I did check out Kate’s blog and added it to my Google Reader. I like what I saw!

The discussions I see from the denialists never cease to amaze me. The contradictions are laughable, of course, but the ones that get me the most are the ones who claim to be very scientific, yet spout the same discredited bunk that’s been going around since the “debate” began. Then they try to make an issue out of things (like the recent US cold snap) that really don’t dispute global warming at all… unless you have a very thin grasp (at best) of the entire issue.

(In my defense, though, the Authors page is focused exclusively on belief/nonbelief stances and thus doesn’t discuss any other biographical details, leaving room for such leaps.)

Relating to the article, though, I occasionally see multiple viewpoints expressed in the same response. There was a discussion, which I sadly can’t find right now, on Greenfyre’s (another excellent climate/denialism blog; you might be interested in this example) where one inactivist commenter included “we’re not warming”, “we are warming but it isn’t us” and “it is us so stopping it would hurt the economy” in the same reply.

This type of dissonance happens very frequently with people who trumpet every “new study that disproves [consensus X]” story. If you know of or follow a denialist blog or news clearinghouse, regardless of your denial focus, keep a log of positions promoted by different people. I give you no fewer than four such stories before at least one contradicts at least one of the others.

Though I’d love to take credit for the work of Daniel Gilbert, the Harvard professor of psychology, I have to admit that he’s a different “Daniel Gilbert.” I’m not “Dan Gilbert” artist who invented triazzle, either. I’m a much more lowly and much less well-known Dan Gilbert who is simply a software engineer.

…though I’m really flattered that you mistook me for the Harvard one!

I’m a big fan of your work, Dan….I’ve referenced your article “If Only Gay Sex Caused Global Warming” multiple times on my blog as well as in writing assignments for school. I’m glad to see that you’re blogging.

“Susan Soloman, the valued climate scientist who led the research, says that this finding doesn’t destabilize man-made global warming theories.”

…and…

She’s also quoted as saying, “What I’ll say is that this shows there are climate scientists around the world who are trying very hard to understand and to explain to people openly and honestly what has happened in the last decade.”

That’s a good thing.

See also: http://bit.ly/axf0pV

=====
“The new findings ‘are a nice demonstration of the sensitivity of the climate to water vapor concentrations in the lower stratosphere,’ says Andrew Gettelman, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.”
=====

Scientists understand that one report does not invalidate thousands of others, especially in this case. It provides them with more information to investigate and research and, potentially, a puzzle to solve, but that’s what science is all about.

Water vapor has been a known factor in climate research, so this is nothing new. This report gives them more information to help figure out the bigger picture with more accuracy.

Neither organization disputes AGW.

Read here: http://nasa-satellites.blogspot.com/