Climate-gate

[Aqueous Id]

For the five or six reasons already listed, in multiple posts on this thread. See mine at 831, for one of maybe a dozen such posts.

Or this quote from Billy, post 833:

I don't, myself, think the methane bomb is going to be detonated, I think the odds are probably too long against it - but the fact that we are taking that risk without knowing the odds for sure, that we are relying on the kinds of arguments visible in Photizo's links to reassure ourselves and forestall amelioration, is just mind boggling.

That was an good emphasis on what BillyT said. For starters, the denialists have no clue why feedback is so critical. That's where the gloves come off--it's all sheer ignorance, chasing propaganda.

Also, to add to what you said in refutation of the nonsense Photizo posts from the denialist sites--concerning methane--it's a trace gas which, in combination with the next 29 other gases lower in concentration than CO[sub]2[/sub], equals the potential for warming from CO[sub]2[/sub] alone (based on ca 1980s evidence). As we all know, gas and oil production vents enormous vaults of methane, as does the dung from livestock. The stupidest of arguments is the one that says "well look how much GHGs nature is releasing--so let's have a fossil fuel orgy and drill, baby drill since we're all doomed anyway." It's like pouring gasoline on your burning house just to get the buzz of an arsonist, without regard to the question of where you're going to sleep tomorrow.

Good to see you still slugging. You are one the folks here I sometimes wish I could sit down and share a beer with (or beverage of your choice ). I may not think to stop and give you positive strokes, but I'm out here reading. This post reminded me of how much I like the way you think. And your arguments above really nipped that junk article in the bud. What a pile of crap, all the more so in contrast to your level headed (and honest) remarks. It's that deceptive element of the denialist propaganda that really sucks. You obviously have a high regard for honesty which is about as good as it gets in these threads.

 

[wellwisher]

It's that deceptive element of the denialist propaganda that really sucks. You obviously have a high regard for honesty which is about as good as it gets in these threads.

Climate-gate makes use of the same science that is used by weathermen, with weathermen about 80-90% reliable. If you ever watch TV weather there is no accountability for being wrong. The media will police itself and give you the same person. This creates the illusion of being better than it actually is, because the errors are not weighed properly in terms of accountability. As an example, if someone wrote erroneous articles on these forums and nobody challenged their claims, it would create the impression these ideas are correct. Conversely if the ideas are correct but challenged with name calling; denier, this can create the impression of right being wrong.

Picture if an oil company, drilling wells, only has to be 80-90% correct in terms of expending resources for the board of directors and creating pollution for the EPA.. If we use the same science template, then 1 in 5-10 wells can be bad and the EPA and media will ignore it. They may report it but will not fixate on it but will change the subject. The oil companies will provide the science to educate the public. The deniers will be those who claim those oil spills need to be take into account at 100%, not the loose standard of 80%. But since there is no real accountability, pointing this out will lead to being called a denier, since the oil company and media will define it that way.

Could you name anyone who got demoted or held accountable for making a man made-up claim, that did not pan out? Over the past 20 years the arctic ice has melted in the imagination of many. Who is still getting funding and who is off the payroll? The manmade weathermen are still on the air, thereby creating the illusion of infallibility. Picture a drilling company who gets it wrong 1 in 7 not only still in business but considered the spokesman for the industry. If you speak up about is this the jackals will attack you; third world science.

 

[origin]

Climate-gate makes use of the same science that is used by weathermen, with weathermen about 80-90% reliable. If you ever watch TV weather there is no accountability for being wrong. The media will police itself and give you the same person. This creates the illusion of being better than it actually is, because the errors are not weighed properly in terms of accountability. As an example, if someone wrote erroneous articles on these forums and nobody challenged their claims, it would create the impression these ideas are correct. Conversely if the ideas are correct but challenged with name calling; denier, this can create the impression of right being wrong.

Picture if an oil company, drilling wells, only has to be 80-90% correct in terms of expending resources for the board of directors and creating pollution for the EPA.. If we use the same science template, then 1 in 5-10 wells can be bad and the EPA and media will ignore it. They may report it but will not fixate on it but will change the subject. The oil companies will provide the science to educate the public. The deniers will be those who claim those oil spills need to be take into account at 100%, not the loose standard of 80%. But since there is no real accountability, pointing this out will lead to being called a denier, since the oil company and media will define it that way.

Could you name anyone who got demoted or held accountable for making a man made-up claim, that did not pan out? Over the past 20 years the arctic ice has melted in the imagination of many. Who is still getting funding and who is off the payroll? The manmade weathermen are still on the air, thereby creating the illusion of infallibility. Picture a drilling company who gets it wrong 1 in 7 not only still in business but considered the spokesman for the industry. If you speak up about is this the jackals will attack you; third world science.

It is so sad to see people like you who's judgement is so clouded by politics that they will deny scientific evidence staring them in the face. Truly pitiful.:facepalm:

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

It is so sad to see people like you who's judgement is so clouded by politics that they will deny scientific evidence staring them in the face. Truly pitiful.:facepalm:

absolutely...
There is an article I just read that addresses some of the denial points of the anti-global warming crowd
In fact, there is a video in the article that is especially cogent regarding the above commenter: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-problem-false-science.html

It brings home, using humor mixed with reality, the truth behind climate science and the perceptions people have regarding the science and the way it is portrayed in the media.
Perhaps it is best shared here so that others of like mind can pass it on as well.

 

[wellwisher]

The question I asked was, has anyone been held accountable (wallet, budget and reputation) for the bad predictions stemming from the man made science of global warming? If not, doesn't that create a false impression in terms of the validity of a theory that integrates the science evidence? I am not arguing against the raw data or its collection, but only against a theory that is not held accountable for errors.

The theory has said for years the arctic ice will be gone for now. This did not happen. If it did happen, I would be on the band wagon since this prediction would have proven the theory. But since it did not happen, it tells me something is being left out and the theory is half baked.

Your appeal is to emotion and sentiment. You are not addressing that fact that nobody is being held accountable for these false theory predictions when they do not materialize. The reason I dwell on this, is the arctic ice melting doom and boom prediction was more than science alone. The doom and gloom was also a political appeal to the emotions of fear. If you spook the herd they will get irrational, thereby making the science appear more important as the sentinel and guardian of the herd. The movement capitalized on that fear for manipulation leverage. When the fear prediction did not pan out, it was more than a simple science error. The lying politics, by lack of accountably, is not balanced out with justice.

An analogy and example, was the Y2K scare leading to the year 2000. The experts feared all computes would shut down. Many people benefited by the fear, capitalizing on the anticipated event. When it did not pan out, there was at least some accountability. Those who raked it in were able to keep the scam wealth, but their business and prestige lures were closed. The experts, who got to sit at the big media table, lost their time in the sun.

The same was true of all the year 2000 doom and gloom prophesies capitalists, who scammed donors and believers with the end of the earth scenarios. Picture if there was no accountability and all their business and political gains, remained. They get to start with their ill gotten gains and move forward ad though the past did not matter. This is is manmade global warming in a nut shell. I want to see heads roll so who is left is more believable as the leaders of the science.

As a more personal analogy, say I lied about you to gain popularity. You finally prove yourself innocent, should I retain all my ill gotten gains? Or should you be compensated for sticking to the truth? With the current scam, you get to take another round of slander, since there will be no accountability for me. This is why I call it third world science based on a political dictator that is not accountable.

The question again is who was held accountable for the bad predictions?

 

[billvon]

The theory has said for years the arctic ice will be gone for now. This did not happen.

No, it didn't. The IPCC AR5 predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2050.

So you have lied to try to gain credibility. Given that, should people now take you seriously?

 

[Trippy]

The theory has said for years the arctic ice will be gone for now. This did not happen. If it did happen, I would be on the band wagon since this prediction would have proven the theory. But since it did not happen, it tells me something is being left out and the theory is half baked.

Actually, no, this 'prediction' was largely invented and over inflated by lame-stream media. The earliest prediction I can recall having seen is still two to five years in the future and was made before the current decline in solar activity was known (remember, all climate models start with solar input).

An analogy and example, was the Y2K scare leading to the year 2000. The experts feared all computes would shut down. Many people benefited by the fear, capitalizing on the anticipated event. When it did not pan out, there was at least some accountability. Those who raked it in were able to keep the scam wealth, but their business and prestige lures were closed. The experts, who got to sit at the big media table, lost their time in the sun.

This is a poor analogy at best. Aside from the overinflated hype of lamestream media, one of the reasons why nothing happened was because we were able to take the steps neccessary to protect vital systems. The experts didn't predict that all computer systems would shut down, they predicted that some vital computer systems might. The problem was real enough, the computer that I had at the time was not Y2K compliant and sure enough it registered the wrong date (it thought it was march 1987). Fortunately my home PC was not in control of any vital systems.

By the way - did you know that Arthur C. Clarke predicted a global financial crisis as a result of the Y2K bug? It's all right there in black and white in "The Ghost of the Grand Banks".

The question again is who was held accountable for the bad predictions?

Are you volunteering to be held personally responsible if we do nothing and the predictions are right?

 

[brucep]

The question I asked was, has anyone been held accountable (wallet, budget and reputation) for the bad predictions stemming from the man made science of global warming? If not, doesn't that create a false impression in terms of the validity of a theory that integrates the science evidence? I am not arguing against the raw data or its collection, but only against a theory that is not held accountable for errors.

The theory has said for years the arctic ice will be gone for now. This did not happen. If it did happen, I would be on the band wagon since this prediction would have proven the theory. But since it did not happen, it tells me something is being left out and the theory is half baked.

Your appeal is to emotion and sentiment. You are not addressing that fact that nobody is being held accountable for these false theory predictions when they do not materialize. The reason I dwell on this, is the arctic ice melting doom and boom prediction was more than science alone. The doom and gloom was also a political appeal to the emotions of fear. If you spook the herd they will get irrational, thereby making the science appear more important as the sentinel and guardian of the herd. The movement capitalized on that fear for manipulation leverage. When the fear prediction did not pan out, it was more than a simple science error. The lying politics, by lack of accountably, is not balanced out with justice.

An analogy and example, was the Y2K scare leading to the year 2000. The experts feared all computes would shut down. Many people benefited by the fear, capitalizing on the anticipated event. When it did not pan out, there was at least some accountability. Those who raked it in were able to keep the scam wealth, but their business and prestige lures were closed. The experts, who got to sit at the big media table, lost their time in the sun.

The same was true of all the year 2000 doom and gloom prophesies capitalists, who scammed donors and believers with the end of the earth scenarios. Picture if there was no accountability and all their business and political gains, remained. They get to start with their ill gotten gains and move forward ad though the past did not matter. This is is manmade global warming in a nut shell. I want to see heads roll so who is left is more believable as the leaders of the science.

As a more personal analogy, say I lied about you to gain popularity. You finally prove yourself innocent, should I retain all my ill gotten gains? Or should you be compensated for sticking to the truth? With the current scam, you get to take another round of slander, since there will be no accountability for me. This is why I call it third world science based on a political dictator that is not accountable.

The question again is who was held accountable for the bad predictions?

What you choose to believe on this subject is irrelevant. This high school teacher shows us a SIMPLE logic path that concludes doing nothing is playing russian roulette with the future of the planet. russian roulette is ignoring the science and choosing to do nothing. Ideologue irrelevance. You.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

 

[wellwisher]

No, it didn't. The IPCC AR5 predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2050.

So you have lied to try to gain credibility. Given that, should people now take you seriously?

When I was speaking of the Arctic free of ice, I was talking about how this line in the sand that has reached deadlines, without accountability, only to be repeated again. The link below is a good summary of some of the main science news headlines for just that one prediction, that started in 1954. The new year of 2050 was chosen in anticipation of potential accountability. It is 36 years way which should cover most PhD graduates this year as well as all the high profile scientists.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/

Here is the analogy. Remember the end of the world predictions due to the Mayan calendar. Up to the deadline of doom and gloom, there was a heightened interest among the media and the public due to the uncertainty and fear that was being hyped. These gave the spot light to all the experts who know all this stuff better than anyone else. They were to help appease the fear. Once the deadline was reached, then accountability set in and it went away.

With man made global warming, the calendar deadlines get reached, but because there is no accountability. The hype continues with a new line in the sand. Each line generates fear, which siphons resources and the need for experts to appease the fear. The gravity train should have ended if the deadline was not met. But man made global warming has a different set of rules.

The global warming label was rebranded and changed to climate change. This change of title was strategic, since warming is one variable that was not meeting deadlines, while climate change is any variable you can think of, allowing more options to trick the deadline. If it is cooler or warmer that is change in climate. If tree grow faster or slower that is climate change.

The tactic would be like changing the Mayan calendar deadline from global disaster to simply, "the change", leaving it open. The term "the change" would have been far more flexible and could include almost anything. The unrest in the middle east is change due to the Mayan calendar. The illegal alien children crossing the Texas border is part of the change.

 

[wellwisher]

What you choose to believe on this subject is irrelevant. This high school teacher shows us a SIMPLE logic path that concludes doing nothing is playing russian roulette with the future of the planet. russian roulette is ignoring the science and choosing to do nothing. Ideologue irrelevance. You.

Your are letting fear guide you in an irrational way. I am not ignoring science but rather pointing out good science does not make predictions that do not come true, and then get away with it, without a change of the guard. This is unique to man made-up global warming. If the oil companies could drill wells and not be accountable for mistakes would they be acceptable, since they uses science too?

The weathermen use this same science and technology as global warming and are 80-90% correct in their predictions. Why do you think the powers to be changed the brand to climate change? It was to fuzz out the line of accountability for predictions. If the weatherman says today will be hot and no rain, he pins himself down. If he can say we will get weather today, he will be right all the time.

 

[sculptor]

So you have lied to try to gain credibility. Given that, should people now take you seriously?

Kinda sums up how I feel whenever I read the oft repeated the 97% bullshit.

Exaggerating claims and then claiming/using argumentum ab auctoritate as though that really mattered to any objective and introspective mind only diminishes credibility. One wonders why anyone would obfuscate the science with easily refutable silliness.
Credibility, like trust is a hard thing to gain, and an easy thing to lose.
Hyperbole may be an accepted rhetorical device for politicians, but should be eschewed by anyone who gives a damn for science.

 

[rpenner]

wellwisher, Steve Goddard's sources don't seem to be saying anything wrong. They are non-scientific people trying to report scientific findings and for the most part not seriously distorting the message to the careful reader. What is your issue with these sources?

"The Argus" -- Not a scientific publication. A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model.
"The New Scientist" -- Not a scientific publication. A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model.
"The Tuscaloosa News" -- Not a scientific publication. A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model.
"Joe Romm comment" -- Not a scientific publication. Not refuted. A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model.
"Wieslaw Maslowski" -- A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model. In addition, you have misread the graph because the horizontal line is not 0 ice thickness. In fact, within the uncertainty evidenced in the graph, that extrapolation looks accurate.
"news.nationalgeographic.com" -- Not a scientific publication. A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model.
"BBC News" -- Not a scientific publication. A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model. 2005, 2007 and 2012 set record lows for ice extent, but it's obviously not a monotonic trend.
"John Kerry" -- Not a scientific publication. Not from the then-Secretary of State, but rather a Senator from Massachusetts. Contextomy, as the statement relied on unknown sources. A statement of simple extrapolation without evidence of physical model.
"Epoch Times" -- Not a scientific publication. The named source made it perfectly clear that this was not a maximum likelihood evaluation, but rather a outside possibility. But no citation or similarity of text precisely accounts for the executive summary text: "There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015." http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/documents/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf (Page 4) so it is possible that it was a misunderstanding of a spoken "2050"

The Arctic sea ice cover is undergoing an extraordinary transformation that has significant implications for marine access and shipping throughout the Arctic basin. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, released by the Arctic Council at the Iceland Ministerial meeting in November 2004, documented that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past five decades. Research has also indicated that sea ice thickness has been decreasing during the same period, and the area of multi-year ice has also been declining in the central Arctic Ocean.

Global Climate Models used in the ACIA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4 released in 2007) simulate a continuous decline in sea ice coverage through the 21st century. One ACIA model showed it is plausible that during mid-century, the entire Arctic Ocean could be ice-free for a short period in the summer, a finding that garnered significant media attention.

Recent research (2006-2008) has indicated this plausible ice-free state of the Arctic sea ice cover may occur as early as 2040, if not sooner.

(page 25)​

"www.350.org" -- Not a scientific publication. No source given. "[Some] scientists now believe [X] could [Y]" is not a probabilistic, model-based claim.
"www.norwegianmoose.com" -- Not a scientific publication. No model in evidence. That a contingency-based forecast was made is not evidence the forecast was wrong if the contingency didn't come into play.
"timesonline" -- Not a scientific publication. This has the appearance of probabilistic, model-based claim, but not well-sourced enough to verify it. But even so, it's not a claim of what will happen.
"biologicaldiversity.org" -- Not a scientific publication. No source given.
"canwest news service" -- Not a scientific publication. No source given. Contextomy gives the impression that the Louis Fortier is the source of the claims, but the article does not say so.
"bbc.co.uk" -- Not a scientific publication. Claim not refuted.

"I'm not trying to be alarmist and not trying to say 'we know the future because we have a crystal ball'," said Dr Maslowski.

"Basically, we're trying to make policymakers and people who need to know about climate change in the Arctic realise there is a chance that summer sea ice could be gone by the end of the decade.

"www.niagarafallsreview.ca" -- Not a scientific publication. "[Some] scientists now believe [X] could [Y]" is not a probabilistic, model-based claim.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Kinda sums up how I feel whenever I read the oft repeated the 97% bullshit.

It was explained previously that if a small population of respondents reply in the affirmative, then, if the sample size is large enough, that statistic (97%) represents the expected value of the mean for the entire population (of scientists) -- with what pollsters call a margin of error. [Explained in so many words, that is.] You sound like you're in denial of elementary concepts like "mean" and "variance", which probably severely handicaps you in understanding the reports on climate science. The key here is that you've twisted a common word in English -- statistic -- into a term of art of the denialists, Creationists and Right Wing propaganda machines: bullshit.

Exaggerating claims and then claiming/using argumentum ab auctoritate as though that really mattered to any objective and introspective mind only diminishes credibility.

That's why anybody who ever took freshman science classes never listens to you guys. It's pretty obvious what your game is. Fortunately some minority of Americans are just literate enough to understand that the weight of evidence is against you.

One wonders why anyone would obfuscate the science with easily refutable silliness.

Because they are paid by the Koch Bros, and Big Oil/Gas/Coal in general, to manufacture lies to the (mostly fundamentalist) robots who are crash dummies for the oligarchs, malleable, and easily convinced that whatever Limbaugh/FAUX News says must be true, because--science requires actual work, the development of intellectual prowess, and, well, they're just too lazy, too mean and too stupid to take the plunge and actually try to pass an SAT. Gawd forbid that they would read the seminal papers on climate science.

Credibility, like trust is a hard thing to gain, and an easy thing to lose.

By contrast, an education is a hard thing to gain and an impossible thing to lose. You guys should seriously try to get your feet wet.

Hyperbole may be an accepted rhetorical device for politicians, but should be eschewed by anyone who gives a damn for science.

Anyone who gives a damn for science gets a decent education, the scales fall from their eyes, and then they wake up in the Matrix, able to see that hyperbole is immediately trumped by facts and evidence. That's why the Right Wing curries favor almost exclusively with the most illiterate Americans. Them and the religious fanatics. What a stupid way to allocate power in any modern society. But that's the curse we have to live with until a generation or two (or 3 or 4) when most people in society are educated enough to comprehend basic science, and to actually read the papers by Tyndall, Arrhenius, and Callendar and then to read the history of the founders of NOAA, the elevation of anthropogenic carbon as a pollutant in the LBJ and Nixon administrations, leading to the founding of the IPCC . . . and then to have some reference points for evaluating the digested IPCC reports that get bandied about.

Of course that takes work, which lazy, mean, stupid people avoid like the plague. Long live Rush Limbaugh. Long live FAUX News. And long live the Tobacco style indoctrination of vulnerable minds.

Now what were you saying?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Kinda sums up how I feel whenever I read the oft repeated the 97% bullshit.

@sculptor
but if you will remember, there is a link in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?142102-Runaway-Global-Warming&p=3209391#post3209391
supporting the claims of 97% with published peer reviewed papers.

In fact, there were THREE links, and it also gave you a historical perspective where it started with the Cook papers (perhaps before it, I don't know, but that is the beginning that I am aware of), which you kept repeating - so I know you READ that Cook publication

Cook et al set the ball rolling. The other links (in the above thread) are cogent and remind the public that there REALLY IS NO DEBATE about climate science in the eyes of SCIENCE... only in the eyes of deniers who ignore empirical data and shove aside logic for whatever reason to believe in a faith paid for by companies with a vested interest in keeping the general public ignorant of scientific reality.

(a claim Supported by THIS study: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx
found in an article here: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html)

Watch the video in THIS ARTICLE: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-problem-false-science.html#firstCmt

Although predominantly a comedy sketch, IT REALLY DOES spell out the reality of the situation and the misrepresentation in the media that gives the average layman who is ignorant of the scientific method the mistaken impression that there is still a debate in climate science.

Perhaps You should consider the Challenge located in the first link I posted about runaway global warming- in post number 24 (at the end)?

 

[billvon]

When I was speaking of the Arctic free of ice, I was talking about how this line in the sand that has reached deadlines, without accountability, only to be repeated again.

No, you said "The theory has said for years the arctic ice will be gone for now." No, it didn't. Some PEOPLE may have said that, of course, just as some people claim that there is no warming at all, that the Moon landing was faked, and that gravity pushes on you rather than pulls on you. But that's not what you said.

I find that level of dishonesty commonly among deniers. They will often create strawmen, saying things like "the IPCC said we were going to enter an ice age and they were wrong about that too!" They also change their position often, moving from "the climate isn't changing" to "the climate is changing but it's not our fault" to "OK maybe it's our fault but it will be a good thing." It makes it difficult to take them seriously for that reason.

Here is the analogy. Remember the end of the world predictions due to the Mayan calendar. Up to the deadline of doom and gloom, there was a heightened interest among the media and the public due to the uncertainty and fear that was being hyped. These gave the spot light to all the experts who know all this stuff better than anyone else. They were to help appease the fear. Once the deadline was reached, then accountability set in and it went away.

Yes. And if you posted "liberals claimed the world would end in 2012!" you would be lying as well.

 

[billvon]

Kinda sums up how I feel whenever I read the oft repeated the 97% bullshit.

OK. There are plenty of people who think that science is bullshit, that we never landed on the Moon, that smoking is unrelated to lung cancer, that evolution is a hoax etc. Up to you what you want to believe.

One wonders why anyone would obfuscate the science with easily refutable silliness.

Definitely agreed there.

Credibility, like trust is a hard thing to gain, and an easy thing to lose.

Also agreed. Which is why so many deniers are struggling for credibility.

 

[sculptor]

Also agreed. Which is why so many deniers are struggling ....

Why is it that you keep using the word "denier"?
Does it advance an understanding of the science?
Does it serve any other purpose than polarization and obfuscation?

 

[billvon]

Why is it that you keep using the word "denier"?

Because it is a descriptive term for a group of people whose one defining characteristic is that they deny AGW.

Does it advance an understanding of the science?

No, it's merely a descriptor of a group of people.

Does it serve any other purpose than polarization and obfuscation?

Well, being able to refer to groups of people is useful in communication. However if there is a more politically correct term for people whose primary characteristic is that they deny everything to do with AGW I would be willing to use it. Must be politically correct!

 

[sculptor]

the brush you use is too broad

Perhaps, the real loonies are those who insist that anthropogenic atmospheric loading with CO2 is wholly responsible for the warming of the last century?
But is climate science served by referring to them as loonies?

 

[billvon]

the brush you use is too broad

Like I said, if there's a term that would be more PC to you, I'd be happy to use it.

Perhaps, the real loonies are those who insist that anthropogenic atmospheric loading with CO2 is wholly responsible for the warming of the last century?

Perhaps. I don't know any serious AGW scientists who think that, but I am sure someone believes that.