Please! We want to know the real truth behind these plots! Do you think Osama collude with the owner of the building? Do you think there was a plant in the white house who is manipulating documents? This is all very fascinating and I look forward to learning the real truth that Wikipedia won't tell us!

It is the leaders of the contrarian community who are repeatedly publishing contact info of targeted climate scientists and encouraging the crazies to get in touch directly.

The same technique is used by Marc Morano to silence climate scientists:

Whether one agrees with that message or not, there’s no denying that its tone is drastically different from much of the email Hayhoe has been receiving after Limbaugh’s denunciation, Gingrich’s decision to kill her book chapter, and the repeated publication of her email address by an influential conservative blogger who ceaselessly campaigns against climate science and climate action, Mark Morano. - http://texasclimatenews.org/wp...

Morano has sicked his minions on her for the crime of publicly discussing her scientific findings. Here is an example of the vitriol she is now receiving: Nazi Bitch Whore Climatebecile [] You stupid bitch, You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Reality TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania. AGW has never been anything but a Rockefeller depopulationary eugenical scam. [] After the Grand Jury indicts you, I would like to see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if they are going to take a man’s job, they have to take the heat for mass murder, just like the men do when they get caught. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead, when they see your baby crying next to the basket next to the guillotine.

Of course not. Only you know the real truth.

so who was behind the 911 attacks and who faked Obama's birth certificate? Obviously if you are right these are very important questions!

Wikipedia thinks: "When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building's structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m."

But I'd love to hear the real truth about the 9/11 attacks and Obama's birth certificate. Please elucidate.

“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

Jane1:

vs Jane2:

Who to believe?

Seems like a distinction without a difference. Not sure we should use you as a barometer on which way the term "denier" points.

We have had really good measurements to about 700m deep for decades. About a decade ago a discrepancy was noticed between the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of warming measured. Some scientists (who believed in conservation of energy) suggested that there may be warming that we have been unable to measure. One possible location was the deep ocean (below 700m). The Argo network was deployed. It was able to measure to depths of 2000m. It showed that the deep ocean below 700m was indeed warming and accounted for a great deal of the discrepancy.

This study shows that ice melt and the warming measured by the Argo network account for almost all of sea level rise. So warming below 2000m cannot be significant. Does that somehow show that the ocean between 700m and 2000m didn't warm? Of course not. In fact it relies on the deep ocean warming measurements to close the sea level rise budget. So rather than contradict previous research, this study actually confirms it. Maybe you didn't read this far down:

Recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.

As this study shows, the missing heat recently found in the deep ocean between 700m and 2000m is required to account for observed sea level rise. So not only does the increased warming in the deep ocean close the radiative imbalance budget, it also closes the sea level rise budget. So yes, the law of conservation of energy is not challenged by this new finding.

Actually the picture is pretty cohesive, but was presented rather poorly by bigwheel. Yesterday the deep oceans (between 700m and 2000m) were warming more than expected. Today we find that if you add the warming we have measured down to 2000m with the melting we have measured at the poles, you can account for almost 100% of sea level rise. We can then probably conclude that there is little or no warming below 2000m. It looks like Bigwheel may have been confused by the word 'deep', even though the distinction is made clear by the article that he posted: "Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."

You won't have been told that by the scientists. Perhaps you are visiting contrarian web sites? All that scientists have said is that the sun cannot account for our recent warming because it has been cooling over the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

This study actually confirms previous measurements for warming between 700m and 2000m. It finds that if you add the warming in the top 700m with the recently measured warming in the 'deep' ocean between 700m and 2000m - if you add that to ice melt you account for all of the measured sea level rise. The budget is balanced. This new study provides an even more cohesive picture!

Ten years ago if we looked at the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation and compared that with measured warming we found that we did not have enough warming to account for the radiative imbalance. Some scientists (who believed in conservation of energy) concluded that there must be additional warming that we have not measured. Two places we had poor measurements were the ocean below 700 meters and at the poles. Over the last decade we have been able to measure warming between 700 and 2000 meters as well as the poles and the heat budget is balanced.

This new paper confirms the warming in the 'deep' ocean between 700m and 2000m - otherwise we would not be able to account for the sea level rise that we observe.

Who should we believe... The guy who thinks that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that Obama faked his birth certificate, or the scientists.... Tough choice...

What this study found was that melting ice and warming of the first 2000 meters accounted for virtually all of the sea level rise. Nice bit of editorializing on the part of bigwheel to suggest that this new data has any impact on "why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years." This does not suggest that the ocean has warmed less than we had previously thought. Only that the warming is occurring primarily in the first 2 kilometers of depth.