It's not enough to bash in heads, you have to bash in minds
            

Skeptics vs Deniers

Skeptics come in two flavours. The first flavour includes those who are misinformed or uninformed. They are skeptical of the science behind climate change because they are not familiar with it. They see the debates in the media and assume that similar debates occur within the scientific community. Once you show these people that no such debate is occurring within the scientific community, and explain the importance of peer-review these skeptics usually realize their misinformation and are willing to accept the science.

The second flavour are a rare bunch, most have been convinced by the overwhelming evidence to support the consensus. The few that remain are fully aware of the scientific consensus, don’t question it and yet for one reason or another they remain skeptical. One of my professors at UBC was one such skeptic, and even he contributed to several IPCC reports (so much for the notion that ‘non-believers’ aren’t given a voice). He was fully aware that his views were the overwhelming minority within the scientific community, and realized that it was likely that he was wrong and the consensus was correct, thus he fully accepted that it would be irrational for policymakers to listen to him over the rest of the scientific community.

Deniers are a different bunch all together. They deny the science even when it is right in front of them (hence their name), they believe in a grand conspiracy consisting of the entire scientific community that works to silence anyone who disagrees with the accepted orthodoxy, despite the fact that there is no data to support such claims and plenty of data to support the exact opposite, they purposely and dishonestly misrepresent the science, they dismiss the peer-review process and yet are willing to accept anything no matter how absurd if they believe it will cast doubt, they attack scientists, they abuse complexity and they present no consistent theory or synthesis of knowledge.

A major difference between someone who is trying to reason scientifically and someone who has a fixed belief they are trying to defend against rational inquiry is the scientific thinker is looking for synthesis. They want things to fit together nicely, to make sense, and incorporate as much of the data as possible into a cohesive picture or theory that is convincing to ones peers so they adopt your view.

A crank, on the other hand, doesn’t care about internal consistency, presenting a cohesive picture of any kind, or creating a body of knowledge to be adopted and utilized by their peers. If someone has a different theory that is completely different from theirs they don’t care, as long as it remains opposed to the scientific theory that impinges upon their fixed belief.

Deniers are not willing to look at the issue with an open mind, they have already made up their mind and will clutch at anything no matter how irrational or absurd it may be. The recent claim that the APS reversed its position on climate change is a prime example of this.

the bigger failure here is that of the APS not realizing they were dealing with a den of snakes when they opened up any publication to the likes of Monckton. Never mind that Monckton’s paper is about as big a challenge to the theory of anthropomorphic climate change as a poodle wearing boxing gloves is to Mike Tyson; as has been said before, denialists aren’t interested in debate, they are only interested in the appearance of debate. This non-peer-reviewed publication in a newsletter is being touted by cranks all over the internet as proof that global warming is being debated in the halls of academia because it is under the auspices of the APS. When the APS clarifies, correctly, that this is not an example of peer-reviewed publication, they get attacked by Milloy and others as stifling debate and caving to the global warming conspiracy.

The bottom line is that skeptics are worth talking to, but deniers will not be convinced no matter what the evidence points to. Their responses enviably boil down to a variation of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling. This presents a problem for which I have no real solution, deniers will clutch to their unscientific positions in the face of mountains of evidence that points to the contrary, but at the same time their arguments, while unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny, are convincing enough to fool the uninformed skeptics. How does the scientific community (and those who accept their conclusions) effectively counter these anti-science deniers?

15 Responses to Skeptics vs Deniers

  1. You have “finders” for “fingers”, but that’s not too far off. Deniers only believe what they can touch, they do their finding with their fingers, not their brains and reading.

  2. Yeah-huh.

    Sci org requests an article. They pass it through scientific channels. It passes with addendum that are included in the published article.

    Sounds like peer review to me.

    I wonder if IPCC went though the same rigorous challenges that Hoofnagle attributes to “proper” peer-review.

    Don’t think so.

    Cheers,
    lance

    p.s –> Oh, am I a skeptic or a denier? Please . . . judge me.

  3. Lance I suggest you read up on peer-review, your description of it is completely wrong. As for the IPCC (which IS peer-reviewed and the comments are publicly available) anyone familiar with the process would understand that the IPCC is inherently conservative.

    So are you a skeptic or denier? I don’t know, a single comment isn’t enough to determine if you are misinformed or if you deny the science.

  4. GW Believers come in two flavors as well. In the first group you have the Devout. They know little about the underlying science and could probably care less. The second group are the Clergy. They serve in a variety of positions ranging from Pastor to Pope. Their science is scripture, the scripture of the Church of Global Warming (tithing is mandatory and more than 10%).

  5. Dan,

    You claim “no such debate is occurring within the scientific community.” Oh really? Before you write such silly comments, why don’t you read this U.S. Senate report released on July 18, 2008. Not only is there a debate raging on man-made climate fears, but skeptics are proving correct based upon the latest peer-reviewed science, analysis and data observations.

    As for the claim that the UN is above reproach, very funny.

    See this report on UN IPCC by Dr. John Brignell is a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton:

    Excerpt: The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. “Peer review” developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies.
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm#refereeing

    # #
    Please take the time to read this July 19 Senate report on the latest scientific developments in climate, see here:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37ae6e96-802a-23ad-4c8a-edf6d8150789&Issue_id=

    Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The majority of data presented below is from just the past month or two.

    [Also see: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists (and rapidly growing) Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” & An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK ]

    RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS – Russian scientists ‘reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming’ – The Hindu – India’s National Newspaper: July 10, 2008:

    Excerpt: As western nations step up pressure on India and China to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, Russian scientists reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming. Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for cuts in CO2 emissions, say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. Under the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is human-generated greenhouse gases, and mainly CO2, that cause climate change. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse,” says renowned Russian geographer Andrei Kapitsa. “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.” […] When four years ago, then President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.” (LINK)

    India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears – July 9, 2008
    Excerpt: India issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change in June 2008 disputing man-made global warming fears and declared the country of one billion people had no intention of stopping its energy growth or cutting back its CO2 emissions. […] The report declared: “No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.” (LINK)

    Canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists in 2008 reveals 68% disagree that global warming science is ‘settled’ – March 6, 2008
    Excerpt: A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'” According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.” (LINK) & (LINK) [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. – LINK & LINK – In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists – LINK ]

    Team of 13 International Scientists Write Letter To UN Sec. Gen. – IPCC ‘Must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices’ – 14th of July, 2008 (LINK)

    Australian scientist reverses view on man-made warming – Now a Skeptic! Now says ‘new evidence has seriously weakened’ the case – (By Mathematician, Rocket Scientist & Engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government) – July 18, 2008 (LINK)

    Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, Declares Himself Dissenter: ‘I am a skeptic’ – ‘Global warming has become a new religion’ – July 2, 2008 – (LINK)

    Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’ – June 27, 2008 – By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. (LINK)

    New scientific paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000% – Published in Physics and Society journal of the American Physical Society – July 2008 (LINK)

    Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis showing UN IPCC models ‚significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ – June 17, 2008 – (LINK)

    Four prominent scientists warn ‘global warming out, global cooling in’- ‘Potential for a significant decline in the average mean temperature’ – July 12, 2008 (LINK) & (LINK)

    Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 – July 18, 2008 – (LINK)

    Australian astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Sun’s activity ‘significantly diminishes’ – June 29, 2008 – (LINK) & (LINK)

    New Study Exposes UN IPCC as ‘single-interest organization’ with echo chamber process – July 15, 2008 – By Climate data analyst John McLean (LINK)

    Atmospheric Scientist Tennekes: ‘Sun may cause some cooling’ – ‘No evidence at all for catastrophic global warming’ – July 14, 2008 (By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute.) (LINK)

    Atmospheric Physicist James Peden Dissents from man-made CO2 Fears – ‘The so-called Greenhouse Effect is a Myth’ – Peden is formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. (LINK)

    South African Scientist: ‘There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change’ – By Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation. (LINK)

    Climatologist dismisses extreme weather predictions due to man-made warming as ‘complete nonsense’ – By Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks, an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia. (LINK)

    To continue reading this two part U.S. Senate report on the latest scientific developments in climate, see here:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37ae6e96-802a-23ad-4c8a-edf6d8150789&Issue_id=

    You claims are simply unsustainable.

    Sincerely,
    Marc Morano

  6. Wow the Marc Morano (and based on his IP I am fairly certain it is really him). I don’t know whether to feel honoured that antiscience Senator Inhofe’s main spin master is commenting on my little dusty, insignificant corner of cyberspace, or feel sad that government employees spend their time trolling obscure and irrelevant blogs. Is this what deniers have been reduced to?

    Anyways on to the content of his comment, it may look like an impressive list and may even fool someone who does not to look at it to deeply. But I am not one to take the word of people like Marc Morano at face value, so I took a closer look at the list, and guess what I found? Much like Morano/Inhofe’s list of 400 ‘prominent scientists’ that dispute climate change it falls apart on any close inspection. The list is basically a who’s who of climate change deniers, who have all been repeatedly debunked, but as we all know a real deniers doesn’t let things like that stand in his way.

    In the long list I found a total of 3 peer-reviewed papers (which I will admit was more than I expected), the rest was a bunch of links to op-eds, blog posts, and even a few links to some conservative think tanks. Morano may criticize the IPCC, but it is well respected by other reputable scientific societies, and its conclusions are accepted by every relevant scientific society in the world. Can the same be said about the links Morano provides? Nope, absolutely not. I will trust peer-reviewed papers, any day over the tripe Morano links to.

    What about the 3 peer-reviewed papers included in the list? Well they don’t help him very much either.

    The first one is about the solar cycle; it mentions nothing about climate change. And anyone who is familiar with the repeated claims by deniers that climate change all the suns fault, the science simply doesn’t support such claims.

    The second one is about the paleoclimate of the arctic, and it concludes that “On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer.”. Never mind that this conclusion contradicts other paoleclimate reconstructions, even if the arctic was warmer in the past that certainly doesn’t disprove climate change.

    The third paper Morano links to is by far my favourite, because it shows that he doesn’t even read what he links to.

    The effects of global warming over the coming decades will be modified by shorter-term climate variability. Finding ways to incorporate these variations will give us a better grip on what kind of climate change to expect.

    Climate change is often viewed as a phenomenon that will develop in the coming century. But its effects are already being seen, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0.2 °C per decade

    And it concludes that:

    These three possible trends of winter temperature in northern Europe from 1996 to 2050 were simulated by a climate model using three different (but plausible) initial states. The choice of initial state crucially affects how natural climate variations evolve on a timescale of decades. But as we zoom out to longer timescales, the warming trend from greenhouse gases begins to dominate, and the initial state becomes less important.

    Well I am convinced… convinced Morano has no clue what he is talking about, convinced Morano is the absolute epitome of the irrational anti-science denier I described in my post.

    I stand by my claim that no debate on climate change is occurring within the scientific community, and will continue to stand by that claim until I see a debate in the peer-reviewed literature. If it doesn’t meet this minimum standard it simply isn’t part of the scientific debate. People like Morano chose to ignore this basic fact, because peer-reviewed research simply doesn’t support their position.

  7. First the 20-100$ Dan vs Gary bet.

    I should point out that Dan charged on to my blog one day saying there was a 50% chance the arctic would be free of ice this summer. Did I stick my fingers in my ears and yell? Nope!

    I giggled a little at the latest silly prediction of doom.

    I soon proposed a bet since like Dan says he’s way smarter than this irrational lying dinosaur type, his stakes should be higher. 5-1 I figured.

    So I said if the arctic was ice free or even close I would pay him 20 bucks but,..

    If and there’s a slim chance here that I was right and it was all just hot air Dan who’s smart and tells the truth based on Al Gore would pay me 100 bucks if the north remained frozen over.

    Seems the prediction of the melt is as good as Hansen’s peer reviewed prediction of melting 20+ yrs ago.

    Dan knows that it’s why he’s refusing to acknowledge the bet.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I said the word Schism in the TITLE of my post I thought it was simple they published an issue with 2 contradictory opinions. Something Dan fails to grasp even though he’s smarter than I.

    Would they publish this if I just showed up and said it’s colder and an ice sheet will be smothering winnipeg with a mile of ice this summer. Of course, with no sources like “real scientists” do? Then if people ask for data behind my wild proclamations just say no, I’m not telling!

    Now where’s that peer reviewed 100 bucks, tic toc time is running out oh wise Sir Dan.

    Should I also point out Dan blogs more at M.A.D. than here. Real science wanting to put up my taxes to enrich the Chinese economy on the basis of failed predictions.

    Now who has their ears covered and is being irrational I wonder?

    :)

  8. Dino, you are almost as much of a denier as Marc Morano, but even he doesn’t stoop to the levels of dishonesty you do.

    I have already explained why I wont take you up on your stupid bet. First as I explained the report on the North Pole ice cover claimed there was a 50-50 chance it would be ice free, so why would I take a bet where the stakes were against me? Secondly I don’t trust that you would ever live up to your end of the bargain should I happen to win. Only an idiot would take such a bet. Your bet is as absurd as the rest of your posts on climate change which highlight your ignorance on the subject, and you unwillingness to educate yourself.

    I said the word Schism in the TITLE of my post [about the APS] I thought it was simple they published an issue with 2 contradictory opinions. Something Dan fails to grasp even though he’s smarter than I.

    Perhaps you don’t understand that a non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed article pushing fully-debunked ideas isn’t in any way a challenge to the scientific consensus.

    My description of deniers:

    Deniers deny the science even when it is right in front of them (hence their name), they believe in a grand conspiracy consisting of the entire scientific community that works to silence anyone who disagrees with the accepted orthodoxy, despite the fact that there is no data to support such claims and plenty of data to support the exact opposite, they purposely and dishonestly misrepresent the science, they dismiss the peer-review process and yet are willing to accept anything no matter how absurd if they believe it will cast doubt, they attack scientists, they abuse complexity and they present no consistent theory or synthesis of knowledge.

    fits you like a glove.

  9. Dan,

    Thanks for responding. You again claim “no debate on climate change is occurring within the scientific community” and dismissed the entire report I posted. The report details and links to massive amounts of evidence of a debate. I do not understand why your tone is so hostile. Does attempting to insult me make you feel better?

    Since you want to discuss peer-review, here you go:

    The U.S. Senate also released many reports on climate science based on the latest peer-reviewed studies. Below are a sampling.

    New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears (August 2007)
    Excerpt: An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

    Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt (July 2007)
    Excerpt: according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930’s and 1940’s, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies. These studies suggest that the biggest perceived threat to Greenland’s glaciers may be contained in unproven computer models predicting a future catastrophic melt.
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

    ‘Global Warming Will Stop,’ New Peer-Reviewed Study Says – Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years? (April 2008)
    Excerpt: “Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. […]This significant new study adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed literature and other scientific analyses challenging former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.” (LINK)
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F

    U.S. Senate Report Debunks Man-Made Arctic Melt (January 2008)
    Excerpt: Below are the natural causes of Arctic warming from our Jan. 2008 U.S. Senate Polar Bear Report.
    Excerpt: A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007 found “unusual winds” in the Arctic blew “older thicker” ice to warmer southern waters. – A November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Nature found natural cause for rapid Arctic warming. – A January 2008 study in the peer-reviewed journal Science found North Atlantic warming tied to natural variability. – A November 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of NASA and university experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the Arctic. – NASA Study Blames Natural High Pressure Leading to More Sunny Days for Arctic Ice Reduction. – A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise.
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026

    Enjoy reading the reports. Remember, if you are so confident that your view of the science is solid, why are so seemingly threatened by dissenting scientists? Face it, there is not only a raging scientific debate going on, but the global warming skeptics are clearly on the side of rational and evidence based science. One final note, remember, computer model predictions (actually scenarios) are not evidence.

    Sincerely,
    Marc Morano

  10. Dino, you propose a suckers bet and then gloat when it isn’t taken? Classy. Even though he clearly is five times smarter, that does not change the odds of the outcome.

  11. I see you are back Mr Morano. Doesn’t someone like you have better things to do than to troll around small, insignificant blogs on the internet?

    No, ok well lets take a look at your links.

    The first link eventually leads to this paper, which argues that climate sensitivity is 1.1k, which is less than the IPCC’s estimate. The first obvious realization of this is that this doesn’t in fact disprove climate change, it just predicts that it is happening slower than expected. Something the author fully admits. Secondly there are some serious criticisms of his methods because it produces climate lag times that are unrealistically low. Thirdly a recent paper in Nature shows that a climate sensitivity greater than 1.5 °C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years. Lastly the estimate is of the Charney sensitivity, which omits several important feedback effects, an estimate of the “earth system” sensitivity which includes those feedbacks would be far greater.

    One down three to go.

    It took a while to track down the study in your second link (why do you insist on linking to news reports of the study, instead of the actual paper… never mind I think I know why). The first thing to realize about the second study is that regional climate does not equal global climate, in fact that authors state that “There are significant differences between the global temperature and the Greenland temperature records within the 1881–2005 period.” making it an especially poor indicator of global climate. In fact all the authors concluded was that some factor other than AGW was causing the regional changes observed in Greenland. The ‘discovery’ that non-AGW factors can affect regional ares is neither new, nor something that disproves climate change, which is why the authors do not in any way try to challenge the consensus on climate change (is that why you didn’t make it easy to find the study?)

    Next!

    Your third link actually contained two studies, I already went over the first one, but because I like it so much i’ll repeat the key points again:

    The effects of global warming over the coming decades will be modified by shorter-term climate variability. Finding ways to incorporate these variations will give us a better grip on what kind of climate change to expect.

    Climate change is often viewed as a phenomenon that will develop in the coming century. But its effects are already being seen, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0.2 °C per decade

    And it concludes that:

    These three possible trends of winter temperature in northern Europe from 1996 to 2050 were simulated by a climate model using three different (but plausible) initial states. The choice of initial state crucially affects how natural climate variations evolve on a timescale of decades. But as we zoom out to longer timescales, the warming trend from greenhouse gases begins to dominate, and the initial state becomes less important.

    See isn’t that a great study? It doesn’t in any way challenge AGW, in fact it explicitly endorses it and claims we are already feeling it’s effects.

    The other study was one that grossly mis-represented (I bet you had something to do with that). It also doesn’t challenge climate change and, in fact predicts more rapid warming than the IPCC after 2010.

    Last one… finally

    Your fourth link, is all about polar bears. Are they threatened, will they adapt (or even thrive) to a warmer arctic? All very interesting questions, but they do not in anyway challenge the theory of climate change.

    Nice try, but as with most of your links on closer inspection they really aren’t very impressive, and they certainly don’t arrive at the conclusions you are pushing.

    I do not understand why your tone is so hostile -Marc Morano

    Why am I being hostile? Well first of all nothing I have said comes close to what classifies as hostility in the blogosphere, but the reason I have used such harsh words is because people like you purposely (you of all people can’t fall back on ignorance) misrepresent the science in order to support your own ideology (or at least the ideology of your boss’s largest campaign contributers). You take advantage of the average Joe’s ignorance on this issue, to the detriment of us all. As I have shown you none of the links you provided come close to challenging AGW, but that didn’t stop you from claiming otherwise. Like I said you are the absolute epitome of the irrational anti-science denier.

  12. Dan,

    Sureky you jest. You did not click on the link below. You just picked out one study to attepmt to refute? You can do better than that. There are many studies and inconvenent data contained in the report.

    New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears (August 2007)Excerpt: An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

    Thanks.
    Enjoy!
    Marc

  13. Sorry Marc, I looked the many links and most of them were not peer-reviewed, I assumed that the rest of them were just more links to blog posts, and op-eds, which as I informed you form no part of the scientific debate.

    Lets see what else I can find in your list of mostly useless links. The mere fact that you do NOT link to the actual makes me believe that you have something to hide, and based on what you have posted here that certainly doesn’t seem very far fetched.

    There is this blog post (it is a Nature blog post so perhaps it is a little more credible, but it is still just a blog). All it says is that there is while the basic consensus on climate change is correct, the science is far from done:

    However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative!

    Hardly the damnation of climate change you claimed.

    What else can I find (you really don’t make it easy)

    There is this, a paper cited a whopping two times. Their conclusions of natural climate ‘shifts’ are based on the output of a climate model for 2035, and I thought people like you didn’t trust models But even that doesn’t challenge climate change. In fact they explicitly state that their climate shifts may “which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

    What is next?

    There is this link. I didn’t bother to look at the actual paper because it should be obvious to anyone that the fact that something other than CO2 caused past climate change (something fully accepted by the IPCC and the scientific community) doesn’t in anyway prove that the current change in climate isn’t caused by CO2. In fact this is explicitly stated in the link you provided.

    The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.

    “I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned.

    Obviously you didn’t get the memo… or read the article, and I bet you wish I would have just taken your word for it, but I didn’t.

    Next up you have a paper from the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Not those fully debunked NON PEER REVIEWED crackpot theories again.

    Up next is the 1934-1998 non-controversy. Gasp a statistically insignificant change to the US (not global) temperature data. OH the horror!

    And that is the final straw. It should be abundantly clear to anyone that your lists are a) bloated with meaningless (in regards to the scientific debate) op-eds, blog posts and ‘research’ from conservative think tanks and b) the few peer-reviewed papers that are buried in there don’t actually challenge AGW. I spent a considerable amount of time looking through your lists of links, and it showed how much of a spinster you truly are. That much is now beyond debate. Your claims of what these papers show are completely dishonest.

    I gave you the benefit of doubt, but you have shown your true dishonesty and you have lost whatever credibility you may have had. I don’t have the time nor desire to go through another one of your endless dishonest lists, and I do not want any of my readers (who may not take a closer look) to be fooled by your unscientific tripe. So I am no longer going to allow you to post it here.

    Have a good day.

Leave a Reply