Clarifying the climate debate

The first of a series of suggestions for alarmists to clean up the discussion. Not much use on this site and destined for Facebook and other places frequented by people who are worried about warming.

1. Stop talking about climate deniers, climate change deniers and climate science deniers. None of the skeptics that I know about deny that there is climate and a great deal of climate change. They also tend to take an interest in the science as far as their background and interests can take them, which in many cases is a long way. There is a galaxy of highly qualified scientists who are skeptical of some or all of the alarming claim. Richard Lindzen is probably the dean of climate scientists, and the names of Will Happer and Judith Curry come to mind, among many others.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Clarifying the climate debate

  1. vlad

    Freeman Dyson is a sceptic as well, one of the smartest men on the planet.

  2. max

    Norman Rogers:
    About 10 years ago, the brand name global warming was changed to climate change.  The reason was simple: the Earth was failing to warm.  An additional benefit of the climate change slogan was that everything that goes wrong with the weather can be blamed on climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels. 

    The idea that scientists are neutral observers resistant to political influence and money is naïve.  Scientists are bought and sold every day in the courtrooms of America as paid witnesses.  Scientific organizations lobby relentlessly and effectively in Washington.  The National Academy of Science pretends to be the government’s adviser on scientific matters.  Somehow, their recommendations always suggest that more money should be spent on science.  Global warming, AKA climate change, has been a bonanza for a large segment of the scientific community.  Just as with other special interest groups, the policy recommendations of the science community are heavily influenced by the prospects of getting money from the government. 

    Computer modeling is the basis for the predictions of climate doom.  Computer modeling is hard to do properly and easy to manipulate to produce the results most beneficial to the scientific community.  Computer models are excellent vehicles for weaponizing confirmation bias – searching for, or manufacturing, data that confirm one’s biases.

  3. Helen

    OK, a deal.

    2. Stop talking about climate hoaxers, climate liars and climate scientists who fake results for money. None of the many researchers on climate change that I know deny that there has always been climate change, but they know a great deal about this and understand that the current situation is different especially in the rate of change. They also have a depth of knowledge about science, from the practical experience of doing research, particularly in this area. While there are some highly qualified scientists who are skeptical of some or all of the more alarming claims, most highly qualified scientists accept that anthropogenic climate change is real.

  4. Crossie

    1. Stop talking about climate deniers, climate change deniers and climate science deniers.

    Why would they abandon a tactic that works so well?

  5. W Hogg

    Talking about science is very ineffective for warmies. I encountered a radical green fretting about unprecedented AGW. I said “on UAH, the anomaly is 0.3C. That’s 40 years. One big El Niño like 2016 or 1998 I said triple that – the global average swung 0.85C up and has retraced 3/4 of that since. Plants and ami,als can suck it up.”

    Had he continued hurricanes, I was ready with first year in history without an EF4 tornado, the 11 years without a Cat 3 landfall, and that hurricanes didn’t normalise until the very cold (by recent standards) year of 2018!

    Had he mentioned Larsen C I have my volcano map.

    He knew he was outgunned and shut up immediately. But he will never use the Denier word. He’s terrified to bring up Da Science.

  6. You’re assuming that you can reason with these people. I’ve tried, you can’t. You might as well try and reason with a Vegan as to why eating meat is OK.

  7. Harken Now

    Hark!: Rafe, person up. Your side routinely calls career scientists in the field deliberate fraudsters: not to mention hypocrites, and the knowing or unknowing participants in a vast socialist inspired enterprise to kill capitalism.

    Look at Peter Campian’s contribution on other thread, and others’ here – a complete denial of the science findings is an entirely accurate description. And you and the rest are deniers that anything about the issue is a problem.

    About time you calmed down about an appropriate description.

  8. Tim Neilson

    they know a great deal about this and understand that the current situation is different especially in the rate of change

    Care to forward us a link to a set of raw temperature data that substantiates that? I don’t think you’ll find one.

    The problem is that:
    (a) they’re convinced that their pet theory is right;
    (b) when they see that the raw data doesn’t support their theory they assume that the raw data must be wrong, so they adjust it;
    (c ) they then present their adjusted data as purported “evidence” supporting their theory, rather than presenting it as an artificial construct produced by a pre-existing belief in the theory.

    I presume that you can understand what’s wrong with that (a), (b) and (c ) methodology, but if you need it explained just say so.

    Note, obviously some types of statistical adjustment are valid, but there’s no reason why a sceptic should assume that temperature adjustments have been done properly by “climate scientists”when the people doing the adjustments fight a scorched earth defence against disclosing what they’ve done and why. Consider e.g. the highly successful BoM campaign against a Parliamentary enquiry into their adjustments of meticulously recorded historical temperature data, among other “adjustment” issues. If they really believed that what they were doing was proper scientific practice why should they object to explaining it to the elected representatives of the people who pay for what they’re doing?

  9. Peter Campion

    Scroll the Harkentroll, Cats, my regional daily newspaper’s opinion column gave this a run today….

    The Editor

    Sean McGinn (CP, 3/1), the baseline temperature of Earth is determined solely by gravity, atmospheric mass and solar heat.

    If Earth’s atmosphere was 95 percent CO2, the baseline temperature would be the same as now.

    Weather is caused by the energy transfer capacity of the phase change of water as solar heat is released from the oceans, where 99.9% of surface energy is stored.

    Tropical thunderstorms and cyclones are natural thermostats that moderate temperatures during periods of high solar flux.

    CO2-warming alarmism relies on one air molecule in 10,000 being able to catastrophically heat the other 9,999.

    That’s like saying one concrete block in a modern house can capture enough heat to catastrophically heat the rest of the house.

    It has never happened and it never can happen. The CO2-warming hypothesis has been resoundingly falsified.

    Climate alarmism is now and always has been a political scare campaign.

    (147 words)
    Peter Campion

  10. Mark M

    SABER and the chill of the solar minimum.
    As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak, “but it could happen in a matter of months.”

    The Chill of Solar Minimum

    https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

  11. Mark M

    2013: The fate of the climate was determined when the Sun entered an immense area of space with a low electron density. This plunged the Sun into a Super Grand Minimum.

    As the sun moves through space …

    NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft recently provided the first complete pictures of the solar system’s downwind region, revealing a unique and unexpected structure.

    Researchers have long theorized that, like a comet, a “tail” trails the heliosphere, the giant bubble in which our solar system resides, as the heliosphere moves through interstellar space.
    The first IBEX images released in 2009 showed an unexpected ribbon of surprisingly high energetic neutral atom (ENA) emissions circling the upwind side of the solar system.

    Photos in this post can help you picture how our sun carries you through space.

    https://earthsky.org/space/ibex-spacecraft-reveals-unexpected-structure-in-the-heliotail

  12. Anon Mahnà

    most highly qualified scientists accept that anthropogenic climate change is real.

    That is a damned lie; those “many researchers on climate change” whom you know are indeed dishonest hoaxers, self-serving scammers, and wilful liars, so I for one shall continue to describe them accurately thus.

  13. Harken Now

    Hark Mark: you appear not to read the material you link to – as long as it contains the words “atmosphere” and “cooling” or “cold” you think it’s useful.

    Humans don’t live in the thermosphere – angels do, seeing it starts about 90km above your head. The linked article also shows the ups and downs in its temperature do not correlate to ground temps.

    Poor effort.

  14. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld

    It is a pity so called “climate scientists” don’t stop using computer models to predict events 80 years ahead. Most weather forecasters can’t get the day right plus we all know the old saying “unpredictable as the weather.” If the climate people stopped messing with weather stations all over the place, fudging hot/cold to suit themselves, they would be more credible. One interesting example I lived through was a heat wave in my former home town of Inverell in December, 1994 when we had over a week of freakishly hot weather but it all disappeared from the records for some weird reason. It was long stated in that town the cold temperature was changed so as not to deter tourists and visitors. I worked at the local newspaper for well over 20 years and it was the office joke, now we have it on a world scale. Truthfully, I cannot believe anything I hear in the media, from politicians or scientists on these matters. Like the great hoax of the GREAT PLASTIC COLLECTION in the ocean, when the pictures were taken in Manila Harbour after a typhoon. Any lie will, we all HAD to get rid of plastic bags when Australia’s contribution to the total is 0.02% but we are continually impressed that we are somehow the villians. I could go on and on with the fake polar bears scare, the frightening sea level rises, the melting of Antarctica (Because of under ice volcanic activity etc,etc,etc. I would rather be a climate atheist than an outright fake peddling a bunch of lies and fake news.

  15. Bruce of Newcastle

    None of the many researchers on climate change that I know deny that there has always been climate change, but they know a great deal about this and understand that the current situation is different especially in the rate of change.

    Helen – From what I see of the real world data is that the rate of change is currently near zero, and has been for a couple decades. This is despite a 10% rise in pCO2, or a 30% rise vs the pre-industrial baseline.

    This is consistent with the ~60 year cycle and the long period solar cycle both peaking around the turn of the millennium.

    The data strongly suggests that CO2 does very little.

    I’d like to hear your views about this.

  16. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops, I’ll clarify – I meant the trend of rate of change is currently near zero. The normal swings don’t look to be unusual either.

  17. Boambee John

    Helen at 1225

    most highly qualified scientists accept that anthropogenic climate change is real.

    Indeed, and I, and probably many other sceptics, accept that the sum of the Urban Heat Island effect from built up areas around the world will produce an (anthropogenic) effect on the world’s climate. The key questions are, first, is this effect significant, and second, is it catastrophic?

    The answer to these must come from actual observations, not computer models. So far, the answers seem to be probably not, and slightly beneficial, producing increased greening of the planet and better crop yields.

  18. Dr Fred Lenin

    We dont deny climate change ,we just doubt the very very fudged figures used to try to con us into beleiving destroying western civilisation to create one world unelected government is a good thing .I mean who in their right mind would foster a world government like the EU , the greatest con in history,the public sector workers paradise ,sort of east germany with knobs on . They will be making trabants next and building wall s to prevent the deportation of muslim and african welfareists .
    Climste change ? Ask Siberian mammoths and Greenland dairy farmers of the 11th century , and they didnt need a model to prove it.

  19. Roger

    …most highly qualified scientists accept that anthropogenic climate change is real.

    The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, Helen.

    That “most highly qualified climate scientists accept” AGW is not evidence for AGW.

  20. The BigBlueCat

    Roger
    #2900988, posted on January 7, 2019 at 3:23 pm
    …most highly qualified scientists accept that anthropogenic climate change is real.

    The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, Helen.

    That “most highly qualified climate scientists accept” AGW is not evidence for AGW.

    There are also “highly qualified climate scientists” that do not accept the significance of A in AGW. That while climate change is real (ie. the climate does change), the climate systems are so vastly complex it is virtually impossible to pin climate change to any single variable or that the various observations supporting the changes in climate can be attributed to a single factor. The climate models don’t seem to predict anything – the confidence limits are too wide to be of any practical use.

  21. cohenite

    Rafe you keep missing the point; the scientific aspect of the global warming debate ceased about 10 years ago when the ‘science’ of alarmism was shot to bits.

    This is a political/ideological power/money issue now.

    Sceptics should in respect of the science just say human CO2 is not responsible for the increase in CO2 and then get onto the commie/money/electricity aspects.

  22. Rafe Champion

    Helen, have you read the Cook at al 2015 paper on the 97% consensus.

    If you have, can you tell us what the paper tells us about the consensus?

    If you have not, would you like to have a look at it (easy to find on line) and give us your summary of the findings.

  23. a happy little debunker

    You’d have as much chance as getting the ABC to call an anti-immigration protest something other than ALT RIGHT.

    2 chances, of course – Buckley’s and None.

    I noticed they broadcast footage of someone doing a Nazi salute, showing that these were actual neo Nazis – whilst ignoring that this ‘salute’ also mimicked & thereby mocked Hitler’s little black moustache & ended with a rather specific 2 finger gesture.

  24. Brian

    With respect to Helen’s request, having shaken my head, I had idly gone to Jennifer Marohasy’s blog.
    An article titled “Peter Ridd Versus the Clowns of Reef Science” [which is a discussion about a real scientist being persecuted over this issue] asks how we discern good science.
    She relates a particular event in which sugar cane growers were accused of poisoning dugongs. This claim turned out to be false and conveniently ignored the fact that the bodies were recovered having been drowned in fishermen’s nets. It was a great fundraiser for the WWF though.
    I was particularly interested in this quote:
    “The scientist who first briefed me about the dioxin in the dugongs – with information that has since proven to be wrong – has enjoyed a successful career and is now a professorial research fellow at James Cook University. Indeed, it has been my observation over the last twenty years that scientists who survive and thrive within the system are those who subscribe to activism, rather than those who care most about evidence. Perhaps not surprisingly we now have a replication crisis in science.”

  25. herodotus

    Climategate must never have happened for this particular Helen.
    Sceptics haven’t been persecuted.
    The IPCC summary for policy makers is all we need to read.
    Stern and Garnaut aren’t wrong.
    There will be many green jobs.
    Renewable energy from wind and solar is reliable and cheap.
    Nuclear should not be mentioned.
    New Hydro-electric dams and generators can’t be built.
    Gas can’t be mined/extracted.
    Coal is evil.

  26. Bruce of Newcastle

    As a well qualified scientist I would love to discuss the climate data. The frustration is climate scientists in the CAGW camp refuse to. Yet the data I see shows no problem: real world ECS less than 1 C/doubling and little if any warming this century so far. Nor any rise in EWEs, indeed the data seems to show less extreme weather in recent years.

  27. Peter Campion

    This is the letter I’ve submitted to my regional daily paper and to the Oz today…

    The Editor

    The UN’s IPCC blames man-made CO2 for global warming; but even they don’t believe it.

    If they did, they wouldn’t have given India and China free passes to keep ramping up CO2 emissions.

    “Settled science” needs no alarming hyperbole or kiddie rent-a-crowds; just solid evidence.

    The IPCC don’t show their evidence, because they haven’t got it. They simply insist nations hand over their sovereignty anyway.

    That’s what all these UN “conventions” and “accords” are doing incrementally. Sure, they’re “non-binding” – but only at first, then they become international law.

    Legendary journalist H. L. Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    The IPCC are world-class at practical politics, while our elected reps (yes, you, Wazza and Bob) seem extraordinarily gullible.

    (147 words)
    Peter Campion

    “Wazza and Bob” are Entsch and Katter…
    ….sigh.

  28. Iampeter

    Meh.
    Came here for clarification but got the usual boilerplate blah, blah.
    If you wanted to clarify the climate debate you could point out that there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas” and that the atmosphere function is the exact opposite of a greenhouse, cooling the earth’s surface, instead of warming it. That would end the climate debate.

    Or, if you’re really an integrated thinker, you’d point out that any suggestion that man behaving the way his nature requires him to behave, by industrializing and being prosperous, hurts nature, is a glaring contradiction and so is a false suggestion. This would also end the debate.

    Heck if people could think in an integrated manner, this nonsense mass hysteria would never have taken off in the first place.

    In any case, just as conservatives have failed in the science of politics and are largely responsible for allowing socialism to continue to survive, by shielding it from proper arguments, so the “skeptics” have done the same thing in the climate debate.

    In both cases, the supposed alternative factions, are too invested in perpetuating a pointless and endless debate, rather than actually winning it with the right arguments and moving on.

  29. James Clarke

    “Iampeter
    #2901046, posted on January 7, 2019 at 4:59 pm
    Meh.
    Came here for clarification”

    This is one of the most willful lies that I have ever read.

  30. Turtle

    The mass delusion known as “climate change” can only be ended by:
    1) small business, tradesmend and farmers, or the broader population, will rise up over power prices, a la France.
    2) global temperatures drop due to the sun to such an extent that the greenhouse/hothouse theory is no longer tenable despite adjustment and corruption of data.

    While we skeptics are important, argument stopped being useful ten years ago. Only reality can intervene now.

  31. JC

    Rafe

    What debate are you talking about? I’ve never seen or heard a debate between major players as they seem to always talk past each other.

    Gerbilers don’t want a debate.

  32. Mater

    Rafe you keep missing the point; the scientific aspect of the global warming debate ceased about 10 years ago when the ‘science’ of alarmism was shot to bits.

    Only the proles continue to believe.
    Those that should know better, do. Sadly, they also recognise it for the highly successful political Trojan horse that it is. Consequently, the proles continue to be drip fed.

  33. New Chum

    Climate Change is the name of a scam invented by Maurice Strong to transfer wealth from 23 developed countries to developing countries. Google Maurice Strong.

  34. herodotus

    Came here for clarification …
    Yeah, right.

  35. cohenite

    In both cases, the supposed alternative factions, are too invested in perpetuating a pointless and endless debate, rather than actually winning it with the right arguments and moving on.

    What are the right arguments.

  36. vlad

    Other sceptics include Ivar Giaever, Nobel laureate, and Dr Buzz Aldrin – who needs no introduction.

  37. vlad

    My personal point of view is this: if there is any change it will happen over a sufficient period of time as to allow the affected to adapt and, in any case, there’s an ice age coming – we know that for certain – which will quite probably render all such effects moot. So relax, friends, and put another briquette on the barbie.

  38. 2dogs

    Richard Lindzen is probably the dean of climate scientists, and the names of Will Happer and Judith Curry come to mind, among many others.

    William H Gray, who unfortunately passed away in 2016, deserves a mention.

    When assessing experts, the best measure is their track record. Gray’s track record stands head and shoulders above so many of his peers, because of his excellent work in predicting tropical cyclones.

    Few of the warmist climate scientists can boast similar achievements.

    Set a bar to be surpassed based on track record, and the warmist assertion that they have the most climate scientists supporting them falls apart.

  39. egg_

    Meh.
    Came here for clarification…

    Did you now, Socky McSockface?

  40. Viva

    Only reality can intervene now.

    It would seem so.

  41. Bruce of Newcastle

    Only reality can intervene now.

    A bit of which is about to land on Europe.

    BBC Weather: Europe braces as ‘metre of SNOW’ and ‘BLIZZARDS’ hit – Red warning issued (7 Jan)

    The weather warning comes after parts of southern Germany, Austria, and Switzerland was submerged in heavy snow on Saturday which sparked travel chaos.

    BBC Weather forecaster Helen Willetts warned red warnings were in place in Germany and Austria as snow blizzards continue to hit.

    She said: “More stormy weather is brewing for the UK and Scandinavia in the next 24-hours and even ahead of that we have the highest level warning possible, red for Germany and Austria because of the snow and the blizzards.

  42. Neville

    Helen #2900834, posted on January 7, 2019 at 12:25 pm:

    the current situation is different especially in the rate of change

    and

    most highly qualified scientists accept that anthropogenic climate change is real

    Not really, Helen.
    There have been previous ages where the evidence shows that the heating/s, and the cooling/s have had a quite larger rate of change.
    And I’d be interested in see just who, and how many, is that “most”; and please don’t drag out the long-debunked “97%” scam labelled as a “study” – we now know it was just a Climate Alarmist™ activist ploy.

  43. Tel

    BBC Weather: Europe braces as ‘metre of SNOW’ and ‘BLIZZARDS’ hit – Red warning issued (7 Jan)

    It would appear that snow has an alarming bias towards Global Warming skepticism.

  44. egg_

    BBC Weather: Europe braces as ‘metre of SNOW’ and ‘BLIZZARDS’ hit – Red warning issued (7 Jan)

    The Gore Effect?

  45. Harken Now

    Hark!

    Gerbilers don’t want a debate.

    True: because you’ve already lost; you just don’t admit or realise it yet.

  46. JC

    You’re so sure of yourself, Harken. You must be an arts graduate from University of Western Sydney.

  47. Tel

    … because you’ve already lost …

    Wait? What?!? When did any genuine debate start?

    Oh! I see, you are attempting to cheat. How silly of me, I almost missed the obvious.

  48. Harken Now

    Re the debate being finished: has been explained before. Predictions that increasing industrial CO2 emissions could cause AGW have been around for more than 100 years. Studying the atmosphere and ice age changes is complicated business though – it pretty much had to wait for instrumentation and more accurate and detailed measurements to catch up, which it did, particularly from the 1950’s going forward.

    The “ice age scare” of the 70’s was a furphy; a minority view that attracted a lot of attention, but the mistake re the future amount of aerosols was soon realised, the weight of accumulated science work formed a strong consensus that has only become stronger as each decade has passed.

    The post about the history, with nice graphics so you don’t have to strain yourselves with actual reading, at Skeptical Science is actually pretty good at putting it in the big picture of gradual formation of a well settled scientific position.

    There is a level of complexity, however, that does allow even smart people to think they can spot loop holes. But they are still wrong; and nearly always old and “gone emeritus”. Sad.

  49. Tel

    1. Stop talking about climate deniers, climate change deniers and climate science deniers.

    It’s a political discussion, not a scientific discussion. Most of the AGW supporters can’t even explain things like “Scientific Method” let alone details like systems of units, thermodynamics, nor (as I already discovered with the fake angel) basic signal theory and the concept of moving average filtering. It’s not going to get “cleaned up” because there is no honest intent to have a scientific discussion in the first place.

    By all means go ahead with your “clarification” but don’t expect any sort of reasonable response.

  50. Genghis

    Why deny that there is Climate Change. We all know it is happening. My argument is that renewables do not work. If you want top save Western Civilisation go Nuclear. Isn’t it amazing that Russia & China are paying lip service to lowering CO2 whilst the west bankrupts itself.

  51. JC

    Why deny that there is Climate Change. We all know it is happening.

  52. MatrixTransform

    Harken Now –

    “There is a level of complexity, however”

    since you have the floor…please do do enlighten us all with the complexities.

  53. JC

    How so. How can you be so confident? What is the rate of warming? How can you ascertain that from the current temp record which is so short?

  54. max

    Michael Crichton

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    Australian professor Ian Plimer

    The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance.

  55. max

    “There is a level of complexity”

    GIGO — garbage in, garbage out — for your Harken computer models.

    What is climate?

    Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

    What area of expertise is required to master it?

    An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonic, paleontology, paleoecology, Glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography ecology, archeology and history.

  56. cohenite

    Re the debate being finished: has been explained before. Predictions that increasing industrial CO2 emissions could cause AGW have been around for more than 100 years. Studying the atmosphere and ice age changes is complicated business though – it pretty much had to wait for instrumentation and more accurate and detailed measurements to catch up, which it did, particularly from the 1950’s going forward.

    That’s bullshit; alarmism doesn’t use data, it uses adjusted data; and modelling based on assumptions which are plain wrong. Alarmism has not made one correct prediction and its best (sic) scientists are proven liars as the email scandal showed.

  57. egg_

    Predictions that increasing industrial CO2 emissions could cause AGW have been around for more than 100 years.

    The GHG Hypothesis?
    That was revised downwards?

    The GHG Effect on Mars (95% CO2)?

  58. RobK

    Keep at em Peter and Rafe. Good work.

  59. Bruce of Newcastle

    Skeptical Science is actually pretty good at putting it in the big picture of gradual formation of a well settled scientific position.

    Would that be this Skeptical Science?

    Skeptical Science: “[W]e’re all a bunch of leftists”

    In a forum thread titled, “Political Compass” frequent Skeptical Science commentators and moderators took a political quiz revealing (much to their surprise) they all share the same left-wing political ideology,

    “It’s official, we’re all a bunch of leftists” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], August 26, 2011

    It was rather amusing when this came out at the time.

    I’m willing to debate the science and especially the data, but I regard SkS as a bit of a propaganda mouthpiece for the Left. John Cook had very limited scientific qualifications or experience in those days, and Dana Nuccitelli has mainly been writing for outlets like the Guardian.

    (I’ve had a couple blog comment discussions with Dana when he still did that – he was not very up to the data and sources, and failed to make a case for CAGW. Then he took off and I’ve not seen him since. SkS are also well known for censoring sceptical comments to their articles, as do the RC guys.)

  60. Herodotus

    Snow on Mt. Vesuvius!

  61. MACK

    Most scientists prefer to avoid politics. Those who don’t support the CO2 hypothesis just go off and do useful things, and don’t argue. The rump of climate careerists then constitutes the “consensus”.

  62. Boambee John

    JC

    Harken Now
    #2901234, posted on January 7, 2019 at 9:50 pm
    Hark!

    Gerbilers don’t want a debate.

    True: because you’ve already lost; you just don’t admit or realise it yet.

    JC
    #2901236, posted on January 7, 2019 at 9:51 pm
    You’re so sure of yourself, Harken. You must be an arts graduate from University of Western Sydney.

    An excellent slap down of Barken Mad. Congratulations.

  63. Chism

    expecting the AGW to give up name calling and fight fair is a dream, they have signed copies of Alinsky’s Rules they filched from the State Library
    this debate needs a fight fire with fire approach
    write catchy agit-prop that relabels the memes to retake the high moral ground : plants starving, people starving etc
    get funding for alternative research (that isn’t tied to this doomsday cult) that publishes critical scientific articles : JoNova , David Evans, Jen Marohasy
    get Topher Field to make more videos

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.