Climate Denial Crock of the Week

By Phil Plait | June 2, 2010 7:30 am

I rather like this idea: the Climate Denial Crock of the Week, a video series debunking ridiculous (natch) claims by someone spinning the truth when it comes to climate change.

I don’t agree with everything therein; you can’t judge a site by its ads, for one thing. But he does a good dismantling of the claim that Phil Jones — a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, and a man who was at the center of the bogus "climategate" nonsense — says there’s been no warming since 1995. That claim is nothing less than an outright lie, a cherry-picked quotation taken out of context and basically the opposite of what Jones actually said.

This video is just one of many, and I’ll have to go through them all as I have time. Every time I post something on climate change, the noise machine swings into full mania, with comments that show beyond a doubt that a lot of people have no clue what they’re talking about, but still feel that scientists who have devoted their entire lives and careers to climatology are idiots. That is, sadly, the state of the "debate" today.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Debunking, Skepticism

Comments (88)

  1. I think the “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” is a great idea… if your goal is to reinforce people who are already believe in human caused climate change. Belittling others works great when you are preaching to the choir.

    However, if you were interested in being successful at the truly difficult task of converting people skeptical of climate change, then you have to reach out without name calling.

    So it all depends on what your goals are.

  2. Joseph, I agree wholeheartedly. In any endeavor, reinforcing people’s beliefs is much easier than changing them.

  3. Everyone should check out the last SGU episode, they talked about 3 recent studies about people and how they change or not change their beliefs. Made me think a different tack is needed.

  4. Jason Dick

    I am rather bemused that your prediction held true on the first comment, Phil.

    Joseph, you’re completely off your rocker here. People already do what you say. They’re called scientists. But the denialists obviously aren’t listening to the scientists, are they? Regardless, one primary purpose of this sort of video is to arm laypeople who are not scientists with knowledge they can use when engaging others in such discussions.

    And if you were to actually watch a few of them, maybe you’d start to see that “crock” is an extremely apt description of the ridiculous claims made by the reality-deniers out there.

  5. @Joseph Smidt I disagree. I don’t think that the purpose of this video series is to reach out and convert “skeptics” (and it most certainly isn’t to try to convert the lead denialists like “Lord” Monckton who are liars and charlatans and deserve to be called out and debased), but rather to offer a counter-point to people on the fence who may find merit in the denialists’ claims, being unaware just how dishonest those claims are. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this type of debunking turns away those kinds of people.

  6. Timmy

    Your beliefs are completely ridiculous and you are a stupid moron for listening to whoever told you that hogwash. Everything you have thought to be true your whole undistinguished life is so obviously wrong that I cringe at the thought of it. You probably can’t understand what I am about to tell you because you are too dumb to follow a conversation, but try to follow along, okay dufus?

    OK, now lets start the discussion. I hope you now have an open mind to what I would like to tell you.

  7. Klaus

    Actually, Timmy, for many people this is the exact way to talk to… ;-)

  8. Robert

    I’m using Timmy’s opening word for word the next time I have any kind of conversation with my brother or a certain brother in law.

    Thank you sir.

  9. Dean

    I think a lot of people completely miss the reality of thes situation though. The public is willing to make changes to counter climate change. However, they aren’t willing to allow changes that are drastic enough to actually result in a change in behaviour.

    Cap and Trade…or carbon tax…it simply isn’t possible to price carbon high enough to substantially make a difference. See for example, the attempt by the EU to raise the carbon reduction targets to a 30% reduction from 20% by 2020.

    Whether or not climate scientists are right is moot if the public won’t accept what’s needed to be done.

  10. JGlanton

    It’s fascinating how you do a good job showing that you have a healthy scientifically skeptical mind on all issues. A scientist should be skeptic first, should question his own work and that of others before accepting that a hypothesis is proven. To your credit you seem to take that stance most of the time. Then when it comes to AGW, you come across as a religious zealot making strident claims and personal attacks against disbelievers, defending those you support by using only evidence provided by them and shooting down all other scientist’s work that disproves your beliefs. It’s quite pathetic and discredits you and your otherwise excellent and entertaining website. The least you could do is feign neutrality and use the prose of ethical scientists (you know what that is) on this topic.

  11. Cheyenne

    I think this shows exactly why a guy like Anthony Watts has such a massive following and has been so effective at what he does (and no, I don’t think global warming is a myth – I’m not on his side but I’d be the first to admit the guy has a very, well, effective blog).

    That guy engages people and has even allowed experts who disagree with him to post on his site. Just calling people “deniers” and complaining about the “noise machine” just sounds defensive and lame. It’s not an effective strategy and the proof of that can be found in a recent article on the New York Times. The % of the pubic that believes in man made global warming is plunging.

    Anyhoo, my 2 cents are just to lighten up a bit and reach out to those people. And drop the name calling and acerbic writing style.

  12. BJN

    Antiscience deserves to be belittled, but this video uses facts and civil, rational communication to make a point. If your tender sensibilities find that offensive, I suggest that you should avoid really aggressive “information” outlets who bludgeon to death any impulse you might have for objective thoughts of your own.

  13. Avery

    I see even educated astronomers can be misguided. A pity.

  14. Avery

    Bad astromony. Bad climate science.

  15. MoonShark

    Oh boy, more people whining about “tone”. Just go watch the video, really, and then decide what label is fitting for those who cherry-picked and spun Jones’s statements.

    I’d say “dishonest cretins”, but don’t take my word for it. The video lays out the actual evidence.

    You fence-sitters sure get upset when told to “move it or lose it”. Sure, it sounds rude on its face. But good science is published and abundant; you have little excuse not to go read it. If you’re still equivocating at this point, then take a little responsibility for your ignorance, okay?

  16. The Other Ian

    @JGlanton #10:

    “defending those you support by using only evidence provided by them”

    Well, yes. Skepticism does not mean finding your own evidence. It means being critical about the evidence that is provided by others. We’ve done that, and we find the evidence from the climatologists to be largely solid, and the evidence from the deniers to be largely lacking. Hence the term “deniers” rather than a more neutral term like “opponents”.

    “and shooting down all other scientist’s work that disproves your beliefs.”

    Are you suggesting that an out-of-context quote mine (that being the only thing Phil has shot down in this post) constitutes scientific evidence?

    “The least you could do is feign neutrality and use the prose of ethical scientists (you know what that is) on this topic.”

    There is no reason to be neutral on climate change, just as there is no reason to be neutral on evolution, relativity, and on whether the earth is flat.

  17. Richard Wolford

    Enter the arm-chair scientists to refute the actual scientists. Good Thor Phil, you should sell tickets to these :) Kruger-Dunning couldn’t be higher with these nitwits.

  18. JT Justman

    Some of this video is nicely stated rebuttal of specific facts. I don’t even recall the “U-Turn” story but that’s a good analysis. Same with the sea level rise.

    Still, to say that the Daily Mail, Rush Limbaugh and South Dakota are representative of all climate skeptics is quite disingenuous and frankly quite insulting. Some of us are legitimate *skeptics* of climate change, who just have not seen enough evidence to be convinced. To me it appears that the potential for errors in the science so far is not enough to close the book.

    But that does not mean that it is not time to act! Why can’t we act on the very visible issues of wars for oil, air pollution, water pollution, oil spills, coal mine tragedies? Hardly anybody, when pressed, will tell you that burning fossil fuels is a good idea. But the general public is quite confused over “climate change”. Every rise in sea level and warm month is attributed by someone to global warming. So too is every cold month cited as counter-evidence. It is easy for someone who *wants* to avoid change to find justification. Why don’t we teach people about the whole system, with climate change being one part of the big picture?

  19. I appreciate some of the backlash from my comment, (#1) I really do. However, I would like to point out the key phrase is ‘it all depends on what your goals are.” I never said Phil’s tone was incorrect.

    I just said name calling won’t convert climate skeptics. This is still true.

    And the fact there was a backlash over stating the reality that name calling doesn’t convert shows these posts do energize the base. (As I knew it would.)

  20. JoeDoodleWally

    I find it odd that, despite 25 years of scientific data collection on the subject, this supposed climate-gate thing has any traction at all. I mean, every device collecting data has a tolerance stamped on it, or in it’s use instructions. Seems to me that political gain and fear mongering have dropped the facts in favor of authoritarian commentary by people that aren’t doing the research. Enough head nodding and finger pointing will influence some people.

    Show me your legwork, and supply the device tolerances, and you’ll see how little the earth’s climate has changed.

    As I did, go ask a meteorologist to show you the trends; don’t go digging online…

  21. adam

    At the end of the video he asks “what makes a great civilization turn away from science, reason and civility?” Well, I can tell you that belittling people, making fun and acting condescending doesn’t really make people want to listen to you. But, you know, you’re the smart ones. Anyone who doesn’t accept scientific consensus is an idiot. As everyone knows, a scientific consensus is bulletproof.

    Phil Jones:

    “there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

    Not proof or anything, mind you. Evidence. There’s some evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. That’s a lot of qualifiers. But, of course, despite all that qualification it is absolutely not reasonable to wonder if the warming since the 1950s isn’t necessarily “predominantly man-made.” How come such is not reasonable? Well, refer to a previous answer, in which he states that “this area is slightly outside my area of expertise.” And that “we need to consider all possible factors,” but goes on to name only two, whose influence “we might have expected” to produce a cooling–not warming–trend.

    Huh. That’s just super convincing.

  22. Note to all websites out there: I DO judge you by your ads. Just like some magazines don’t run certain ads because it doesn’t fit with their voice, while other mags do, same goes for sites. If you don’t want to be judged by your ads, then maybe they’re not appropriate for your readers.

  23. @Joseph Smidt
    You are right – it is all about what your goal is.

    These are good videos. And very good for providing education for anyone who already agrees and wants to learn how to discuss the debate with a Climate Skeptic/Denier.
    But they are not likely to get anyone (even on the fence) on their side because they start off with name calling.

    I thought about forwarding the video to a friend who is a denier. But I realized she would not be able to overcome the initial insults and would be on the defensive rather than open to information.

  24. Brody

    I like that the denial response has gone from “whole thing is a hoax” to “we can’t afford the solutions” to “please stop insulting us or we will have our feelings hurt for having our incorrect worldview challenged”.

  25. RickK

    Joseph Smidt said: “I just said name calling won’t convert climate skeptics. This is still true.”

    I see no problem with adding a little soundbite punch to get people’s attention before presenting the science and the facts. If that means calling the climate deniers a few names, so be it.

    We’ve seen reasonable, science-based, evidence-based discussion with tolerances disclosed. We’ve seen scientists work their way, slowly, through the data – keeping the good stuff, criticizing each other, correcting each other, throwing out the bad stuff, admitting mistakes, and moving forward. We’ve seen this for over a decade, and little by little the consensus has built that human activity is changing the planet – from growing CO2 levels to “more plastic than plankton” in parts of our oceans.

    And in response, we see a well-funded bunch of self-interested organizations cherry pick the science to push their agenda. We’ve seen massive political and marketing campaigns that dwarf the “smoking is good for you” campaigns of the 1960s, but which share many of the same features.

    And, Joseph, we’ve seen legions of sheep on the internet and in the general public who can only hear the soundbite, can only hear the shout, are completely unswayed by the carefully presented science. They want the Jerry Springer version of the discussion. And they too can vote.

    Fine.

    For them we have clear, fact-based, unqualified statements repleat with name-calling and invective to draw attention: the core of the climate change denialists are self-interested liars who will happily sacrifice the planet’s future to line their own pockets and defend their ideologies.

    That’s why with every passing day there is less daylight between the climate-denailists and the evolution-denialists.

    This is a rather important topic. So people should worry less about giving or taking offense, and worry more about the FACTS and their implications.

  26. Robert

    Bye (removes link to this website)

  27. Itzac

    I think it’s a perfectly valid strategy to publicly marginalize climate deniers. In individual conversation, then, we can provide people the opportunity to step away from the margins.

  28. Paul

    Here is a full transcript of one of Phil Jones’ interviews. So you can read the replies in full context.

    “Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

    Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.

    The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    ______________

    Here is the first question & response:

    A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

    An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

    Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

    I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
    ———
    The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length which is a full two years shorter than the 1975-1998 period.

  29. Paul

    S – The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that?

    I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn’t this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor’s award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.
    ________________________________________________
    From: Phil Jones

    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

    Mike,
    Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
    2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
    for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
    to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
    I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
    that you have the pdf.
    The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
    to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
    for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
    obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
    out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
    The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
    losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
    it.
    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them
    out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil
    Mike,
    For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
    shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
    is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
    It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
    because
    the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
    happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
    this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
    are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.

    I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    NR4 7TJ
    UK

  30. MoonShark

    Wow. RickK said it astoundingly well.

  31. > Then when it comes to AGW, you come across as a religious zealot making
    > strident claims and personal attacks against disbelievers, defending those
    > you support by using only evidence provided by them and shooting down
    > all other scientist’s work that disproves your beliefs.

    “All other scientists’ work that disproves your beliefs”

    Please to be providing citations to said work. Else to be shutting trap, as you are claiming false analysis based upon data set that exists not. Savvy?

  32. Paul

    N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?

    Jones – It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
    ________________________________________________
    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones”

    , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all
    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
    Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
    had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
    smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
    record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
    baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
    weather).
    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global
    energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
    doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
    from the author.)
    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
    travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
    shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
    system is inadequate.
    That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
    monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
    change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
    the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
    Sept 2007. see
    [2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
    urrent.ppt
    Kevin
    ____________

    The debate is not over. Where is the heat going that is suppose to be building up under the CAGW theory? Uncertainties do have to be resolved and risks have to be applied so that society can decide if civilization should be turned on its head or if a measured response is needed.

    There was a recent conference in Canada discussing various solutions to controlling the planet’s atmosphere. Are we at the CAGW point where we are ready to purposely seed the stratosphere with contaminates to save society. I don’t think we are at that point yet. “FIRE” has already been screamed in the global theater. Now we have various fire departments responding. Nothing less could be expected.

  33. Katharine

    From the various interactions I’ve unfortunately had with denialists, the responses have ranged somewhere from apparently not being AWARE of the evidence that their assertions are a crock to playing cultural cards to playing ‘conspiracy’ or ‘economic’ cards to complaining how we’ve been big fat meanies.

    Mostly because they probably don’t want to think about the implications for them and for society if they acknowledge they’re wrong and they don’t have the motivation to get up off their lazy asses and change. They’re in a constant state of inertia.

  34. Most of these “you need to be nicer” comments are based on the perfect-solution fallacy. They make the implicit assumption that there exists a more persuasive form of advocacy, and that scientists are overlooking it with their “nasty” approach. However, what is this strategy?

    For example, if someone confuses local weather with global climate and belligerently defends this position, then how are you supposed to engage their opinions respectfully? To put it bluntly, anyone in this category isn’t a “skeptic”, they’re just plain stupid. Any attempt at “debate” or “dialogue” will simply indulge their delusions of adequacy, and convince them that they have a seat at the grown-up’s table.

    Ridicule is like chemotherapy; it is far from perfect, but it’s the best we have.

  35. RickK

    Paul says: “Are we at the CAGW point where we are ready to purposely seed the stratosphere with contaminates to save society.”

    Why is it, according to Eli Kintisch (author of “Hack the Planet”), that some of the biggest interest in geoengineering is coming from the very people who are most vocal against AGW? Isn’t that odd – that the business and conservative political interests that fight any discussion of reducing CO2 emissions would welcome discussions about intentional altering of the atmosphere?

    It’s not odd at all if you follow the money. “Reduce, re-use, recycle” doesn’t make these guys more money. But a huge government contract to intentionally pump crap into the atmosphere as a rescue stratgy not only allows current emitters to keep on emitting, but it opens up a whole new industry.

    Drill, Baby, Drill!

  36. Chris Winter

    Exactly, RickK. And what’s more I’ll bet they are using their influence to get positioned to start doing that soonest, without waiting for the studies that scientists recommend.

    I’ve been trying to think of a one-syllable analog to “drill” that applies. Maybe “seed” since it probably would involve H2S which “seeds” sulfuric acid in the stratosphere.

  37. Chris Winter

    Where is the name-calling? I’ve reviewed the video and the only instance I saw was Peter Sinclair calling Marc Morano a climate denier — which is exactly what he is: someone who denies the existence of the steadily growing collection of evidence. (Actually I call him a Denialist since in my judgement he has an ulterior motive.)

    There is belittlement in the video, to be sure. But how often can you debunk an incorrect idea without belittling the person who clings to it? Are not people supposed to learn from their mistakes? And if they don’t, who among us would not feel tempted to look down on them?

    In my experience, those who accept the reality of climate change are far less likely to call people names than their opponents. Yet, it is most often those opponents who complain about being abused. I see that as just another debating tactic.

  38. Chris Winter

    There is also this: Those who truly seek knowledge about climate change can quickly find it. It exists all over the Web, in scientific journals, and in magazines, videos and books.

    What does not exist is the one fact, or the single scientific paper, which will definitively prove that human activities are currently warming the planet. But this is what people who call themselves skeptics frequently ask for. It’s another debating tactic.

  39. Helder

    Hey Phil, shut up about global warming and stick to astronomy because that’s what you’re good at. I come here to0 learn great stuff about astronomy not to read your crap defending some science crooks. If I want to read about climate change I go to ‘Climate Audit’ and I guess you should too because you are so biased that you can’t open your eyes and see the big picture.
    Did you know that those same ‘scientists’ that now defend global worming were in the 1970’s worried about a global freeze?

  40. Doug Little

    Robert Says:
    June 2nd, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Bye (removes link to this website)

    Ha Ha Ha, don’t let the URL hit you in the rear on the way out and keep your head planted firmly where the sun don’t shine, to put it in astronomical terms.

  41. Atlantean

    adam said:

    “Not proof or anything, mind you. Evidence.
    Huh. That’s just super convincing.”

    If you’re the same guy, adam, that said you were a scientist, we are still waiting for some evidence that you are. Because we need some “super convincing” evidence from you right now.

  42. Helder (#40): You’ve made a remarkable number of basic errors in such a short comment! Congrats!

    For one, thanks for letting me know what I should write on my own blog. That’s nice of you to say.

    For another, the global cooling thing is a total myth. Try doing some reading on that, but use sites that stick to reality. I’ll let you figure out which ones they are. But maybe Google “1970s global cooling myth” to start.

    Third, Climate Audit? HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha!

    Fourth, oh why bother?

  43. adam

    @42. Atlantean
    If you’re the same guy, adam, that said you were a scientist, we are still waiting for some evidence that you are. Because we need some “super convincing” evidence from you right now.

    For what reason, exactly? I told you that I’m not a climatologist. So what difference does it make? Does my having another type of scientific training somehow make me more qualified to ask questions about climate science?

    I’ll refer to you a response I made about this already:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/20/climate-change-followup/#comment-270693

  44. Jesus Christ, Phil, you need to bug your IT people about your comment box. That’s the third (and last) long post I’ve lost when I hit the “submit comment” button.

  45. @ Adam

    I’ll have to reconstruct the deconstruction that I just spent 30 minutes writing, but to briefly address your linked last comment:

    Google “Younger Dryas” and “Older Dryas”. We know that major climate change can occur within a decade, and can cause cataclysmic outcomes over hundreds of years. So your “We know major (cataclysmic) climate changes take place on multi-millennial cycles, not 500-year or, absurdly, 13-year cycles.” is demonstrably false.

    Unless, of course, your previous sentence “Before about 2000 years ago, our picture of the climate is about as clear as a windshield on a freezing morning. ” is accurate. You must, however, give us grounds to surmise that your statement is true.

    See, you’re throwing around “belief” a lot, while claiming to be a skeptic, but admitting that you haven’t read any of the climate literature but still state you have grounds to judge that the body of published studies by an entire field is flawed.

    Okay, for the record, it’s not a fallacious “Appeal to Authority” if the citation is actually, yanno, an Authority.

    Yes, climate scientists may be wrong. Their models may be incomplete. They may rely upon assumptions that are not justifiable.

    It is, however, upon *you* to provide this analysis. Not only do you not do this, you constantly insert pejoratives in your previous comment thread (“paranoia”, “alarmism”, “craptastically”) which indicates the likely presence of confirmation bias.

    Assuming that the gatekeeping mechanisms of the research science community are reasonably functional is not “having faith in a consensus”. It’s reasonably defaulting to, “this community has demonstrated in the past that it has checks and balances that tend to produce quality knowledge”.

    That doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. It means that any credible scientist will reasonably assume that the checks and balance system is working, unless a credible analysis refutes that this is the case in a particular instance.

    Put another way, if you find that the entire body of climate science is based upon faulty science, you need to provide an actual reason for this belief. Evidence. Analysis. Literature reviews. Substantive criticism. Real evidence of ongoing, domain-wide malfeasance. Something.

    Otherwise, you’re committing the converse of an Appeal to Authority fallacy: the Burden of Proof fallacy, commonly called upon by pseudoskeptics.

    “I don’t believe it, because they’re not convincing to me.” Quite frankly, under what grounds should you be regarded as anyone capable of evaluating whether or not their evidence is credible, especially given that you’ve admitted you haven’t read the outstanding literature?

    > I don’t believe there’s anything we can possibly do about stopping
    > the current warming trend (and there’s scientific evidence to back
    > me up on that), so why do I care?

    Where is this evidence? Citations please. Who is providing this study? More importantly:

    Why do you regard this particular study as reasonable scientific evidence, given that you discard an entire field of study as basically incompetent (and, by extension, the greater gatekeeping mechanisms of science in general as incompetent, as they haven’t caught this incompetence)?

    > Give me the proof that we’re causing the warming, or least a case with
    > some evidence that we actually understand the climate enough to make
    > outrageous, sweeping claims about it. Then we’ll talk more.

    What is your falsification standard?
    At what point will you accept the theory?
    What sort of study satisfies your belief that we currently lack a sufficient body of evidence?

    We have basic chemistry showing the greenhouse properties of greenhouse gases, why is this insufficient?

    Where are your goalposts, sir, that we might kick a ball through the uprights without you claiming that this isn’t enough evidence? Plant them in the ground.

    And then show that you’ve already gone and found this to be wanting, in the existing literature. Because make no mistake, the burden of proof is upon *you* to show that you have reason for your skepticism.

  46. Dave

    What RickK said in post #26 absolutely nails the issue here. Denial of AGW is becoming more and more like evolution denial by the minute. It’s amazing that people can be so rational and so willing to accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution in their battles with creationists and yet when it comes to climate change, it matters not that 99% of climatologists agree with AGW, nope, they know better, despite most critics probably never having worked in the relevant fields, including their spokespeople like Monckton (only qualified in journalism and classics) and Plimer (a geologist, not climatologist).

    Let’s face it: people who reject AGW do not have a solid case to the contrary. There is no solid case for global cooling or global temperature stagnation. There is simply no evidence for it and this was realised as far back as the 70s when the small handful of papers in favour of such things were shown to be false. Today, out of thousands of research papers, only a handful of dodgy discredited research papers exist in favour of such theories (see potholer54’s channel on YouTube for some videos debunking some of these papers) and surveys regularly demonstrate that at least over 95% and more like 99% of climatologists reject the ideas of global cooling and global temperature stagnation as being myths. People who reject AGW can cherry pick bits from the theory of AGW here and there, but they do not come anywhere near to dismantling the whole argument and they present no valid alternative theory. Therefore forgive me for being sceptical when they tell me AGW is junk science.

  47. @Pat Cahalan

    If you use FireFox, install the Lazarus: Form Recovery plugin and then losing and having to rewrite entire posts will be a thing of the past. I love it personally!

  48. Vern

    Phil should reprint #26 – RickK’s comment in its entirety.

    Peter Sincalir’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week series exposes the “climate skeptic” movement for what it truly is, merely by illuminating the underhand tactics its name players employ. As if that wasn’t enough Peter provides well-reasoned arguments backed by links to all the data. So if you want to check his sources and refute his conclusions he’s inviting you to knock yourself out. That is the mark of someone who is intellectually sincere in my book.

    People who still wonder about a lot of the talking points would be smart to watch the whole series. It rescued me from the agnosticism I experienced after reading Crichton’s “State of Fear.”

  49. Atlantean

    adam said:

    “And I am not a climatologist, and I am not trained in climate science. If that means that I cannot raise objections or ask questions (which, 6 months on, have yet to be answered by anyone here, by the way) about the science being performed and the way in which it is being performed, then I don’t see how you’re qualified to make assertions about its validity without having faith in a consensus. Which means you are not a skeptic, I am.”

    Thats a straw man, adam. No one is saying you can’t raise objections. But to be taken seriously by climate scientists you need a background in the relevant sciences. And to publish your objections, er sorry, research in a peer reviewed paper, in a decent relevant scientific journal.
    To say that AGW supporters have “faith” is a use of words that creationists use; “Science is a faith” they bleat, forgetting that science subjects its hypotheses to testing. Why have faith when you have scientific evidence? Isn’t that what real skeptics demand?
    You also seem to believe that AGW will go away if you toss enough mud at it on the net.
    I have news for you adam, it won’t.
    And we’re still waiting for you to show us real skeptics some concrete evidence that you really are a scientist. We aren’t just going to take your word for it.

  50. Just me

    Since when have crocodiles been denying climate change?

    … Oh, wait. I read that wrong. Sorry. :P

  51. Steve in Dublin

    adam (#21):

    Phil Jones:

    “there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

    Not proof or anything, mind you. Evidence. There’s some evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. That’s a lot of qualifiers.

    (my bolding)

    Some gall you have. There was one less qualifier there until you twisted what Jones actually said. Misquoting and quote mining seems to be the best you deniers can do. That’s not science! It’s dirty politics.

  52. Ginger Yellow

    “you can’t judge a site by its ads,”

    Have you seen the ads on World Net Daily?

  53. I wouldn’t call people who question global warming “stupid”. I’d call most of the “blissfully ignorant”. The difference is huge. It’s someone who chooses not to know (lalalalala) versus someone who simply doesn’t know.

    When someone says “Wow, I had 7 feet of snow this winter. Global Warming my tushy!” They simply do not know how climate works as a grander, larger system. To say they’re stupid isn’t going to win them over.

    You have to slowly and methodically explain how the larger picture works. As hard is it may be, you have to keep doing that, over and over. The last thing this realm of science needs is even a trace of a smug attitude. No one likes to feel like they are being ridiculed or belittled.

    There needs to be a switch from “we are killing this planet and everything on it” to “we’ve made a mess but we can fix it” as well.

  54. Kris

    Phil,

    The climate denial is partially fueled by misguided attempts at explaining the AGW. Why don’t you, instead of mocking the non-believers make a simple post containing the following information:

    1. What is the relationship between the CO2 level and temperature
    2. When (and by whom) was that relationship first given?
    and
    3. How does the present warming fit within that model?

    Because the actual problem I see is in how the AGW science is communicated to the society. The above information — which is absolutely basic — is absent from all the popular publications on the subject. It is available, but you have to spend a couple of days digging through stuff like the IPCC report, highly technical publications or climatologist’s blogs. This is because it is common knowledge between the people in the field, and, at the same time, the journalists apparently believe that the public is unable to understand a simple mathematical formula (or rather they are unable to understand it themselves).

    Instead, we have a pinnacle of scientific journalism: the Al Gore’s movie, which contains enough misrepresentations, errors and outright lies to make anyone with a minimal level of scepticism a hard-core denier.

    So, yeah, the climate change denial may be financed by the oil industry, but it is people like you who give them free ammunition.

    [ Partial answer to the questions: the relationship is logarithmic, was given by Arrhenius in 1896 (yup, 19th century) and fits pretty well with observation data]

  55. solenadon

    It seems that Kris is a concern troll. In that he’s asking questions a modicum of googling could answer.

    I like this bit..
    Because the actual problem I see is in how the AGW science is communicated to the society. The above information — which is absolutely basic — is absent from all the popular publications on the subject.

    Yes it would be nice…except that the general public’s eyes would glaze over after re-reading it again and again. It seems that Kris would rather have scientists waste time explaining stuff the public already has access to if they’d only get off their duffs and look.

    And while Gore’s movie does have a few errors, those “errors” should not be enough to turn one int oa hard core denier in one fell swoop…unless one was already a softcore denier to lazy to examine evidence.

    And will Kris look up Arrhenius, now that someone else did the work for him? Or will he depend on Climate Audit to do that for him?

  56. llewelly

    Kris Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 9:12 am :

    1. What is the relationship between the CO2 level and temperature?

    I guess from your remarks that you refer to the Charney sensitivity, which is a very important part of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, but not the whole story. (See also this Richard Alley talk.)

    Note that Arrhenius may have over-estimated the relationship between CO2 and global average temperature; he estimated halving CO2 levels would cool the earth’s climate by 4 – 4.5 C (7.2 to 8.1 F), and a doubling would warm it by 5 – 6 C (9.0 – 10.8 F) The present consensus range is 2.5 – 4.5 C. (4.5 – 8.1 F) for both figures.

    Also, while CO2 is the most important factor in global average temperature (as Richard Alley explained), it’s not the only factor; among other things, changes in the Earth’s albedo due to changes in ice sheet sizes probably accounts for about half of the difference beteen the pre-industrial climate and the climate during the last glacial maximum.

    2. When (and by whom) was that relationship first given?

    Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming is a thorough and highly readable history of the science of global warming, and he answers your (rhetorical) question here.

    3. How does the present warming fit within that model?

    Arrhenius’s theory calculated the change in global average temperature when the climate was in equilibrium. Presently, our climate is not in equilibrium.
    However, you can find an analysis of Hansen’s 1988 projections here.

    Instead, we have a pinnacle of scientific journalism: the Al Gore’s movie, which contains enough misrepresentations, errors and outright lies to make anyone with a minimal level of scepticism a hard-core denier.

    In reality, Al Gore was mostly correct.

  57. Daniel

    As a climate agnostic, stuff like this makes it less likely that I’m going to “find religion” (irony intended).

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627633.700-shapeshifting-islands-defy-sealevel-rise.html

    As a layman, I become less and less concerned with catastrophic global warming, and certainly less receptive to unprecedented government intrusion into everyday life, when one of the more ballyhooed doomsday scenarios doesn’t seem to have materialized.

    Yes, the article also says that global warming is a problem, but if global warming alarmists want to show off dramatic satellite footage of Antarctica, they at least ought to temper it with findings like this, and perhaps not call anyone who strays from the party line a Dick Cheney shill.

  58. Helder

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahha in your face, jerk! You suck!. Never coming back!

  59. adam

    @ 46. Pat Cahalan:

    Okay, I’ll bite. Are you referring to the effect or the cause when you say “climate change”? And what do you mean by “major” as opposed to “cataclysmic”? You say my claim is demonstrably false, but you haven’t given any reason for me to accept your claim.

    Unless, of course, your previous sentence “Before about 2000 years ago, our picture of the climate is about as clear as a windshield on a freezing morning. ” is accurate. You must, however, give us grounds to surmise that your statement is true.

    I have. I’ve mentioned in previous posts the error range for proxy data starting at about 1500 AD is around 1.0-1.3 degrees globally, and only gets worse from there. You can check that data yourself, or I can refer you to the myriad papers that confirm this. If you read the papers, they’ll often mention to how shaky claims on the nature of the climate even 500 years ago really are.

    See, you’re throwing around “belief” a lot, while claiming to be a skeptic, but admitting that you haven’t read any of the climate literature but still state you have grounds to judge that the body of published studies by an entire field is flawed.

    Wait, what? When did I admit to not reading the climate literature. I’ve read a ton of it. What are you referring to?

    Okay, for the record, it’s not a fallacious “Appeal to Authority” if the citation is actually, yanno, an Authority.

    When did I say this? I’m starting to feel like you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth.

    Yes, climate scientists may be wrong. Their models may be incomplete. They may rely upon assumptions that are not justifiable.
    It is, however, upon *you* to provide this analysis. Not only do you not do this, you constantly insert pejoratives in your previous comment thread (”paranoia”, “alarmism”, “craptastically”) which indicates the likely presence of confirmation bias.

    Yes, I have done this. To the best of my ability, given my training and time. Unfortunately, it has been deemed by others on this board as not worth addressing due to the fact that I’m not a trained climatologist. No one has ever tried to answer my questions or address my objections. I’ve been waiting like 6 months. Every time I bring it up, I go through this same cycle. I ask some questions, people ask where my “evidence” or my “research” is, I show them, they tell me my questions aren’t valid because I’m not a climatologist. No one ever bothers to actually answer any questions or refute my objections. Everyone just refers to some nebulous “mountain of evidence” and then claims “thus, the science is settled.” One person referred me to an IPCC compilation, some of which I’ve read already and some of which I’m still going through. My objections remain on the table. Here’s a link to some of my objections reposted here in May from a post I’d made in, I think, December:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/05/breaking-climate-scientists-cleared-of-malpractice-by-panel/#comment-263747

    Assuming that the gatekeeping mechanisms of the research science community are reasonably functional is not “having faith in a consensus”. It’s reasonably defaulting to, “this community has demonstrated in the past that it has checks and balances that tend to produce quality knowledge”.

    And my assumption is that the gatekeeping mechanisms of the climate research community have far overstated their ability to understand the global climate system, and therefore making grand, sweeping claims about that system and its variables to the tune of hurting developing economies and further, oppressive governmental regulation on industries already under the gun is premature. The science is immature. That’s what I think.

    continued below.

  60. Steve in Dublin

    adam (#60):

    No one has ever tried to answer my questions or address my objections. I’ve been waiting like 6 months.

    That is complete and utter bulldinky, and you know it! Many posters here have patiently tried to answer your questions, and have pointed you at reliable information sources, but you counter *every* explanation they try to make with standard denialist canards that have already been debunked by climatologists.

  61. Kris

    @solenadon:

    “It seems that Kris would rather have scientists waste time explaining stuff the public already has access to”

    Nope. But the people who do science popularization (like, you know, our host here) could use some time to actually explain the stuff, instead of wasting it on cheap ridicule. I happen to know people with Ph.Ds who question global warming — and that is not because they are stupid (obviously), but because they have never been adequately informed.

    “Al Gore was mostly correct.”

    “mostly” being the operative word here. Even the review you linked to explicitely mentions his not-quite-correct treatment of the temperature/CO2 link (and downplays it). Here’s the kicker though: because the movie is only “mostly” correct, it is incredibly easy to point out the errors and spin them in a way that convinces someone that the whole thing is a scam. (Examples can be easily googled). Heck, it has worked on me. And I was a denier until someone directed me to that Arrhenius paper (and Weart’s book).

    So I already have the paper, thanks.

  62. adam

    continued from above.

    … Evidence. Analysis. Literature reviews. Substantive criticism. Real evidence of ongoing, domain-wide malfeasance. Something.

    Faulty or incomplete science, yes. I’ve done some of that. I don’t have evidence of ongoing, domain-wide malfeasance because I don’t believe anything like that exists. I’m not talking about a conspiracy. I’m talking about widespread Dunning–Kruger that affects the entire world due to our ignorance about the way the global climate system functions, and that we need more time and more transparency and more good science before we can legitimately start freaking out and slapping sanctions on everything we think might, possibly, maybe, could be driving global climate change–provided we produce substantial evidence that our behavior and its effects will cause widespread catastrophe. You got any of that?

    Where is this evidence? Citations please. Who is providing this study? More importantly:
    Why do you regard this particular study as reasonable scientific evidence, given that you discard an entire field of study as basically incompetent …

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm

    That’s the only thing I have bookmarked on this computer. If you want more, there’s more. And I guess I should clarify my statement about “not being able to stop it” by saying as a result of my believe that we don’t understand the climate, I don’t believe we can take rapid-enough and effective-enough measures directed properly to stop the current warming trend. It has as much to do with humanity’s inertia as it does with any underlying science. Maybe instead of going crazy over something we barely understand and deriding and alienating the people you need on your side to fix our problems because they don’t see things the way you do, we start working together towards a univerally appealing, rational, reasonable, common goal. We need more of this kind of stuff:

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf

    What is your falsification standard? At what point will you accept the theory?

    You know, I can’t say. Maybe when all of my objections have been satisfactorily addressed. Maybe when the error ranges decrease and the science matures a bit more.

    We have basic chemistry showing the greenhouse properties of greenhouse gases, why is this insufficient?

    Because we don’t adequately understand its effect on a global scale. You are aware that there are a lot of other major climate forcing factors besides CO2, right? So why are we so focused on that one? What about all the other shit we produce? What about all the compensating measures the earth takes to mediate the effects? etc. etc.

    Where are your goalposts, sir, that we might kick a ball through the uprights without you claiming that this isn’t enough evidence? Plant them in the ground.

    You’re right. I should find a place at which I’ll accept the claim that we’re the primary cause of a impending global cataclysmic warming that can be stopped in its tracks with Cap and Trade and reckless industry censure and punishment. For now, I just know I’m not going to accept it. Not until more of my questions are answered.

    @61. Steve in Dublin
    That is complete and utter bulldinky, and you know it! Many posters here have patiently tried to answer your questions, and have pointed you at reliable information sources, but you counter *every* explanation they try to make with standard denialist canards that have already been debunked by climatologists.

    Where? I’ve been referred to literature that I’ve read and am reading. That’s it. I still have questions, and the questions I’ve already asked haven’t been answered by the literature I’ve read–otherwise I wouldn’t still be asking them. Nobody has addressed any specific questions. If you don’t want to believe me, then don’t. Feel free to go back and read the responses to my posts. No answers. Nothing specific. Just hand-waving, assertions about my intellectual impotence and a couple referrals to the general literature.

  63. Paul

    “61. Steve in Dublin Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 11:51 am

    More utter non-sense Steve.

    Nobody here at Bad Astronomy blog(or at the IPCC or anywhere else) has every provided evidence that a positive feedback occurs in our atmosphere and will double or triple the direct effect of carbon dioxide. Without positive feedbacks the potential warming of a doubling of CO2 remains at a maximum of about 1°C. That in itself is doubtful as cloud dynamics have the potential to cancel out half of the theoretic warming of CO2.

    CAGW runaway warming remains a belief unsupported by evidence.

  64. adam

    @Atlantean

    Thats a straw man, adam.

    No, it’s not. Not everything is a freaking straw man. I’m not knocking at a position I’ve erroneously ascribed to someone. I’m stating exactly the case in point. I raised some objections and instead of answering them, I was told my objections–no matter their form or substance–are invalid because I’m not a trained climatologist. That in and of itself is a fallacious position. But, given their arguments, logically, I can reason the same way. If I’m not qualified to raise objections to a position others have worked on, what makes anyone qualified to accept a position others have worked on? I’m don’t see the difference. If I can’t “understand” the science well enough to ask questions about it, then you can’t either, right? So that forces us to accept a position without fully understanding it, does it not? Therefore we are trusting the competence, methodology and moral character of those to whom we appeal for legitimacy, are we not? It’s completely irrational to claim that because there is a majority position, it is therefore totally unreasonable to raise objections regarding that position due to aspects of your background and personality.

    It may be that my position is less likely to be valid, but it doesn’t make me irrational. What would be irrational would be if I were dismissing a proven fact. I’m not. I’m disputing the claim that we understand the climate well enough that we are adequately cognizant of our role in it, and that we can assert that role with enough accuracy to make sweeping global energy policy changes that punish 3rd world economies for our own sins. Among other things.

    And we’re still waiting for you to show us real skeptics some concrete evidence that you really are a scientist. We aren’t just going to take your word for it.

    Whatever, fine. I’m a computer scientist educated at a well-regarded state university. I could try to impress you by telling you my father and uncle are physicians, another uncle is a PhD physicist, and I start law school next year (after which I plan to finish my degree in linguistics and pursue a degree in mathematics). Oh, also, my best friend is in the Special Forces, I like chocolate shakes, brunettes and the way the town looks around Christmas. Is there anything else you want to know? Is that good enough for you? Or do you need me to scan my credentials and driver’s license along with a photo of myself holding up a sign that says “To Atlantean, with love”? Jackass.

  65. Chris Winter

    In his earlier post, adam wrote:

    “At the risk of repeating myself wholesale, I’ll just give you my objections the way I presented them here in the past. They were never addressed by anyone, so maybe they’re due for another go:

    The huge body of evidence spoken of is itself gapingly open to interpretation. AGW-centric scientists themselves admit as much. I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t seen ALL the evidence, but I would suspect you haven’t either. I would also bet that some portion of the data and/or methods used to make the hockey stick analyses that form much of the basis of current warming theories are suspect or would be, given further, fairer scrutiny. I can legitimately make that assessment because of the precedent of disinformation and opacity set by Mann, Briffa and others at CRU.”

    Open to interpretation? Certainly, and to misinterpretation. The problem as I see it is that you choose to misinterpret the evidence, and refuse to admit that when your interlocuters point it out.

    Here’s a prime example in your second paragraph. You actually believe the CRU e-mails reveal some sort of conspiracy (“disinformation”) at CRU. Since you posted that in a thread about the CRU scientists being cleared of wrongdoing, it’s hard to see what would convince you.

  66. adam

    @ 66. Chris WinterOpen to interpretation? Certainly, and to misinterpretation. The problem as I see it is that you choose to misinterpret the evidence, and refuse to admit that when your interlocuters point it out.

    Where have my interlocutors pointed out my misinterpretations? And where, if they have, have I refused to admit it? You’re acting as though I’m willfully resisting the AGW position because I’m braindead and ignorant. That’s simply not the case. My questions haven’t been answered. I’ve just been given the runaround and then repeatedly fed the line that my questions have been answered and I’m just ignoring them. Again, not the case. You’re not following along if you think otherwise.

    Here’s a prime example in your second paragraph. You actually believe the CRU e-mails reveal some sort of conspiracy (”disinformation”) at CRU. Since you posted that in a thread about the CRU scientists being cleared of wrongdoing, it’s hard to see what would convince you.

    So, wait. You’re going to tell me that, for example, attempting to suppress dissent in scientific publications and refusing to give up source material as demanded by FOIA and losing data and a general lack of respect for scientific transparency don’t constitute a precedent of disinformation and opacity? Really? I never said anything about a conspiracy. That’s your word, not mine. I said there was a precedent of disinformation–purposeful or not, it exists. I expect now you’ll refer me to the supposedly neutral panels that cleared CRU researchers of “wrongdoing.” The question of whether or not the panels’ neutrality is in doubt aside, those things happened, therefore the precedent was set. The end. Next point.

  67. adam

    Oh, I want to be clear, when I said “there was a precedent of disinformation–purposeful or not, it exists,” I meant to say “there was a precedent of disinformation and opacity–purposeful or not, it exists.”

    Because I don’t know to what extent it was purposeful (disinformation), but that there certainly was confusion and a lack of transparency (opacity).

  68. Pi-needles

    @11. Cheyenne Says:

    The % of the pubic that believes in man made global warming is plunging.

    A little Freudian slip there, Cheyenne? ;-)

    @ 40. Helder Says:

    Did you know that those same ’scientists’ that now defend global worming ..?

    Global worming is a great idea – I’m doing my part as both my pets are (de)wormed regularly. ;-)

    (Yeah I know, I shouldn’t pick on people’s typos – I make enuff of them myself – but sometimes the temptation is just overwhelming. )

  69. Pi-needles

    From the same series I also like this one :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM&feature=player_embedded

    Which has lots of good astronomy – & satirical SF – in it. :-)

  70. Lord Rotifer

    “It’s completely irrational to claim that because there is a majority position, it is therefore totally unreasonable to raise objections regarding that position due to aspects of your background and personality.”

    My dear boy, you’re so right. I mean Lord Monckton is so much a hero for his forthright objection to the majority, his mental state of woo wooness should be forgiven. Likewise Kent Hovind should be deified as standing up to the majority. It doesn’t matter that the man is a liar and a crook and the scientists have all the evidence does it?

    “It may be that my position is less likely to be valid, but it doesn’t make me irrational.”

    My dear little newt whom amongst us has called you irrational? Methinks your penchant for men of straw has reared its head again!

    “What would be irrational would be if I were dismissing a proven fact. I’m not. I’m disputing the claim that we understand the climate well enough that we are adequately cognizant of our role in it, and that we can assert that role with enough accuracy to make sweeping global energy policy changes that punish 3rd world economies for our own sins.”

    What would be irrational is if you were dismissing that CO2 were a greenhouse gas, and that by pumping millions of tons of it into the atmosphere it would have no effect.
    Why is it that when you are asked for evidence to back up your claims you turn all sarcastic, old boy? We’d love to see your drivers licence adam.

  71. Atlantean

    65. adam Said:
    “@Atlantean
    Thats a straw man, adam.
    No, it’s not. Not everything is a freaking straw man. I’m not knocking at a position I’ve erroneously ascribed to someone. I’m stating exactly the case in point. I raised some objections and instead of answering them, I was told my objections–no matter their form or substance–are invalid because I’m not a trained climatologist. That in and of itself is a fallacious position. But, given their arguments, logically, I can reason the same way. If I’m not qualified to raise objections to a position others have worked on, what makes anyone qualified to accept a position others have worked on? I’m don’t see the difference. If I can’t “understand” the science well enough to ask questions about it, then you can’t either, right? So that forces us to accept a position without fully understanding it, does it not? Therefore we are trusting the competence, methodology and moral character of those to whom we appeal for legitimacy, are we not?”

    Doug little said:
    “Yes that is right, you aren’t a trained climate scientist, and when you dissent against the current consensus you had better darn well know what you are talking about. You either have to come up with a better model of why things are the way they are or have irrefutable evidence that the current models are wrong. So we have agreement with the consensus on one hand, and disagreement on the other, they are not equally valid points of view.”

    Oh and by the way it is a straw man argument. As you can see from Doug Little’s excellent post, your understanding of climate science and those that daily work in that area is different. You seem to ascribe the idea that I’m using an argument from authority against you, but when the folks who do climate science actually do know more than you , me and everyone else here about climate science then it isn’t actually a fallacy. Any idiot can raise objections. Which is why you have so many idiots like Monckton et al raising objections. We don’t have to take the objections of an idiot seriously, especially when we take their background into consideration, and it turns out they know bubkuss about climate science.

    Adam wrote:
    And we’re still waiting for you to show us real skeptics some concrete evidence that you really are a scientist. We aren’t just going to take your word for it.
    “Whatever, fine. I’m a computer scientist educated at a well-regarded state university. I could try to impress you by telling you my father and uncle are physicians..yadda yadda yadda”

    If we’re real skeptics why should we take your word for anything you say? You seem to have a problem grasping this concept, jackass. Quit whining and start acting like a proper skeptic. Your word isn’t good enough. Contact Phil Plait and give him evidence of your scientific credentials, that he can check, and learn something about what real skeptics are like.

  72. Jim Williamson

    I always find the threads on AGW fascinating reading. The fighting and fury of them shows me the best and worst of the net. And it doesn’t get too nasty in comparison to other sites.
    Concerning the poster called Adam. I went back to look at some of his earlier posts. He sounds reasonable at first, apart from trying to smear climate scientists with conspiracies, and posts what look like genuine scientifically relevant questions. But it all falls apart when his mate Lonny Eachus posts this statement:

    #127. Lonny Eachus Says:
    “What you seem to be missing here is that all of our data of the historical PAST shows no cause-effect between temperature and CO2 concentrations. Actually, that is not true either… there is a strong correlation, but it is the other way around. In the past, temperature variations were followed about 800 years later by CO2 concentrations. All the evidence we had showed that temperature drove CO2, not the other way around.
    So it is the idea that CO2 can cause temperature shifts that is actually the extraordinary claim, and the claim that goes against all PAST evidence.”

    Lonny is then rightly mocked for his lack of knowledge on Svante Arrhenius, which should be basic knowledge for anyone into this subject. Adam then says:

    ” Keep flying the banner of the true skeptic, Lonny.”

    So to be a “true skeptic” Adam thinks that you have to be ignorant of CO2 and its basic properties. Go figure.

  73. Gary

    Phil, if you don’t want blowback from your posts, stop calling everybody who disagrees with you a “denialist.” Learn to discriminate between those who have a political position and those who see some serious flaws in some of the research. Acknowledge those of us who are “luke-warmers” who see multiple causes to the recent (last 2 centuries) warming – both natural and human-induced.

  74. adam

    @ 71. Lord Rotifer:
    My dear boy, you’re so right. I mean Lord Monckton is so much a hero for his forthright objection to the majority, his mental state of woo wooness should be forgiven. Likewise Kent Hovind should be deified as standing up to the majority. It doesn’t matter that the man is a liar and a crook and the scientists have all the evidence does it?

    Why does what I think have anything to do with what they think? It seems strange to accuse me of conjuring up straw men and then do the very thing yourself.

    My dear little newt whom amongst us has called you irrational? Methinks your penchant for men of straw has reared its head again!

    All right, if the word irrational wasn’t used, what was the implication? What exactly is your position regarding mine? If, as you say, I’m ignoring “settled science” and “mountains of irrefutable, well understood evidence” in order to take a minority position, how am I behaving?

    What would be irrational is if you were dismissing that CO2 were a greenhouse gas, and that by pumping millions of tons of it into the atmosphere it would have no effect.

    That would be irrational. Fortunately, I’ve done neither of those things.

    Why is it that when you are asked for evidence to back up your claims you turn all sarcastic, old boy? We’d love to see your drivers licence adam.

    I was sarcastic because my background is irrelevant to the notion of whether or not I can ask valid questions about climate science. How am I not communicating this properly?

    @ 72. Atlantean:

    Oh and by the way it is a straw man argument. As you can see from Doug Little’s excellent post, your understanding of climate science and those that daily work in that area is different. You seem to ascribe the idea that I’m using an argument from authority against you, but when the folks who do climate science actually do know more than you , me and everyone else here about climate science then it isn’t actually a fallacy.

    No. I haven’t done any of those things. You’re missing the argument I’m making. Authority in this case is the basis on which I make my argument. I am asking you, among other things, to tell me how your appeal to authority with regards to a position necessitated by your own admitted lack of understanding allows you to pass judgment on the validity of the questions I have about that position. I’d love for you to explain how that is a straw man argument. The “straw man” card is the race card of this blog. It’s irritating. Explain to me in exactly what manner I have engaged in a straw man tactics. I’m eager to learn.

    Any idiot can raise objections. Which is why you have so many idiots like Monckton et al raising objections. We don’t have to take the objections of an idiot seriously, especially when we take their background into consideration, and it turns out they know bubkuss about climate science.

    Allow me to counter your “straw man” card with a card of my own:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_fallacy#Common_misconceptions_about_ad_hominem

    Your friend Rotifer is guilty of the same fallacy in “guilt by association” terms. Let’s tone down the hypocrisy, huh boys?

    If we’re real skeptics why should we take your word for anything you say? You seem to have a problem grasping this concept, jackass. Quit whining and start acting like a proper skeptic. Your word isn’t good enough. Contact Phil Plait and give him evidence of your scientific credentials, that he can check, and learn something about what real skeptics are like.

    It’s so funny that you would say this, because I predicted earlier that such would be said if I did mention my “credentials.” This is all you’ve got? Nothing but attacks on my person, rather than on the substance of my questions? Somehow not surprising.

    73. Jim Williamson:
    Lonny is then rightly mocked for his lack of knowledge on Svante Arrhenius, which should be basic knowledge for anyone into this subject. Adam then says:
    ” Keep flying the banner of the true skeptic, Lonny.”
    So to be a “true skeptic” Adam thinks that you have to be ignorant of CO2 and its basic properties. Go figure.

    At which point did I say I agreed with every point Lonny has ever made? You’re confusing chronology with causality.

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

    Also, once again, this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

    But I appreciate your assessment of my attempts to be as reasonable as possible. Would you at all be interested in answering the specific questions I’ve been asking?

  75. adam

    @ Jim Williamson

    With regards to the question of CO2 leading or lagging climate change, I’ve read a lot about it, including everything here (http://realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=CO2_doesn%27t_lead%2C_it_lag) and the main thing I got out of all of it was that our current understanding of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere is inadequate. There are quotes like “it definitely did contribute,” and “some (currently unknown) process causes [initial warming]” and “greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.” Notice no mention of CO2 specifically in the third quote. That’s just the start of the confusion. I just haven’t seen a justification that would make me immediately jump to the conclusion that CO2 alone is going to cause a cataclysmic warming trend–and therefore it seems to me strange to declare jihad on it, almost to the exclusion of every other factor that might be contributing to the warming. I guess politicization is partly to blame (CO2 is an easy, simple target), but it doesn’t help when AGW proponents parrot the CO2 line like it’s the worst thing to happen to the earth in the history of mankind. Many (maybe most? I don’t know) models I’ve read about suggest strongly that CO2 is primarily a feedback factor that amplifies warming triggered by myriad factors, including orbital incidence changes, sun activity, behavior of the ocean, ice sheet changes, etc, all working in tandem to produce the climate changes we observe.

    So CO2 appears to have a two way relationship to temperature. We have to be very careful with our declarations of causality regarding CO2 and temperature lest we fall into the same fallacies I mentioned earlier. Correlation does not imply causation. And as far as I’ve seen, our understanding of the global climate system has a way to go before we can start claiming we know enough to make many of the energy policy changes that have been proposed.

    I also feel as though my position on all of this will be vindicated. Though, probably in about 100 years when I’m too dead to gloat.

  76. Steve in Dublin

    adam (#76):

    So CO2 appears to have a two way relationship to temperature. We have to be very careful with our declarations of causality regarding CO2 and temperature lest we fall into the same fallacies I mentioned earlier. Correlation does not imply causation. And as far as I’ve seen, our understanding of the global climate system has a way to go before we can start claiming we know enough to make many of the energy policy changes that have been proposed.

    Yeah, because, you know, the climatologists who have been analysing the bejaysus out of this stuff for the last 30 or 40 years are TOO STUPID to take these factors into account. You, of course, know better than the thousands of papers written on the subject. What a pompous idiot you make yourself out to be, with all this tripe about ‘uncertainty’ you trot out in thread after thread. Give it up already. Yeah, and if you accuse me of ad hom there, fine by me. I’m sick of all the time you’ve wasted here. A sophisticated tone troll you may be, have to give you credit at least for that, but troll nonetheless.

    You know, I mostly agree with the sentiments in that Hartwell paper you keep linking to (in principal, though I don’t like the way they lend credence to ‘Climategate’). But tell me this: why do you keep pushing that paper, when the main tenet in it is that we should reduce our carbon footprint… if you don’t think CO2 is a problem?

    I also feel as though my position on all of this will be vindicated. Though, probably in about 100 years when I’m too dead to gloat.

    I’d say we’ll know in the next 30 years or so. Just my inclination based on the signs we are already seeing, which you seem so blithely to ignore. Hey, look on the bright side. I could have said ‘happily’ instead of blithely, but look what happened to Simon Singh.

  77. adam

    @ 77. Steve in Dublin

    Yeah, because, you know, the climatologists who have been analysing the bejaysus out of this stuff for the last 30 or 40 years are TOO STUPID to take these factors into account. You, of course, know better than the thousands of papers written on the subject. What a pompous idiot you make yourself out to be, with all this tripe about ‘uncertainty’ you trot out in thread after thread. Give it up already. Yeah, and if you accuse me of ad hom there, fine by me. I’m sick of all the time you’ve wasted here. A sophisticated tone troll you may be, have to give you credit at least for that, but troll nonetheless.

    I didn’t say they didn’t take them into account. I said their influence warrants further inspection. I haven’t yet read a study that proves CO2 alone will cause a cataclysmic warming of the entire earth. If you have such a study on hand, I’d be happy to read it and concede the point. You can call me a troll if you wish, but I disagree. I’m asking questions. No one is answering. Referring me to “the science” and calling me an idiot are not answers. In fact, they just make it look like you’re desperate to be rid of me so you feel a little more homogeneity in your world-view. Of course, I’m sure that isn’t actually the case.

    But tell me this: why do you keep pushing that paper, when the main tenet in it is that we should reduce our carbon footprint… if you don’t think CO2 is a problem?

    You’ve completely misunderstood and misrepresented my position. You’ve read into my words what you wanted to read. I’m presuming you’re referring to human-produced CO2. When did I say that wasn’t a problem? I said it wasn’t the only problem, and I intimated that it may not be the major contributing factor that triggered the current warming trend, and that at the very least the question demands further analysis before proper, effective, fair measures can be enacted. What about that do you disagree with, exactly? I agree that we should reduce our carbon footprint–with reasonable, non-intrusive measures, with no compulsion, and no harm to developing economies and crucial industries. I also think we should pour every available resource into developing cleaner fuels and a cleaner society overall. I support any and all reasonable, effective and well-understood measures of sustainability with regard to the environment.

    And I’m the bad guy.

  78. Messier Tidy Upper

    While the video made fun of the Catastrophic Global Warming skeptics for calling for punishment for the CAGW advocates I think that was unjust on a couple of counts.

    Firstly, they are being hypocritical since CAGW advocates have called for similar Over The Top punishment including crimes against humanity trials and executions of CAGW skeptics. The CAGW supporters have also threatened to assault the skeptics and gloated over their deaths – as we discovered from the climategate emails.

    Secondly, if the CAGW skeptics are correct then there has been serious and criminal misconduct going on and punishment – maybe not so harsh as public floggings but certainly mass sackings and even jail time would be warranted and entirely appropriate.

    If the CAGW Skeptics are correct then it is entirely right for them and the general public to be extremely angry at the CAGW lobby over the scale of the deception and the needless fear it has generated along with the wealth the CAGW advoctes would have gained under false pretenses – *if* we believe the worst allegations made by the CAGW skeptics.

    Which, of course, some of the CAGW skeptics do thus is entirely understandable & tobe expected for them to be exceedingly angry at and seek harsh punishment of those they understand as hoaxers who threaten the whole of our society. From *that* perspective & if theyare right, such calls make good sense.

    Naturally, some, even most CAGW supporters may be genuinely worried and well meaning but wrong but *if* the CAGW skeptics are correct and correct about the claim that some of CAGW scientists have been deliberately misleading and hoaxing us then that’s a very serious charge worthy of very serious and severe penalties – *if*, for instance, Sen. Inhofe is correct (& I’m not saying he necessarily is but lets assume that for sake argument here) then the consequences should be harsh and severe.

    I think that’s something everyone would agree on – and *if* CAGW does turn out to be a hoax then I think it will be those who are now most sucked into the CAGW beliefs who will feel most betrayed, embarrassed and angry and likely be among the loudest voices calling for severe punishment of the CAGW hoaxers. I can imagine the BA for example being one who if, eg. Mann turns out to be a fraudster, will feel personally extremely furious and will insist on the harshest of punishment for hurting science – and the BA’s reputation which has put on the line on this issue – so badly.

    Finally, I will disagree with one thing one of the skeptics was quoted as saying – there probably *are* enough knives in the world for all the CAGW scientists to committ hari-kiri. There aren’t all that many CAGW scientists (especially in their leading fringe) and there *are* quite a few knives in the world.

    Plus once a Japanese sword has been used by one CAGW scientist to disembowel himself and then have his “second” behead him following the traditional seppuku practice, the sword(s) used can be wiped clean and passsed along to the next CAGW scientist for identical use! ;-)

    Not that I’m seriously advocating this happen! ;-)

    If Mann, Jones et al, are guilty of the worst hoax in the history of science – as has been alleged by some – then I’m personally happy to see them serve a reasonable amount of jail time following their convinction in a fair trial. Actually if there is enough evidence for a hoax trial to be put I think that should be done soon.

    I will also note in passing that the seppuku practice was more a 15th-18th century tradition than a 12th century one.

    Otherwise, most of my concerns have been noted by others.

  79. Messier Tidy Upper

    See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari-kiri

    The quote is at the 8minute 30 second mark :

    “There’s not enough knives, if this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for the hari-kiri that should’ve occurred.”

    – An unnamed & unidentified CAGW skeptic according to that “crock of the week” video.

    The “12th century” remark is at the 8 minute 20 mark about ten seconds earlier.

    Ironic that the video-maker of this should mention “turning away from civility” & “turning towards fear & hatred” too at the end there too ain’t it? :roll:

  80. Messier Tidy Upper

    Having now seen a few more of those “Climate crock” videoclips I have to grudgingly concede that – aside from insulting CAGW non-believers and casting grubby aspersions at “deniers” motives – they do a good job of discussing the science and making an interesting, well-explained & fairly convincing case for AGW.

    I still don’t necessarily agree with everything the CAGW side are saying (I don’t think their proposed solutions are workable or realistic for one major thing & I’m NOT so sure it’ll really be as bad as they claim for another) but it must be said those videoclips are effective at putting their case well.

  81. Paul

    @73. Jim Williamson Says:
    June 4th, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I always find the threads on AGW fascinating reading. The fighting and fury of them shows me the best and worst of the net. And it doesn’t get too nasty in comparison to other sites.
    Concerning the poster called Adam. I went back to look at some of his earlier posts. He sounds reasonable at first, apart from trying to smear climate scientists with conspiracies, and posts what look like genuine scientifically relevant questions. But it all falls apart when his mate Lonny Eachus posts this statement:

    #127. Lonny Eachus Says:
    “What you seem to be missing here is that all of our data of the historical PAST shows no cause-effect between temperature and CO2 concentrations. Actually, that is not true either… there is a strong correlation, but it is the other way around. In the past, temperature variations were followed about 800 years later by CO2 concentrations. All the evidence we had showed that temperature drove CO2, not the other way around.
    So it is the idea that CO2 can cause temperature shifts that is actually the extraordinary claim, and the claim that goes against all PAST evidence.”

    Lonny is then rightly mocked for his lack of knowledge on Svante Arrhenius, which should be basic knowledge for anyone into this subject. Adam then says:

    ” Keep flying the banner of the true skeptic, Lonny.”

    So to be a “true skeptic” Adam thinks that you have to be ignorant of CO2 and its basic properties. Go figure.

    Gotta luv it Jim,
    Svante Arrhenius : Feature Articles
    “By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.”
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_3.php

    CO2 has risen – Fact
    Global Temp Avg has risen since the little Ice Age – Fact

    Correlation between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global temps – theory

    64. Paul Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    “61. Steve in Dublin Says:
    June 3rd, 2010 at 11:51 am

    More utter non-sense Steve.

    Nobody here at Bad Astronomy blog(or at the IPCC or anywhere else) has every provided evidence that a positive feedback occurs in our atmosphere and will double or triple the direct effect of carbon dioxide. Without positive feedbacks the potential warming of a doubling of CO2 remains at a maximum of about 1°C. That in itself is doubtful as cloud dynamics have the potential to cancel out half of the theoretic warming of CO2.

    CAGW runaway warming remains a belief unsupported by evidence.

  82. Nigel Depledge

    OK, I’m late to the party and I have not read all the comments, so apologies if this has already been covered…

    Paul (82) says:

    Nobody here at Bad Astronomy blog(or at the IPCC or anywhere else) has every provided evidence that a positive feedback occurs in our atmosphere and will double or triple the direct effect of carbon dioxide. Without positive feedbacks the potential warming of a doubling of CO2 remains at a maximum of about 1°C. That in itself is doubtful as cloud dynamics have the potential to cancel out half of the theoretic warming of CO2.

    CAGW runaway warming remains a belief unsupported by evidence.

    Irrespective of whether positive feedbacks have started or not (i.e. whether or not they are occurring now) they still demand our attention and our concern.

    All of the potential positive feedbacks I have read about – diminished ice cover leading to lower albedo; melting of permafrost giving rise to additional methane emissions; and the thawing of methane hydrates (clathrates) also contributing to methane emissions – have a sound theoretical basis. We should expect them to occur unless we have hard evidence to suggest that they won’t.

    As for whether human activity is causing global warming or not …

    Human activity turns fossil sources of carbon into gaseous CO2. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen since the industrial revolution, at a pace that cannot be explained by any natural source other than global vulcanism (which we would have noticed if it had happened, y’know?). Global average annual temperatures have risen too.

    In the absence of evidence to suggest that these factors are not linked, it is only reasonable to assume that they are causally linked.

    Furthermore, even if global warming isn’t caused by human activity (and I have to say that, unless someone comes up with some pretty extraordinary evidence to say that it isn’t, I’ll continue to believe that it is), it still threatens many major cities with inundation. Therefore, it only makes sense to do whatever we can to limit its scope and effects.

  83. Lord Rotifer

    adam said:

    “I was sarcastic because my background is irrelevant to the notion of whether or not I can
    ask valid questions about climate science. How am I not communicating this properly?”

    My dear boy no one is saying that. So you trying to shove that notion in our faces is a straw man. Others may have said that to be taken seriously in your criticism by climate scientists you have to have worked in climate science or have the relevant qualifications in science to do so.
    “and you assume I’m not a scientist. Your assumption is incorrect.”
    “Remember, the burden of proof lies with the claimant .”

    These two quotes are from you dear boy, are they not? Then show that you are a proper skeptic and acknowledge that the burden of proof lies with you in this matter.

    “Your friend Rotifer is guilty of the same fallacy in “guilt by association” terms. Let’s tone down the hypocrisy, huh boys?”

    My dear boy, guilt by association? Monckton is a woo woo who knows nothing about climate science. Abraham has shown that, as well as numerous others. So calling out ignoramuses on their mistakes is ad hominem now?
    So, my old bean, you think that background and education and woo belief don’t factor into wether someone can be trusted on a scientific matter? If you do then why not go to the badastrologer.com site or jennymacarthyknowsbetterthanimmunologists.net and get your “scientific” answers there?

  84. Podex Monckey

    Messy Tidy upper wrote:

    “Secondly, if the CAGW skeptics are correct then there has been serious and criminal misconduct going on and punishment – maybe not so harsh as public floggings but certainly mass sackings and even jail time would be warranted and entirely appropriate.”

    Where’s your evidence then, or are you plenus stercoris es? And where can we see Lord Monckton prosecuted for fraud?

  85. Podex Monckey

    Posted by Paul:

    “Nobody here at Bad Astronomy blog(or at the IPCC or anywhere else) has every provided evidence that a positive feedback occurs in our atmosphere and will double or triple the direct effect of carbon dioxide. Without positive feedbacks the potential warming of a doubling of CO2 remains at a maximum of about 1°C. That in itself is doubtful as cloud dynamics have the potential to cancel out half of the theoretic warming of CO2.”

    You make an assertion and then don’t back it up with any evidence. You have to show that nobody here at Bad Astronomy blog, the IPCC and anywhere else has ever provided evidence etc,etc,etc and you don’t do that. Assertions without evidence are the favourite tactic of certain folk that like to call themselves “skeptics” but don’t know how to act like them. Perhaps we should call these wannabe skeptics something like “skepticks” as they like to parasite themselves on real skepticism without burdening themselves of such onerous duties as providing evidence to back up their assertions.

  86. Rivalis

    When it comes to the skeptic reactions to global warming I think Monty Python described it best: Hy-Brazil is *not* sinking…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM&playnext=1&list=PLD77D23D338E539E1&index=11

  87. Gonçalo Aguiar

    Greenman3610 surely defends climate well, but when he talks about renewable energies, I just laugh at how much barbarities he says. He seems to me as just another run-of-the-mill loudspeaker who likes to carbon taxing and wants to get some money by advertising it.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »