It appears that I am more famous, and making a greater impact than I thought. In my last post, the infamous spin master Marc Morano (and based on his IP I am pretty sure it is him) stopped by to leave a comment.I don’t know whether to feel honoured that anti–science 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?
He tried to convince me that my claim that there is no debate on climate change within the scientific community, by posting one of his pathetic lists. Why pathetic?, Well because it is sad that he thinks that op-eds, blog posts and conservative think tanks that challenge climate change constitute debate within the scientific community. His rather long list consisted of a 3 whole peer-reviewed papers which didn’t even attempt two disprove climate change. One of them even fully accepted climate change and said that “its effects are already being seen“.
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.
That was from a paper in Nature, and it was Morano’s most credible link. 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. Instead they deny deny DENY!
UPDATE: Marc Morano has posted more pathetic lists, and guess what they don’t come even remotely close to proving his point.