As if a typo on a foreign name somehow discredits the author. I had followed the link before I created the post, and didn't notice it myself. Either way, my attribution has been corrected.

Where do you get "debunked at every turn" from? I took a look at all of the links that you provided, and the are all basically referring to the same paper.

I have no problem with Lu being challenged, and I'm sure that he expects it too. From your first link, "Müller proceeds to go through Lu's research with a fine-toothed comb; sure enough, it hitches on subtle snarls in argument and approach". Hardly a debunking.

That's what your links imply, but where's this "*increase* in global warming and rising sea levels" that you mentioned. Didn't anyone tell you that temperatures have been going down since 1998 or so?

The warming zealots have to claim that.  You see in their religion, there can be no debate (the debate is over).  In science, as all rational sane people know, the debate is never over until something becomes a FACT, which AGW is not.  It is a mystlical belief perpetuated by the almighty dollar and small minded religious zealots.

No. It is all in the numbers and the manipulation of them. You see the Religious zealots dont want you to talk about manipulation since they are guilty of it (eliminating the MWP and LIA along with most of the Russian reporting stations to name a few).  So they doctor the data for the history and then start their proof from an arbitraty point.  Now when the skeptics (note not deniers - the true deniers are the religious zealots who are denying science) do the same, but instead start the trend at 1998, the trend is a slight decline.

Now, contrary to the religious zealots, there is no "debunking this".  As it is just a fact, not a doctored number.  However statisticians have said there is insufficient data points to provide any statistical sampling, and hence it is just numbers plotted on a graph, and not a statistical trend.  Which most skeptics do readily acknowledge, but the religious zealots then lie and say it has been "debunked".

So what we now have is an alternate theory, not debunked (but debated as it should be) and of course the religious zealots worried that perhaps their religion is about to be proven irrelevant, trying to burn the heretics at the stake.

Did you see how fast Mr. Know it all came out and lied about the study?  Using a typo to try to add some legitimacy to his creed?  That is how the religious zealots work,  Torquemada would be proud.

Well he certainly offered no response to it. And other than embedding a rather condescending video and matching verbiage, he added nothing of value to the conversation.

My take exactly.

Yes, it's felt like a religious war for some time now, with a lack of reasoning and a desire to smack the opponent over the head until they finally "get it".

Ouch!  

Perhaps another 5 or 10 years will be enough that even you will have to admit that you were wrong. However when you can deny 30 years of warming it's difficult to believe that another 5 or 10 will make any difference to you.

Of course there are still people that believe that smoking isn't bad for you either. It shouldn't be suprising that many of the same organizations that deny global warming were heavily involved with denying that smoking was harmful.

There is no debate among credible and credentialed scientists in the field. All of this is just smoke and mirrors from the right.

Here's just a very few examples of orgainzations that have been prominent in both the pro-tobacco and anti-AGW movement.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

You might also take a look at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf which is a report authored by the Union of Concerned Scientists about "How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science."

So no, relating climate change denial and big tobacco is *not* a non sequitur.

And if there are really those that truly "can be convinced" then they should also check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 from which the following was excerpt.

"For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story."

You should have stopped there.  The rest just shows that you dont understand what a non sequitur is.  And apaprently dont care.  But then having declared yourself an avowed racist, I dont expect you to worry about being associated with them and their attempts to control the debate on climate as well.

Well, Mr, Know it all, let me clue you in.  Whether it is 5 groups, 10 groups or 100 groups, it does not matter if they support tobacco or not, now does it?  Unless you are running a popularity contest.  Are you?  Apparently, because you dont even understand or are well versed in the debate.  instead you link (and probably slavishly follow) a nice PR site (no science, just PR), and the rest of the debate goes over your head.  You dont have to have facts to be a religious zealot, just the bible of AGW.  You have that, and nothing else.

But for your education, let me give you one little definition.  Try to learn the difference between descriptions and name calling.  If you dont want to be described by your drivel, dont live up to it.

stu⋅pid

   /ˈstupɪd, ˈstyu‑/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [stoo-pid, styoo‑] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun

–adjective

And yes, you are the liar. 

One more thing quacker.  Was it not you who said:

And is it not you that "flew"?  Have you now branded yourself (once more) a racist? Hurts when the truth is revealed - by you no less.

grew up?  Or was just born there?  And if you left when a minor, you could not have been too cognizant of the surroundings (but then that was just last year, right?).

And there must be a warrant for your arrest upon your return, right?  and that is why you did not go back?

Oh, I see.  So you were not against freeing the slaves, just civil rights?  Kind of like bobby.  Yea, how far are you in the grand order?  Kleagle yet?

Please run away and take your juvenile insults with you.  I guess we have enough of your lies.  I know, everything I type is a lie.  And how do we know?  Mr. Know It All says so!

That's a joke. I say, that's a joke, son!

I appologize for polluting your blog.  An excellent thesis and I appreciate being a part of the discussion.

With Mumble, anyone who questions the assumptions upon which AGW theory is based is either an idiot or an untrustworthy tool of Big Oil.  All AGW proponents are pure, all opponents tainted in some way.  The value of any information is determined exclusively by where it came from, not its content.  AGW is in his mind accepted fact (settled science), therefore any burden of proof is exclusively on those who question its assumptions.

As long as we're on the subject: interesting read.