John Cook Explains That Anyone Who Tells The Truth Is A Denier

How to tell a climate science denier from a genuine skeptic

For example, let’s look at the question of whether global warming is happening. Do you acknowledge sea level rise, a key indicator of a warming planet, tripling over the last century? Do you factor in the warming oceans, which since 1970 have been building up heat at a rate of two-and-a-half Hiroshima bombs every second? Glaciers are retreating all over the world, threatening the water supply of hundreds of millions of people. Ice sheets from Greenland in the north to Antarctica in the south are losing hundreds of billions of tonnes of ice every year. Seasons are shifting, flowers are opening earlier each year and animals are migrating towards the poles. The very structure of our atmosphere is changing.

http://thinkprogress.org/

Does he actually believe the crap that he writes? They need to start baptizing true believers into the faith.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

About stevengoddard

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

14 Responses to John Cook Explains That Anyone Who Tells The Truth Is A Denier

  1. A genuine skeptic surveys the full body of evidence coming in from all over our planet and concludes that global warming is unequivocal.

    You know, when you’re off on the bunny trail of saying “you’re not a good skeptic unless you believe what I say uncritically”…I don’t care who you are or what you’re trying to push, ya gotta admit there’s a problem somewhere there. For one thing, it isn’t science anymore when you’re handing down decrees about what the conclusion is supposed to be. For another, when words are being re-defined as the exact opposite of what they were intended to mean, the ideas being expressed with the words pretty much lose all weight & meaning.

    I know he’s lying about what a skeptic is. It’s self-evident. So what else needs a sanity check, since I can’t trust that?

  2. RobbCab says:

    I love this commenter: (bold added by me)

    the geographers, engineers and especially world-class hydrologists who spoke were beyond skeptical, siding with the hackers instead of climate scientists when discussing Climategate, and privately dissing NOAA, Tom Karl and the IPCC Report process in ways that made my own blood temperature rise about 6 C.

    He continued:

    These hydrologists looking at flood records remind me of the tornado and hurricane experts – all three are looking at mostly 20th Century data and not seeing much if any increase in these three phenomenon

    But aren’t climatologists looking at mostly 20th century data too? (Sea ice from 1979-2000/temp records from 1850-present) Must be those 50 years of 19th century temps that set them apart.

    But his best comment:

    . Already with 1 degree F increase since 1970 meaning 4% additional water vapor in the atmosphere we’re seeing events like the Mississippi River rise, unprecedented flooding in Queensland Australia and Pakistan, and 1000-year floods in places like Tennessee. Imagine if the worst-case projections of the conservative IPCC Report or MIT or other projections are realized and there is a 10 F increase by 2100 – water vapor would increase by 40%, meaning the atmosphere would be holding additional water vapor that is the equivalent to 15 Lake Superiors!

    That plus the increased energy equivalent to the output of almost 2 million nuclear reactors going 24/7 added to the system would create storms we can’t now imagine.

    My head shut down after the 1°C since 1970. The exact figure from GISS’s bloated figures is +0.6289°C 1970-2010.

  3. suyts says:

    This is the part I thought was hilarious…….Glaciers are retreating all over the world, threatening the water supply of hundreds of millions of people…..

    Uhmm….errr…..Glaciers aren’t nor were they ever in a static state, so, if they’re not retreating, they are advancing. We wouldn’t have to worry about water supply if a glacier rolls into our town.

    • Curt says:

      And static glaciers, as (semi-) permanent stores of ice, don’t contribute anything to water supplies.

      • suyts says:

        exactly……. Cook has drank so much of the koolaid his lost his ability to present a reasonable argument.

      • Jimash says:

        What would you say the chances are, that the climate could be engineered such that glacier melt contributing to water supplies
        ( which seems to be normal and what they are decrying losing ),
        could be balanced perfectly with incoming snowfall, so as to be perfect above ground aquifers, in perpetuity ?

      • glacierman says:

        Jimash – That’s the way things were before the industrial revolution caused CO2 to increase. Geez everyone knows that./sarc

      • Jimash says:

        It must have been like a perfect unending paradise./

      • glacierman says:

        Yes, and there were 10 girls to every guy. And they all looked like that picture of Rachel Welch Steve likes to use so much.

        Wow, being detected from reality is kinda fun. Maybe that is why so many on the left never seem to find their way back.

  4. Andy Weiss says:

    That must be a world record for the most lies contained in one paragraph.

  5. Mike Davis says:

    A sceptic looks at all the evidence gathered all around the globe and knows that John Cook FOS! The Mainstream Media needs to pick up and run with his Prophecies! His works should be included in the next IPCC report. The EPA should base their ruling on his writings. Obama should make the prophecies a part of his campaign.
    John Cook should run for high political office!
    We should start a petition to place Cook on the Ballot for International Refuse Controller as he attempts to apply perfume to the garbage coming from the climatologists but makes it smell worse!

  6. Dave N says:

    “A genuine skeptic surveys the full body of evidence coming in from all over our planet and concludes that global warming is unequivocal”

    At least he got the part of the sentence up to “and” right. A true skeptic doesn’t conclude anything as “unequivocal”.

    On the other hand, a denier is someone who considers something “unequivocal”, and discounts all other possibilities, regardless of what evidence they have.

  7. Charles Higley says:

    First, if the glaciers were all growing, it would threaten water supplies as it means that there is not much melting going on. If they’re melting, water’s available, but it does mean that at some point they need to be recharged by growing.

    Second, one true statement is that flowers are indeed opening earlier. But, as we have been not warming and/or cooling for the last 15 years, it must be due to something else. It’s the higher CO2! It makes the plants more temperature tolerant and able to bloom earlier in the Spring. So, no warming, but increasing CO2 and you have a longer (oh my gosh, say it’s not so!) growing period!

    Higher CO2 also makes plants more efficient with water (fewer stomata leads to less water transporation) and nutrient usage.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s