the right.

The constant drive to

February 20, 2008 - 18:23 ET by dscott

The constant drive to dehumanize their enemies is a scary aspect of the right.

As though the left doesn't do this? Leon, Leon, Leon.  Why do they call us Deniers then?  Labeling isn't the issue that causes dehumanization, it's assigning negative names, like name calling, that is at the heart of Goebbel's method.  Saying you are an American or German is not dehumanizing, saying you are a dog or pig or a murderer is dehumanizing.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

I'm glad we seem to be going

February 18, 2008 - 21:21 ET by motherbelt

I'm glad we seem to be going for one that's factual, and avoids the schoolyard-taunt tone..

At least so far....it's early yet! LOL

MB

February 18, 2008 - 21:35 ET by Noel Sheppard

MB,

Although I hope people have fun with this, the goal is to identify terms for both sides that will be acceptable to both sides.

I won't abide "Denier," and don't think "Skeptic" says it, even when it's spelled with two C's. :-) ns

Noel

February 18, 2008 - 21:40 ET by

i still reserve 'Manbearpiglets' for special circumstances

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

OK I give up...I missed

February 18, 2008 - 22:24 ET by motherbelt

OK I give up...I missed something, obviously.

What is IPCC?

Boy am i glad

February 18, 2008 - 22:30 ET by Delsa

Boy am i glad you asked that question. I thought it was me

IPCC

February 18, 2008 - 22:38 ET by acumen

That would be the UN's (so you just know they're a trustworthy bunch) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"Govt. Panel Climate Change" says it all

February 18, 2008 - 22:53 ET by JayTee

All those words together, means they need an acronym to hide it all.

All the Govt. Panels believe in Climate change...but not all the Scientists.

Meanwhile it's 64 degrees in New York Today....BUT....it's 4 degrees below the Record High for this date.   Global Cooling is upon us...!!!  Get in your SUV and start driving around the Block, we gotta warm up this here Planet to a record High Temp, or all is lost for the IPCC !! 

Noel,

February 18, 2008 - 22:51 ET by R D Helm

I know "Climate Commie" was a little strong (regardless of its accuracy), as were many of the other suggestions made, and therefore verbotten in these PC times. However, are we, or should we be, really all that concerned about what terms we employ to define the other side in this debate? Clearly they are most unwilling to extend the same courtesy to our side.

I suppose that, in the spirit of "politeness," there is an argument that could be forwarded that we should refer to them as climate change advocates, or a similarly benign term. However, that is only partially accurate. Given what I firmly believe are the true motivations that drive most on the other side of this issue, and given the stakes involved, I think it far too polite.

It appears to me that we are inviting the other side in this debate to a duel, but our side is going to allow their side to select the weapons for both parties.

 

RD

February 18, 2008 - 23:17 ET by Noel Sheppard

RD,

Really outstanding questions all. I'm glad you asked, and am very happy to answer.

This isn't about being politically correct. Do you think I'm motivated by such an absurd concept?

Certainly not. When I began this endeavor, I did so to honestly assertain titles for both sides that would be acceptable to both sides. I believe this is important, for right now, their side is using labels to defame us and diminish our voices.

Consider what most believers that post here refer to us as -- deniers. I can't abide this, and neither should you. As such, I thought it was important that we came up with a better term.

Please understand that my sentiments seem to be shared by many on the front-lines of this debate. Or hadn't you noticed the scientists that have chimed in? Recognize some of these names as being the most outspoken voices against this myth? Frankly, I was amazed by the number of folks offering opinions on this issue, from all points of the globe.

With that in mind, if it's important to us for the term defining our position to not be defamatory, shouldn't we use a term for the other side that is similarly respectful?

Or, are we hypocrites? We don't want them to refer to us pejoratively, but it's okay for us to do that?

If we really are on the high road, I think we need to behave that way. Don't you?    ns 

RD and Noel... Could this

February 18, 2008 - 23:26 ET by Clear thinker

RD and Noel...

Could this be considered a happy medium by both of you... "Climate Activists" 

Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/

Ct, I can go along with that.

February 19, 2008 - 00:20 ET by R D Helm

LOL-Of course, every time I see the word "activist" I read it as "kook."

Noel,

February 19, 2008 - 00:05 ET by R D Helm

Do you think I'm motivated by such an absurd concept?

Hardly. And if I did, I would no-longer read your articles.

..for right now, their side is using labels to defame us and diminish our voices.

Correct, but, given the history of these people, I honestly expect this unfortunate situation to worsen, not improve. After all, some on their side are advocating revoking the professional credentials of those who oppose them, and a few of them have proposed worse. They appear to be playing for keeps.

Consider what most believers that post here refer to us as -- deniers. I can't abide this, and neither should you

I agree for the most part, due mainly to that term's unfortunate association with those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. The difference here is that Eisenhower ordered the ample evidence present be preserved for posterity, as his mind ranged far enough to see the day when there would be those who would say it never happened. The other side in this debate has no such evidence.

However, I have to admit that I am not really all that offended by their use of the term, as most of them have been so brainwashed that they honestly believe in AGW.

As for the balance of your comment, I fully understand that when dealing with the highly educated (yet still misguided) persons on their side, we should strive to show them the proper respect, as should always be shown at similar professional levels, and therefore do our part to maintain the "high road." Should we not, they will use it against us.

However, aside from most of their credentialed scientists, their self-appointed "foot soldiers" have a decidedly different approach, and they are the ones we get the most of in here.

Perhaps a two-tiered system might be in order?

 

 

 

 

RD

February 19, 2008 - 00:43 ET by Noel Sheppard

RD,

This isn't for the alarmists that post here. It's for the alarmists in the media, and people like Gore.

We're not fighting the battle here. We're just discussing strategy.

And part of that strategy will always involve being respectful of those with a contrary position, for that's what Americans are supposed to do. Sadly, the alarmists have forgotten that, which is just one of their many failings.

When one opts for the high road, one must always be cognizant of its prerequisites, or take an easier path.  ns

Noel,

February 19, 2008 - 01:15 ET by R D Helm

I get your point, so I voted for Climate Alarmist. That term seems fairly neutral, yet still maintains a sufficient amount of realism.

 

"Denier" is offensive on

February 19, 2008 - 12:30 ET by Hero Squad

"Denier" is offensive on many levels, and people who use it should be called to the carpet for it.

I would prefer to be called a man-made global warming "doubter." That suggests a questioning of a theory as opposed to an ignoring of a fact.

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

I could not get past

February 18, 2008 - 21:29 ET by Delsa

Warm-mongers.

I am still laughing. I don't care what the poll says. Warm-mongers is the BEST

Who believes polls anyway?

Delsa

February 18, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Noel Sheppard

D,

I like that one a lot as well. The first person that introduced that to me asked that I not attribute it to him for a number of reasons, mostly that his website was being bombarded by, well, warm-mongers, and he didn't want more trouble!

However, at some point in time, I'm hoping he'll come out of the sauna and take a bow! :-) ns

It was my choice

February 18, 2008 - 22:09 ET by DEVILDOCMOM

just the sound of it was fun AND it seems so apt.

I still thinks these people

February 18, 2008 - 21:40 ET by NL207

I still thinks these people should be called Humanocentrists because they believe that humanity is the pre-emintent force in this world, not just about climate, but also about other topics such as morality, God, etc. 

Are you saying their

February 18, 2008 - 23:04 ET by danbo

Are you saying their narcissistic or egocentrist. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Neither.   These are

February 18, 2008 - 23:40 ET by NL207

Neither.   These are people who show no humility in the face of God.  Their entire position is that the activities of Humankind are the dominant force shaping this planet.  The don't even get it when a relatively minor tidal wave like the 40 foot Indian Ocean wave of a few years back shows them just how puny man is.  I'm not even sure they'll get it when the next 40 METER tidal wave strikes, as did after the Krakatoa blast of 1883. 

Their basic thesis is this:  Human activity is so significant that it can disturb the entire climatological equilibrium of the planet.  I'd say that's pretty arrogant, wouldn't you?

GlobALs is still my vote

February 18, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Lame Cherry

but since I coined Greengos here too.........when in Rome.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Ok Lame

February 18, 2008 - 22:05 ET by Delsa

My brother laughed at the warm-mongers and instantly added Gore-mongers.

And in all honesty he loved Greengos as well. This is a tough go.

Get out of the sauna

February 18, 2008 - 21:41 ET by Delsa

Noel

Whatever it takes to coax your friend out of the sauna, he has to bome out and take a bow.

Just clever has hell and so on point.

GREENGOS!!

February 18, 2008 - 21:44 ET by OldSailor88

The Old Sailor likes this one for two reasons.

1. It goes perfectly with JUAN FREAKING HERNANDEZ!!

2. It goes perfectly with the liberal open border folks, who also believe the sky is falling.

Thanks, Lame Cherry!!

Stultus est sicut stultus facit

OldSailor88

February 18, 2008 - 22:07 ET by Delsa

So how about Warm-mongering Greengos?

 

Delsa

February 18, 2008 - 22:17 ET by OldSailor88

This is getting to be a challenge now! I like.

Warm Mongering Greengo White Sock Birkenstock and Dreadlock Tree Hugging Granola Munching Peace Marching Code Pink Alarmist

Stultus est sicut stultus facit

Hey Noel... Where's the

February 18, 2008 - 21:45 ET by Clear thinker

Hey Noel...

Where's the choice for "Stupid"? 

Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/

CT

February 18, 2008 - 21:52 ET by Noel Sheppard

CT,

Not here -- for what should be obvious reasons!!! :-) ns

Noel... I was just

February 18, 2008 - 22:02 ET by Clear thinker

Noel...

I was just playing. However, I do have another name for them "McCainiacs". 

Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/

Yeah McCainiacs is a good

February 18, 2008 - 23:12 ET by HumanEvents

Yeah McCainiacs is a good one.

 Remember what McCain said when Katie Couric asked him about "global warming":

 McCain: I have been to Greenland, I have been to the South Pole. I've been to the Arctic and I know it's real. I believe that we've got to go back to nuclear power. We've got to do alternative energy. We've got to have a cap and trade proposal which Joe Lieberman and I have proposed.

We need to do green technologies. Let me put it this way to you. Suppose I’m wrong, there's no such thing as climate change, and we adopt green technologies. Then we've just left our kids a better world. Suppose I am right and we do nothing? Then what kind of planet have we handed to our children.

I've been involved in this effort for many years. And we've got to act. And unfortunately, we have not acted either as a federal government or a Congress.

Couric: Why has it taken so long, Senator?

McCain: Special interests. It's the special interests. It's the utility companies and the petroleum companies and other special interests. They're the ones that have blocked progress in the Congress of the United States and the administration. That's a little straight talk.

--------

 

No John, that's a lot of left wing garbage! You never give us any straight talk. And this Sunday on This Week he again fawned all over Hillary, saying she is a very good person, is honest, has a lot of character and integrity. UGH! Two thumbs WAY DOWN on phony Republican John McCain. What a disgrace he is.

 

Disgrace is too nice of a

February 18, 2008 - 23:15 ET by Clear thinker

Disgrace is too nice of a word. 

Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/

I was tied between

February 18, 2008 - 22:10 ET by Schnikeys

I was tied between "warm-mongers" and "greengos."

Zero Proof

February 18, 2008 - 22:12 ET by Barker

Warmaholics are Kool-aid drinkers.

How ironic.

Should we be

February 18, 2008 - 22:26 ET by Delsa

Should we be laughing at these sad people other wise known as warm-mongering greengos without a prayer people?

This is too much fun.

Write in

February 18, 2008 - 22:31 ET by stonecutter

I would have liked to vote for  "climetards"

Didn't see Cultists on the

February 18, 2008 - 22:42 ET by drillanwr

Didn't see Cultists on the list.

 

When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks

Consensus Devotees

February 18, 2008 - 22:51 ET by upcountrywater

IPCC adherents ; That's my vote, however not many people know what IPCC is.

CO2 ZEALOTS.

It's faith based worship of gaia, Climate Cultists

Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..

Tell me ohbamah, is non-nuk TO NUK? CHANGE?
Keep the change Bob. h/t Sam Peckinpah

Actually they got a bit of

February 18, 2008 - 22:57 ET by Apache

oops this was meant as a reply to an above comment

Definitely went with the

February 18, 2008 - 23:08 ET by wiwf

Definitely went with the warm-mongers one. That's hilarious!

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

Rational People

February 18, 2008 - 23:38 ET by Agrarian-Decentralist

Why not just call them normal rational people who don't try to explain away science when it seems to present a problem for their lame ideology?

AD... Because that would be

February 18, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Clear thinker

AD... Because that would be dishonest!

Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/

Part of the challenge here is to make the term stick

February 18, 2008 - 23:50 ET by timothe

That's why I think Warm-mongers, although very appropriate, will not work.  You cannot enunciate the term on television or video or audio without the possibility of some people hearing war mongers instead. 

Therefore, I vote for the term "Climate Alarmist" or even "Climate Doomsayer".  It gives the immediate and appropriate impression of the individual's state of mind.  It contains some shock value as well.

Anthrocalamatists?

February 18, 2008 - 23:52 ET by NL207

Anthrocalamatists?

since global warming is a political movement

February 18, 2008 - 23:52 ET by lunaticcringeradio

i call global warmists socialists.

lunaticcringeradio

It is a religion, as is

February 18, 2008 - 23:53 ET by NL207

It is a religion, as is liberalism.

How about

February 19, 2008 - 00:51 ET by BDavis

Climatards.

Oh common

February 19, 2008 - 00:53 ET by Delsa

Climate Alarmists? Where is the fun in that?

 I tried out warm-mongers on my sister who has a degree in Marine and Environmental Tecnology, is a graduate of the Navel War College, is a retired Lt. Commander (USN), did a stint at Johns Hopkins, and she thought it hysterical. As in funny.

She said vote for warm-mongers

My brothers, my husband, and my two sons thought warm-mongers was GREAT. I think they are still laughing.

I guess we just don't have a clue

 

I voted for warm-mongers

February 19, 2008 - 01:47 ET by Chaitealover

but then I read Noel's reference to Dr. Jim Sprott's suggestion of "Climate Gullibles" or "C-Gulls" for short. That's priceless!

Chai

“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”

How about Climate Interventionists...

February 19, 2008 - 02:07 ET by Parker1227

How about Climate Interventionists and Climate Agnostics (or Climate Naturalists)?

I suppose...

February 19, 2008 - 02:30 ET by KJ_sez

...that Counter-realistic Idealogues is a bit too difficult for the objects of the monicker to comprehend, and idiots or a**hats can be construed to be demeaning, so I just went with Climate Alarmists. The term, however, just doesn't adequately reflect the fanatical nature of these deluded products of the shallow end of the political gene pool (you know, the section most filled with pond scum, algae, gnats, drones, and other sub-species of the genus liberalis).

I voted for 'climate alarmists'...

February 19, 2008 - 02:44 ET by Republican_by_Default

but I got a kick out of 'warmophobes'. I'm sure I'll be using it as a zinger someday soon.

They're called "joiners"

February 19, 2008 - 05:11 ET by niner-four-whiskey

The correct name for them is "Joiners". 

Coined from an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bulls**t" show on HBO.

 

I prefer.....

February 19, 2008 - 06:24 ET by old cro


Seasonal Socialists.........

Although it is somewhat of a tongue twister, it is the essence of the mind-set of these people. I cannot understand how anyone who has an iota of education, or would just watch the numerous programs on how the earth has changed over the eons, could believe that insignificant man has any power at all over the natural forces that have and still influence our ever changing environment.

How about Watermelons?

February 19, 2008 - 07:26 ET by jpm100

How about Watermelons? Green on the Outside, Red on the inside.

Ha

February 19, 2008 - 07:47 ET by old cro

Great! Gets my vote!

EXCELLENT

February 19, 2008 - 11:15 ET by CT

EXCELLENT

A little ballot manipulation here?

February 19, 2008 - 07:54 ET by ThisnThat

Last evening, there were 158 IPCC votes (~10:00pm). This morning (~6:45am) shows only 28 such votes.

Who stole the votes? Do we have some DNC operatives on the NG staff? Is this campaign being run by some of Hillary's FOBs? Something fishy is going on.....

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Those must have been votes

February 19, 2008 - 09:25 ET by dscott

Those must have been votes from Chicago and New York.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

TNT

February 19, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Noel Sheppard

TNT,

You have good eyes. Initially when I did this poll, the options were arranged randomly. Somewhat later, I realized that it was too random, so I alphabetized them. Unfortunately, the way the program works, the vote tallies didn't automatically adjust. Instead, those tallies stayed at the original positions. Make sense?

So, a little later, I took a look at the results, and saw that IPCC Adherents was first. Why? Because it was now in the position that Climate Alarmist used to be in. Luckily, I was able to "backpage" on my browser to find what the votes were at each position BEFORE I did the alphabetization. I then made adjustments accordingly.

Nothing nefarious here. Just a program that I'm not used to, as this is only the second poll I've posted, and the first that I've adjusted option positions after the fact. ns

ns

February 19, 2008 - 11:54 ET by ThisnThat

Yeah, I figured some mistake was made -- just needling you'all a bit here. Gotta have some fun in the voting booth!

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

You realize Al will demand a

February 19, 2008 - 20:36 ET by danbo

You realize Al will demand a recount. And demand a recount. And demand that all votes for Pat Buchanan be given to him.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Ecochondriacs

February 19, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Indiana Joe

h/t to Jed Babbin

Other

February 19, 2008 - 09:31 ET by Franksam

I was looking for the term 'Socialists', or 'Communistas'. 

-Franksam

how about enviro or eco terrorists

February 19, 2008 - 11:08 ET by lunaticcringeradio

since the whole goal of the global warming crowd is to disrupt and destroy the free market capitalist economy, i think the best term would be eco or enviro terrorist.

lunaticcringeradio

A Quote from a Michigan Climate Alarmist

February 19, 2008 - 12:22 ET by Polazerus

"I have been to busy enjoying the snow and some of the best cross country Skiing in years to seriously think about Global Warming."

This was a comment from a good friend of mine as I sent him the latest links to try to bring him back to reality. He is a staunch Republican but would probably vote for Al if he had a chance. It is very sad.

Better yet!!!!

February 19, 2008 - 12:31 ET by William Phelps

I prefer to call them gullible.

Warm-mongers...I love it,

February 19, 2008 - 13:54 ET by bigtimer

Warm-mongers...I love it, has a nice ring to it.

Sounds just like something the leftists love to put a tag on the right for.

wamraphobe???... climaphobe

February 19, 2008 - 14:12 ET by LionKing

I chose warmaphobe as it was closest to my true preference... climaphobe. I think they fear both warming and cooling...whatever is convenient.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.

Thanks, Noel

February 19, 2008 - 18:59 ET by Wildcatter1980

The choices gave me a real good laugh! 

Just my $0.02

The highlights for many of

February 19, 2008 - 20:31 ET by danbo

The highlights for many of the links have disappeared. Some are still there, but some look like regular type. (The link is still there if you know where to look.)

 Is it something in my computer? Or is something else going on? 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

dan

February 19, 2008 - 20:37 ET by Noel Sheppard

dan,

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Which links where? ns

It's working now. It

February 19, 2008 - 23:35 ET by danbo

It's working now. It may have been my system. Inserted links on my puter appear in red. (From the insert/edit link option lower right in comment.)  I assume that's the norm.  Example

Earlier they were appearing in black as though it was normal unlinked text. (Some, not all.) As: Example.

I was looking for a text I know someone inserted earlier, and double checked a few text links I inserted to climate data.

When I knew the text was linked to an outside source. But itappeared in black. When I placed the mouse over the word the select symbol appeared. (Select hand/finger) However the linked word appeared in black as normal text.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Hmmm

February 19, 2008 - 22:34 ET by Nof

Perhaps the hippie MORONs promoting this lunicy are really just experiencing hot and cold spells brought on by there withdrawls from all the drugs consumed in years past. Honestly...its global warming now...global cooling in the 70's..the age of Aqarious in the 60's....its either that or menapause bringing on there insanity..cause logic flys in the face of all this Global Moronicy!

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat"         R. Reagan

Personaly, I think idiots

February 20, 2008 - 14:15 ET by bassndude

Personaly, I think idiots would be a good choice. Sheepel? That would be another.
 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!