Skepticism Rising In California, Due To Well Funded Denier Campaign

Two-thirds of California voters believe global warming is a threat and measures need to be taken to stop it, but the level of concern has dropped significantly over the past six years, according to a Field Poll released Monday.

Concerns about climate change waned as the California economy tanked, hitting a low point in 2010 when polls showed a 20-point drop in support for AB32, he said. This was also around the time a well-funded national campaign to infuse doubt into climate science hit its stride.

The commonplace attacks on climate scientists, supported mostly by oil interests, have been widely debunked. Meanwhile, sea levels are rising and Arctic ice is melting.

Global warming worries Californians – SFGate

Still waiting on my first check, and wondering how the Arctic is melting at -35C. There has been no sea level rise in California for decades.

Data and Station Information for MONTEREY

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Skepticism Rising In California, Due To Well Funded Denier Campaign

  1. Eric Barnes says:

    The hallmark trait of a denier seems to be independent thinking and an ability to look at data and understand it. Fortunately the department of education is working hard to cure this problem.

  2. Keitho says:

    There you go again Steve, swaggering in, throwing facts around like you was something special.

    Hell man , it’s just too damn easy to win an argument with facts. Let’s see you pick on someone your own size next time, and bring wild hyperbole with you so we can make it a fair fight.

  3. kirkmyers says:

    The mainstream pundits who, in ignorance of the real-world evidence, continue to spread the fraudulent AGW scare are some of the most gullible SOBs on the planet. Their lack of critical thinking is exceeded only by their laziness. They refuse to analyze data, ferret out the facts, and expose the deliberate falsehoods promoted by the AGW alarmists. Instead, they perform the role of glorified stenographers for the Warmist crowd. Any good editor would send them packing.

  4. kbray in california says:

    Lots wrong with how these pro AGW polls are worded:

    How much does global warming bother you ?
    A. a lot
    B. quite a bit
    C. a substantial amount
    D. enough to worry about
    E. disturbs my sleep
    F. a little and it’s our fault
    G. a medium amount
    H. not much, but still harmful

    100% of responders worried about global warming.

    Steven, keep up the excellent work in presenting the facts showing the AGW fraud.

  5. Fortunately that well funded campaign by the cigarette industry decades ago is why nobody believes smoking causes cancer and why we all smoke today. You can’t fight The Man.

  6. gofer says:

    “At least seven out of 10 Democrats, independents, voters under age 40, Asian Americans and college graduates support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The least-supportive are Republicans, voters with only a high school education and folks living outside of the urban areas of Los Angeles and the Bay Area, according to the poll.”

    Believers = under 40, democrat, live in city, college indoctrinated

  7. Actual Skeptic says:

    I’d like to thank you for posting a link to your data source. I’m curious why all of the “skeptics” that commented above were not skeptical enough to spend 10 minutes loading the data into a spreadsheet to create their own chart and trend line. The thing I can’t figure out is why, on my chart, the data points look similar but the trend line goes up. On yours it is level. You either have an application error, user error, you played with the data, or you just drew in a level trend line.

    It’s all well and good to claim that you are free thinkers and everyone else is gullible, but if you don’t follow through on your free thinking, then you are no better than the sheep you look down on.

    • You are an idiot and a liar. The data is straight off the PSMSL web page, unaltered.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        I’ll assume user error then. I’m neither an idiot nor a liar, as a simple checking of your work will show. Your trend line is wrong.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        Also, you did alter the data. If you hadn’t then your graph would start in 1973. Please explain.

      • You are a complete idiot. There has been no rise in sea level at Monterey for over 30 years, just as the graph shows.

        My claim was “There has been no sea level rise in California for decades.” That is accurate and you are a liar trying to infer otherwise.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        I only used the data. You say the data is true. How then can I be a liar?
        Try it again, see if your results match. I’ve shown my work, show yours. :)

      • What a first rate asshole. There has been no sea level rise in Monterey for decades, just as I stated. You accused me of altering data, which I didn’t. You chose to smear some sea level rise from the 1970s in with the more recent data to make it appear that sea level is currently rising, which it isn’t. Piss off.

    • sunsettommy says:

      You have to POST the evidence to support your claim that Steve is in error.

      Since you claim you have done all the work to find this cliamed error it should not be hard to post it here.

      So far all you have done is use words and NOT evidence thus you are not believed.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        I’d be happy to post the results. I have the spreadsheet right here. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qvlzexyckd139qc/Ocean%20Levels.xls
        I downloaded the data from the link provided, imported it into a spreadsheet, generated a scatter graph, and turned on the trend line. Done. It showed a definite trend upwards. Feel free to try yourself. That’s what being a Skeptic is all about, after all.

      • What a complete scumbag you are. You posted a different time interval. The fact that there was some sea level rise during the 1970s, in no way changes the fact that there has been no sea level rise in Monterey since 1980.

        You accursed me of altering data, which I didn’t. You are an actual sceptic tank of disinformation.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        Instead of name calling like a child, check my work.
        Here’s the data you linked to.

        http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/1352.rlrdata

      • Are you a complete moron? I already explained what you are doing wrong. You are smearing sea level rise from the 1970s into the trend. There has been no sea level rise in Monterey since 1980. In order to disprove that, you would have to plot the trend since 1980. You didn’t do that, and are a scumbag and a liar.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        Cherry picking data makes pretty charts, but it’s not science. I’ve lied about nothing. You are not interested in facts. That’s obvious now.

      • Cherry picking the last 33 years in a discussion about global warming? Are you a complete imbecile?

        It is a perfectly valid technique to look at what is the longest period of time since sea level rise last occurred. That was about 33 years.ago.

        Why don’t you try learning some science instead of being a jackass?

    • Actual Skeptic says:

      I used the data you provided. I don’t think that name calling affects the data much. It does your argument no good to sink to that level.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Actually the chart in the PMSL link shows no trend for the city.

        You are exposed as a liar.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        I will use small words for you.
        I used the data, not the chart. What am I lying about? I’ve given you the link to the data, the spreadsheet I created, the method I used to create the spreadsheet. Since the answer doesn’t match your preconceptions and is in opposition to the assertion in this blog, then you attack the messenger. Stop being intellectually lazy and try it yourself.

      • You are lying that I altered data. You are lying that there has been sea level rise since 1980, which there hasn’t been. You did not refute anything I said. You sir, are a scoundrel not a skeptic.

        WTF is wrong with people like you? You are an arrogant dishonest asshole.

  8. DaBuh says:

    BOOM HERE COME THE BOOM
    I’m sure if you e-mail Steve he will post your findings

  9. DaBuh says:

    1973.9584; 6951; 0;000
    2011.9584; 6994; 0;000
    What difference does it make.

  10. gator69 says:

    I’m sure that Factual Epileptic took Michael Mann to task over his cherry picked bristle cones. I would love to see the link to that. :lol:

    • The data I presented here is not cherry picked. It is all the data since 1980. Please do not conflate this discussion with a discussion of Michael Mann.

      • gator69 says:

        Sorry Steven, I did not mean to imply you were feasting on cherries. I just get a kick out of how these mental midgets work feverishly to discredit you, when there is such a massive target rich environment closer to where they live.

  11. sunsettommy says:

    I have posted a lenghty reply to the lying dishonest Actual Skeptic at my FORUM,

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2113-post-12328.html#pid12328

    To show why this scum is a warmist/alarmist troll and should be exposed vigorously.

  12. Actual Skeptic says:

    Actually, I just tired of the ramblings of intellectually dishonest conspiracy nuts. Selecting data that agrees with your position is cherry picking. I have no position. I only reported the data. The fact that you feel the need to use ad homonym attacks really says all any reasonable person needs to know. So, what exactly are you exposing? My publishing of the ENTIRE dataset instead of the subset that agrees with your position? Yes, that was dastardly of me.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Bwahahahahaha,

      the hapless troll is back mumbling about cherrypicking because he KNOWS his initial claims were blow away numerous times.The scumbag never proved that Steve’s chart is in error at anytime not when the idiot starts from 1973 when Steve started in 1980.

      You need to slink away fella and take your dishonest crap with you……………

    • Let’s try some simple logic and see if your simple mind can handle it

      1. Sea level has not changed since 1980
      2. Sea level is higher now than it was in 1970

      What can you conclude from this? Choose one

      a. Sea level is currently rising
      b. Sea level rose during the 1970s

    • sunsettommy says:

      This is your freaking first post in the thread where you clearly state that Steve was in error:

      “I’d like to thank you for posting a link to your data source. I’m curious why all of the “skeptics” that commented above were not skeptical enough to spend 10 minutes loading the data into a spreadsheet to create their own chart and trend line. The thing I can’t figure out is why, on my chart, the data points look similar but the trend line goes up. On yours it is level. You either have an application error, user error, you played with the data, or you just drew in a level trend line.

      It’s all well and good to claim that you are free thinkers and everyone else is gullible, but if you don’t follow through on your free thinking, then you are no better than the sheep you look down on.”

      again I repeat this in large letter YOU wrote for your stupid eyes:

      YOU EITHER HAVE AN APPLICATION ERROR,USER ERROR,YOU PLAYED WITH DATA,OR YOU JUST DREW IN A LEVEL TREND LINE.

      Then you go on trying to prove Steve’s chart is wrong by using a different starting point 1973 while Steve showed he started in 1980 all the while you never showed that he did ANY of listed arrors you babbled about

      Now YOU whine:

      “Actually, I just tired of the ramblings of intellectually dishonest conspiracy nuts.”

      You have been repeately exposed as a dishonest scumbag because you never used the same data set Steve used because you started SEVEN YEARS earlier and then say Steve was in error who started in 1980.

      Now you have shifted your whines about cherrypicking instead because YOU KNOW why you were wrong about your initial claim about Steve’s 100% correct chart the one that is clearly labeled as starting in 1980 and you do this because you are a stupid warmist/alarmist scumbag.

      “Selecting data that agrees with your position is cherry picking.”

      The desperate attempt to steer readers away from the earlier part of this thread where he contested a chart that has since been shown to be 100 correct since it is 100% based on the PSML data.Heck he SHOWED the link to the generated sea level data for Moneterey and the TWO charts there supports Steve’s claim that the trend is flat from 1980.

      “I only reported the data.”

      You used an additional seven years of data from 1973 then dishonestly tries to fool readers into thinking this invalidates Steve’s chart which is clearly labeled as starting in 1980.

      “The fact that you feel the need to use ad homonym attacks really says all any reasonable person needs to know. So, what exactly are you exposing?”

      You are being attacked because you have been exposed as a lying,dishonest and now deflecting scumbag who is not a real skeptic either.

      You used a different data set range to say Steves chart is incorrect and never admit that you were dishonest in doing it.

      “My publishing of the ENTIRE dataset instead of the subset that agrees with your position?”

      Yes we know you posted the entire dataset on a chart in your link but you then used it with out saying it in public that it started in 1973 while you attacked his chart that started in 1980.

      “Yes, that was dastardly of me.”

      Yeah that you made a deliberately deceptive and dishonest attack on Steve’s chart that is 100% correct.

      Now do you finally understand why we call you names?

      You are a proven pathetic dishonest scumbag!

    • bwdave says:

      A S,
      Look carefully. Why did you cherry pick your range to show a trend?

      • Drewskilives says:

        bwdave, A.S. used ALL the data that Goddard linked to. It was Goddard, himself, who ädjusted” the data set to get the bias he was looking for. Goddard is the pre-eminent cherry picker who will then will trash the conclusions of real scientists by using his own adjusted graphs as proof of their evil intentions.

      • Me says:

        Yeah, what ever ya say thar Coolwhip! Bwaaaahahahahaha

  13. Actual Skeptic says:

    Since the data referenced started in 1973, I assumed you were intelligent enough to check his sources. That was my mistake. I can use that data to prove sea levels are falling if I select the right date range. You need a different hobby. You’re terrible at this one.

    • You are a complete moron. Sea level in Monterey rose in the 1970s. It hasn’t since 1980. Anyone would half a brain would recognize that this is not due to global warming, and that the data confirms exactly what I asserted.

      I am so sick of your obtuse stupidity and dishonesty.

    • sunsettommy says:

      You are apparently not intelligent enough to notice your continual dishonesty and lies in your comments.

      If you read back through the comments you will see that NOBODY is disputing that it has risen a little since 1973 but YOU never admit that it has not risen since 1980 which is what Steve is pointing out and did so out in the open with his data link and his chart he posted.Steve has always been correct the whole time using the starting point from 1980 to say there is no more sea level increase going on at Monterey California.

      You originally say he was in error and never have you shown what the alleged arror is factually that is based on the time frame from 1980 to 2011.

      “The thing I can’t figure out is why, on my chart, the data points look similar but the trend line goes up. On yours it is level. You either have an application error, user error, you played with the data, or you just drew in a level trend line.”

      You killed your own argument with this from the start and ever since then you been in damage containment mode over it.

      Usung the starting point of 1973 while Steve made it clear he was using a different starting point from 1980 and you still couldn’t figure out why your chart is different from his??????????

      bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

      You are not intelligent enough to spot your own error which you obstinately repeat over and over despite others here trying to help you see it.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        Yes, if you keep your data under control, it certainly appears that sea levels are static… for a small town in California… for a few years. Huzzah. You’re all much too smart for me. :)

      • Water is a low viscosity fluid, which likes to keep a flat surface. Is one end of the swimming pool higher than the other? I hope you aren’t as stupid as you pretend to be.

        Satellites show no sea level rise anywhere along the west coast of the US or Canada.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        The earth’s crust floats on a high viscosity fluid. Perhaps you are aware of plate tectonics? Land rises and falls. The NOAA site appears to disagree with your assertion. Do you have data to back up your claim or just more name calling?

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        Since you believe sea levels on one point on the surface reflect the averages on every other point, please explain Venice.

        http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/2100.php

      • Ben says:

        RE: Actual Sceptic – Do you have data to back up your claim?…

        If you had searched this site for “sea level” before pontificating, you would have already known the answer to your question… In five seconds I found Los Angeles, Seattle, British Columbia… your confirmation bias prevents you from challenging your own beliefs.

        I am headed back to realclimate and thinkprogress…

        Have an excellent weekend.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        And I found Venice with a sharp increase. The NOAA site shows many more.

      • Do you understand the difference between a low-viscosity and high-viscosity fluid?

        You are a genuine moron.

      • Actual Skeptic says:

        As I thought. When challenged to support your assertions and refute data that doesn’t support your position, you revert to name calling. You really have no idea do you? I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone so woefully armed. Goodnight. :)

      • You have not presented one shred of information contradicting anything I said, yet you talk endlessly and have made dozens of unsupportable accusations. That is the mark of an idiot.

      • Ben says:

        RE: ActualSceptic “And I found Venice with a sharp increase. The NOAA site shows many more.”

        No winner this time, try again. Steve specifically mentioned the west coast, you asked if he could back up the assertion. He did. I know a smart guy like you wouldn’t play the shell game and move all the way to subsidence plagued Venice, Italy. You must be talking about Venice Beach, CA

        sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-series-wizard?dlon=241.5&dlat=34&map=v&fit=n&smooth=n&days=90

        Have a great weekend.

  14. Actual Skeptic says:

    One other thing before you go back to your “skepticism”, a single data point cannot be used to show a trend. Steve picked a single location and then selected a date range that agreed with his conclusion then proceeded to claim statistical proof of a global warming conspiracy. Why not choose one of the other data points that show that sea levels are falling?

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

    I’m not impressed guys. Do better.

    • You have demonstrated that alarmists are both dishonest and stupid.

    • sunsettommy says:

      He he,

      Now the Troll comes back for another attempt to salvage his long dead credibility by employing the deflection gambit by leaving the state of california altogether and desperately hope readers here will follow the false trail.

      When are you going to give up trying to prove your stupidity to us?

  15. gator69 says:

    “Steve picked a single location and then selected a date range that agreed with his conclusion then proceeded to claim statistical proof of a global warming conspiracy.”

    Lie much? (Yes)

    This is what Steven said…

    “Still waiting on my first check, and wondering how the Arctic is melting at -35C. There has been no sea level rise in California for decades.”

    He was mocking the alarmist ‘conspiracy’, you know, the conspiracy that pays all us deniers.

    This is what Steven was mocking…

    “This was also around the time a well-funded national campaign to infuse doubt into climate science hit its stride.”

    No claim of conspiracy by Steven, in fact, the opposite.

    Factual Epileptic, you are a joke, a failure, just like AGW.

  16. MikeC says:

    “Actual Skeptic says:
    February 28, 2013 at 4:54 am

    … I have no position.”

    LOL … If you have no position then one could only assume you picked this fight for some sort of self-validation. Perhaps you need some couch time with Professor Lewandowsky. I hear he has no position either.

    • Actual Skeptic says:

      It’s quite simple. I have an acute bullshit detector. It took me about 10 minutes of searching data to debunk the bullshit Goddard is feeding you. That’s the difference between a denier and a skeptic. a denier buries his head in bullshit that agrees with his position. A skeptic is curious enough to find out if that information is bullshit or not. The people attacking the messenger instead of checking the information themselves are just sheeple.

  17. sunsettommy says:

    Actual Skeptic babbles some more:

    “Yes, if you keep your data under control, it certainly appears that sea levels are static… for a small town in California… for a few years. Huzzah. You’re all much too smart for me.”

    and,

    “The earth’s crust floats on a high viscosity fluid. Perhaps you are aware of plate tectonics? Land rises and falls. The NOAA site appears to disagree with your assertion. Do you have data to back up your claim or just more name calling?”

    and,

    “Since you believe sea levels on one point on the surface reflect the averages on every other point, please explain Venice.
    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/2100.php

    and,

    “And I found Venice with a sharp increase. The NOAA site shows many more.”

    and,

    “As I thought. When challenged to support your assertions and refute data that doesn’t support your position, you revert to name calling. You really have no idea do you? I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone so woefully armed. Goodnight.”

    This is a sign of an insane person because he is going all over the map now who never once has made a rational counterpoint to Steve’s 100% accurate chart that shows a no sea level increase from 1980 for a city of Monterey California.

    The FBI profile would be something like this:

    Drooling knuckledragging liberal who worships the wishywashy Muslim Barry Sotero and likes to starts small fires to look for the image of the devil in the flames.

  18. Brian G Valentine says:

    People who buy into that CO2 in the air shit are the Missing Link between animals that walk on their knuckles and humans

  19. gator69 says:

    Instead of quibbling over individual gauges and perceived cherries, let’s see what the world’s leading expert on sea level has to say…

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

    Nature is a mother, and cares not for man’s chicken little sh*t alarmism.

  20. Latitude says:

    Actual Skeptic says:
    March 2, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    Perhaps this will make it more obvious for you.

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

    ===================
    why are almost all of the arrows green?………..which is zero to 3 mm/yr or zero to 1 feet/century

    zero…………according to them is an option

    • Andy Oz says:

      That’s a cool graphic, Latitude.
      And shows sea levels in Alaska and Scandinavia plunging dramatically over 40 years. Presuming (always dangerous) NOAA satellite data collection is correct, then in 100 years the sea level on Kodiak Island will fall by 1000 mm!!! This will be a disaster for seals and salmon as they won’t be able to reach their beaches or enter their home streams. Kodiak bears will starve and the forests which get nutrients from rotting salmon will fade.

      Maybe I’m cherry picking :)
      but I don’t believe any of the crap Warmists are spruking about catastophic sea level rise just as they’d deny Alaska and Scandinavia being significant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s