How do you spell lieing? Is it lieing or lying? As in not telling the truth.?

Years ago, before most of them fled the science-hating vaporizers prevalent on this site, one of the scientists who used to post here periodically explained this succinctly. At the low level of denialism featured here, the typical practitioner values covering up his ignorance above basic honesty. Eager in his anti-science cultism, he grasps at any Wattsup parlor trick he can halfway copy-paste in the form of a fake question posted to suggest that ignorance of a century of massive science is no vice because a century of massive science is all just a big Al Gore Obama (Arrhenius time machine) hoax.

Back 25-30 years ago, in the venture capital start-up phase of anti-climate science (when most of the ringleaders were still more busy denying that tobacco use causes cancer), the anti-science arguments were more sophisticated and clever. The strategy then was "doubt is our product," and deniers could and often did credibly pass themselves off as "skeptics" calling for more research before considering action. Now in the meantime we have had 25+ years of massive global scientific research, from tens of thousands of scientists at thousands of labs and sites worldwide, and 99.5% of their results indicate that the "skepticism" has been baseless (and in many cases insincere trickery all along).

So, without a scientific fig leaf to hide behind, the denier puppeteers have more recently dumbed down their anti-science to match the duped follower level of intelligence. The stupidest pseudo-science has been rising to the top of the shell-game crocs of week (it snowed, therefore the average climate cannot be getting warmer long term, or Al Gore is overweight, therefore what he says about science must be false, etc.). One of these simplistic crocs is that tens of thousands of scientists are lying in lockstep and a few dozen top level non-scientist propagandists for the fossil fuel industry are telling the truth.

If this answer is vaporized by the science-haters, I will repost it. Edit: Fake Geologist JimZ on this page again shows that he is as ignorant of history as he is of economics, politics and of course science. Chevron (Standard Oil of California) and Exxon-Mobil (Standard Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of New York) were all part of John D.

Rockefeller's oil trust. The US government's role was to rule, in probably the most famous (to people who were awake in history classes) anti-trust case ever, that this was an illegal restraint of competition, and bust it up into the pieces which JimZ "thinks" were always the separate companies that they (actually only sort of) are today. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_O... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_O... http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record... Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.

Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/backpage.cfm.

Sorry, I don't listen to Big Oil so I wouldn't know. I know NASA tell us that the temperature record is correct and then they change it drastically an say it is still correct. I am no scientists, but how can two different temperature series both be correct?

Further, all those temperature records and correlations to models etc, how can they be correct before and still be correct afterwards? For years when anyone rebuts the shrinking Arctic with the expanding Antarctic argument they are shouted down because the land ice in Antarctica is decreasing according to the experts. Now some more experts tell us that it is in fact gaining land ice.

No Big Oil involved in either story as far as I can see. We hear that CO2 causes warming but further investigation of the ice core data (that featured in An Inconvenient Truth) shows that temperature causes the CO2 rise, instead - completely the other way round. We hear much about peer review.

Is it time that the temperature data was itself peer reviewed?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.