In the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore falsely claims that all climate change skeptics are in the pay of big oil.
Just last week there were more false claims inparticular claims that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is recruiting skeptics with bribes of $10,000 to scientists who will dispute the findings of a recent summary document published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Online journal TCS Daily has published a piece by Nick Schultz entitled ‘I Want to Demand This Freedom for Future Generations’ explaining and defending the actions of the American Enterprise Institute which he describes as paying scientists to “highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change.”
There are some interesting comments following the article by Schultz incuding this one:
“What we see right now is climate scientists, perhaps even the vast majority of them, bringing their data and models, finding political allies, and demanding a solution that will be unquestionably economically costly. Skepticism is not just about the data or models. It is about incentives, consequences, and even motivations… I respect the data and the models. [But] before we apply them in a political context though, I want to see the scientists sweat a lot.”
There is certainly a need for proper scrutiny of the various IPCC summaries and reports and also the the likely consequences of the various actions proposed by government economists and scientists to curb greenhouse emissions. But most of the world’s politicians and journalists seem happy to just accept the findings. For example, has the new review from the Fraser Institute, which to some extent sets out to expose the strengths and weaknesses of the new IPCC report, been acknowledged in the mainstream media at all?
And what is opinion from a skeptic worth and who should pay for it?
Graham Young, the editor of e-journal On Line Opinion, wrote at his blog last year, “Isn’t it a pity that we have to rely on oil companies to finance the devil’s advocate position on global warming?”
I’m not sure that any of the scientists interviewed by Lawrence Solomon for a series of articles in the Financial Post entitled ‘The Deniers’ have anything to do with oil companies, but I think Graham Young nevertheless makes a good point.
Anyway, there are apparently 10 articles by Lawrence Solomon purportedly on scientists who “buck the conventional wisdom on climate science” but I have only been able to find the following four:
1. Will the sun cool us?
Friday, January 12, 2007
The science is settled” on climate change, say most scientists in the field. They believe that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the globe to dangerous levels and that, in the coming decades, steadily increasing temperatures will melt the polar ice caps and flood the world’s low-lying coastal areas.
Don’t tell that to Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come. The science is anything but settled, he observes, except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period.
Read the complete text here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=5c8d30c6-9d77-4ccc-99d9-c3a095750cdc
2. The limits of predictability
Friday, January 19, 2007
When Frans Nieuwstadt, a distinguished Dutch meteorologist, engineer, editor and professor, died in 2005, his obituary recounted seminal events in his accomplished life. Among the experiences worthy of mention: Nieuwstadt had studied under the celebrated professor, Henk Tennekes, and along with other colleagues had been instrumental in convincing Tennekes to return to Europe in 1978 to become director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and later chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts…
Tennekes became more than an inspiration for his students and a model for other scientists, however. He also became an object lesson in the limits of scientific inquiry. Because his critiques of climate science ran afoul of the orthodoxy required by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, he was forced to leave. Lesser scientists, seeing that even a man of Tennekes’s reputation was not free to voice dissent, learned their lesson. Ever since, most scientists who harbour doubts about climate science bite their tongues and keep their heads down.
Read the complete text here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=f53da8fc-4ece-455c-9591-a51c6fe18f97
3. Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
Friday, January 26, 2007
Climate change is a much, much bigger issue than the public, politicians, and even the most alarmed environmentalists realize. Global warming extends to Mars, where the polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.
“One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age,” NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency’s Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. “In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated.” With each passing year more and more evidence arises of the dramatic changes occurring on the only planet on the solar system, apart from Earth, to give up its climate secrets.
NASA’s findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo — at the pinnacle of Russia’s space-oriented scientific establishment — is one of the world’s best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo’s space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world’s chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.
Read the complete article here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=eabbe10d-3891-41eb-9ee1-a59b71743bec&p=1
4. The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel’s top young scientists, describes the logic that led him — and most everyone else — to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming…
Dr. Shariv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change– the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming — is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.
Read the complete text: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
So what is opinion from a climate change skeptic worth and who should pay for it?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So we have the old
(1) Solar must be it
(2) Can’t predict the weather how come the climate
(3) Global warming on Mars
(4) cosmic rays and climate
All been discussed.
So how much is a skeptic worth – well I presume that if they’re at an institution they’re already getting paid anyway – so any extra – well bugger all if this is the list and the state of debate.
We need to see some substantive papers and studies reviewing both sides of the issue from the skeptics before anyone starts treating this stuff seriously. Shariv does believe in the enhanced greenhouse effect to some extent.
So spare us the ad homs and let’s see the papers and reviews.
Jenifer
This page has the links to the ten articles
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0
cheers
Arnost
Jennifer, I was just about to post a comment elsewhere on your blog about Nir Shariv, when I saw your new topic here.
This morning I received an email from a friend in Israel, with an attached article about Shariv. Apparently he is a brilliant astrophysicist, and one of Israel’s top young scientists.
Yet another expert to question the AGW scientific ‘bunkum’.
He may be brilliant Siddles, but so are lots of people. And therein well demonstrates the problem – enthusiast sceptics jumping on “anything” drifting past and going “oh that must be it then”. The slight problem is that cosmic rays don’t seem to correlate at all with temperature. Note Sid how Shariv also believes in greenhouse.
By “bunkum” – Sid actually means 320 megs of well laid out peer-debated argument with what we call “references”, “statistics”, and “figures”. Thanks for playing and still awaiting the rainfall analysis.
Let’s try and stay on topic in this thread.
How important is it that some organisation or individual scrutinize the IPCC reports and also the Stern report and why is the media not reporting their findings. For example there has been the review from the Fraser Institute and before that the very long review in the journal World Economic of the Stern report ( http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001842.html ) but no mention of either on my ABC?
PS Arnost thanks so much for the link.
Why just pick on the ABC – what about 7, 9, 10 and the variety of paper media in general.
Luke, I listen to ABC radio and watch ABC TV. What has been happening on Channels 7, 9 and 10? How did they report the release of the ‘summary’ of the new IPCC report?
Well IMO little reporting of the “critiques” you list either based on my biased sampling. Others may have some information. Fancy listening to that lefty ABC media Jen. tsk tsk.
The other media usually had an “alarmist” headline but gave the facts fairly dispassionately (well from the report itself as some may regard the report as less than factual 🙂 )
Jen says:
“How important is it that some organisation or individual scrutinize the IPCC reports and also the Stern report and why is the media not reporting their findings.”
Spare us, Jen. You are part of the media and your contrarian views do appear. We also have journalists of the Andrew Bolt ilk who have published dozens of articles over the years on the “global warming hoax”.
Only a minute fraction of climate scientists- probably well under 5%- are global warming contrarians. There are probably far more life-scientists who are Creationists.
The contrarians are already overrepresented in the media, not underrepresented.
By the way, as you well know, both the American Enterprise Institute and Tech Central Station receive funding from Exxon Mobil.
He who pays the piper calls the tune; it twas ever thus.
‘He who pays the piper calls the tune; it twas ever thus.’ As with most of the scientists working for the AGW Industry, on such things as Reports for the IPCC.
Jen,
Your complaint about the ABC is hard to take seriously. Let’s take a look at Counterpoint: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/
Counterpoint features heaps of contrarian stuff from you, Ian Castles etc.. Just 4 days ago Counterpoint had this on: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2007/1840401.htm
Methinks you cry wolf a little too often.
So Steve, any study financed by Greenpeace should be immediately discounted on the basis that it couldn’t possibly reflect any views that weren’t Greenpeace’s?
Come to think of it , any research that isn’t done for free has to be written off using that rule of thumb?
I see in one of today’s papers ( can’t remember which ) that Bob Brown is advocating the quick closure of the Australian coal industry.
That would undoubtedly cause significant and long term economic damage to Australia.
This isn’t to say that drastic solutions to serious challenges shouldn’t be undertaken if necessary.
But we should be as sure as it’s possible to be.
I just wish that the same crowd who called for more certainty before going to war in Iraq in the face of overwhelming expert opinion about WMD , would apply the same principle here.
Even the treatment of Ian in a previous post – raising a seemingly valid question about Arctic ice raised from a very reputable information source – demonstrates a clear double standard.
Let’s hear AGW proponents ( other than Luke )start calling for a fast track nuclear programme which would result in really significant AGHG emission reductions without wrecking the economy AND demand that China and India as well as the US follow suit.
It appears that the AEI as sceptics are simply “lil’ Miss Understood” and are merely advocating a “middle of the road” or a “3rd way” approach to the problem. Phew I’m so glad we cleared that up.
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/aei-and-ar4-update.html
So there has been something on ‘Counterpoint’ on ABC radio national. Is that the sum total of reporting of the alternative perspective and scrutiny of these incredibly important documents?
I’d suggest there is a need for much more critical review and discussion.
And a need for additional and detailed scientific critiques particularly of the IPCC reports.
And is it a problem that all sides of politics feel compelled to pretty much endorse the findings of the IPCC ‘report’ and be a part of the ‘global warming bandwagon’. Isn’t there a place in a healthy democracy for one or other side of politics to be at least a little critical and point out a few of the possible short comings?
I never heard of “Counterpoint,” how does it rate? does it rate? does anybody listen?
Typically, Munn goes off halfcocked…
Jen says:
“And is it a problem that all sides of politics feel compelled …”
Who’s doing the compelling? Allah? Gaia?
The Fraser Institute Report isn’t “incredibly important” just because you like it. It is a minor report from an obscure American oil industry funded think-tank. What’s more most of the handful of scientists involved in its production have no relevant contemporaneous peer-reviewed research and a history of making demonstrably false claims.
Why should the Fraser Institute report get any more exposure than the various Answers In Genesis reports that expose the “evolution hoax”? http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Lets see, as LNL is only 4 days a week Counterpoint fits in LNL’s spot in the afternoon, but doesnt fit in LNL nightime spot but is reoeated on a Friday afternoon…
so what’s an opinion from a skeptic worth?
LNL – hosted by Phillip Adams, who has always been skeptical of absolutely everything (yet you could wonder why as on his ‘farm’ at Scone they fervently practice biodynamics which is a never-to-be-challenged belief system based on moonbeams, hornbeams and cobwebs as designed by spiritualist philospher Rudolf Steiner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture ) is 4 x a week so a skeptics opinion is worth 4 x more than the counterpoint.
The issue become quite difficult though Jen – many people simply are not up to deciding whose science or economics is correct. How many have even read Stern let alone understood it. How much criticism has there been of the TAR and the assumed FAR or 4AR. But how many have read the documents and understood enough. How much of the alternative reports are correct or even balanced in themselves. Certainly RC has been pretty dismissive of the Fraser Institute report throwing out a handful of examples. But the groups aren’t exactly on speaking terms so how are you going to get a “decent exchange”.
P.S. Glad to see you in the blog comment trenches !
Luke,
It’s all too difficult? Even for the journalists? So they more-or-less just run the one line from the IPCC scientists? Pretty dangerous approach to public policy decision making? Limited scrutiny yet as someone commented at TCS Daily:
“What we see right now is climate scientists, perhaps even the vast majority of them, bringing their data and models, finding political allies, and demanding a solution that will be unquestionably economically costly.”
(And that’s about 2 too many comments from me today on this thread. All for tonight.)
Luke
Me thinks you dismiss Nir Shariv too lightly.
It appears you associate him with “… enthusiast sceptics jumping on “anything” drifting past and going “oh that must be it then” “. And this is doing him a disservice and I must take up the gauntlet on his behalf… 🙂
This is a very recent paper to Space Science Reviews where Nir was a co-author. And (over 100+ pages) explains why the authors think that the solar influence in understated in IPCC assessments.
http://www.tp4.rub.de/~kls/scherer-etal-2007SSR.pdf
The slight problem is that cosmic rays don’t seem to correlate at all with temperature…” is addressed.
I recommend to those interested in having a look at it, not to be discouraged by the first 13 or so sections – (though both 12 & 13 are very intesting and reasonably easy to understand), and go to sections 14 and 15 where the conclusions are presented in a very dumbed down fashion.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – you a pleasure to debate with.
I don’t take Shariv lightly at all, but yes I was unconvinced. The “jumping on anything” jibe was for many here including Sid.
As I have said you have to argue all the CO2 research down as well as another theory up. For those who think the CO2 hypothesis is simply based on correlation they are mistaken.
I note the recent paper is literally hot off the press being 31/1/2007. At last something decent to read on the contrarian side. David Archibald might note what a serious contrarian paper looks like. Off for a big read, and re-read of RC’s previous critique. Thanks for the paper.
Luke, likwise.
I just found out that I made three HUGE typos today – so to at least correct one – it’s Shaviv.
A good read is here.
http://www.sciencebits.com/NoInterview
never again without a spellcheck
Arnost
Unfortunately, RC’s critique of Shaviv is the usual non-objective stuff we have come to expect:
http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate
Another win on points for Shaviv here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/thank-you-for-emitting/
The fun starts at comment 37, RC bail out at 125.
On topic,
What is opinion from a skeptic worth and who should pay for it?
At $10,000 it appears about a 100 x less than the opinion of an official contributor to Real Climate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=53
To stretch the ridiculousness of a making a storm over a $10K honorarium, (and I acknowledge I’m doing JSMF a disservice) I could point out that the foundation does not publish an annual report…
http://www.jsmf.org/about/index.htm
…and therefore for all we know it could be a front for (……….. – insert your favourite bogeyman here).
cheers
Arnost
As it turns out, the “Exxon Payoff” is just a hoax–a hoax the media loved so much, they couldn’t bring themselves to check the facts.
See
http://www.junkscience.com/feb07/Global_Warming_Smear-WSJ.com.pdf
But it’s a *green* hoax, which makes it beneficial and beneficent, and, well… *green*. If it gets any worse than this, people are going to discard their shamrocks to avoid being painted with the green slime.
Bolsh Sciller:
On http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/aei-and-ar4-update.html
we have a statement by AEI President Chris DeMuth.
in part
“Third, what the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI—and Brookings, Harvard, and the University of Manchester—to pay individuals at other research institutions for commissioned work, and to cover their travel expenses when they come to the sponsoring institution to present their papers. The levels of authors’ honoraria vary from case to case, but a $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest. ”
it is – oh yea .. .. ..
and
“Above all we want to have a diverse collection of pre-eminent thinkers on this subject, which is why we are keen to include you in the project. AEI is willing to offer honoraria of up to $10,000 for participating authors, for essays in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, to be completed by September 1, and we are keen to work with you to refine an appropriate topic. ”
“honoraria eh?” mmmmmm – very transparent
Do you think we came down in the last shower Schiller. And now if “legal action” is being mooted I reckon they’re probably spot on target. So instead of “getting on with it” we’re now having a diversionary legal stoush. LOOK – a rabbit .. .. ..
As for the Centennial Fellowship Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation – how can this possibly be comparable – money goes to the institution not the individual, isn’t blood money for doing a hatchet job on a public policy document, and Foundation has little control over the science outcomes. He also wasn’t the only recipient from a wide diversity of science fields. Are the others all sus too?
Luke,
Spin it how you want, but this pales in comparison to the billions spent on AGW proponents. Your shrillness does not make up for the incredibly lopsided funding.
Luke, come on… you’re enough of a realist to understand that political control of the planet’s energy budget is something many would spend everything they have to gain.
A measly US$10K is nothing in comparison.
Jen, I agree with you that there is a great and urgent need for a lot more critical review and discussion on this AGW issue.
The greater the cuts in emissions that the nations of the world are compelled to make, the greater the scenario of general economic collapse becomes. Our present state of civilised democracy, with it’s advances in learning, technology and associated development in industrialised nations in the West, has mainly come about by the development of the fossil fuel industries.
This is what has given us our present high standard of living, incl. health. The same thing is now happening in developing countries, and will happen in third world countries, (unless Green Fundamentalism succeeds in stopping it).
The reason for more critical review is that the present ‘peer review’ network is totally controlled by the pro AGW scientific community, which cannot be regarded as an independent critical review process what so ever. They either very quickly do a hatchet job on any scientist who comes up with research findings which challenges their ideology, or are at least dismissive of it.
There are a huge number of compelling recorded facts about many glaciers advancing, ice packs thickening, record snowfalls and temp. lows, which in the 4AR and it’s Summary, are either ignored or dismissed (as some local anomoly).
I just give one further example. These IPCC reports make great issue of depleting arctic area ice, which is happening now. from the Daily Telegraph (London), 4/2/07 “Thickest pack ice in memory! ‘Thick pack ice, the like of which has not been seen for decades, streched into the western fjords of Iceland, as temps. plummeted, and a bitter wind blew in from Greenland’. ‘I have lived here all my life said Helgi Arnason, a farmer in Dyrafjordur. Forty years ago, large icebergs drifted onto the beaches here, but it was nothing compared with this. Pack ice used to be Iceland’s ancient enemy, but we stay calm so long that it doesnt worsen. This is just to remind us of where we live’.”
Maybe Pinxie’s Polar Bears won’t have too far to swim after all!!
Of course facts like this, if mentioned at all, (which is most unlikely), would be quickly dismissed as ‘local blips’ in IPCC reports.
Yes, a strong critical review process is badly needed, because of the huge cost that the world is being asked to pay.
Schiller – no it’s less then a single billion. How much is actually spent? And a formal research program is vastly different to bribery.
Interestingly climate variability now costs the world billions and thousands of lives. The recent upsurge in all this chaos from a mere 90-100ppm of CO2. People seem to disregard that humanity is already dreadfully maladapted to climate variation. Wait till AGW really gets going and that variability really gets souped up.
I think the science community are actually surprised with how quickly environmental changes are happening already.
Record lows are not ignored in the 4AR at all as Sid likes to continuously misreport and lie about – they’re declining globally over many regions. The other factors that Sid mentioned are all analysed in detail – and the trend overall with some noted exceptions is warm over very very large areas of the globe !
It’s a global mega-trend ! We’re now getting ice systems that have been intact for 1000s of years cracking up. The 4AR is actually conservative on ice systems with much new science in late 2006 not making the cutoff. A pity to not capture the surprising acceleration in trends.
*..The recent upsurge in all this chaos..*
Upsurge? All this chaos?
Yep – droughts, heatwaves; and high intensity hurricanes up all basins. Check the stats.
Just thought you guys might like to see the range of variation in the UK temp records over the past half century as a rough indicator of what was happening to the Arctic Ice Sheet.
The 5 year moving mean was 9.81 degrees in 1950 and 9.92 in 1961. It dropped to 8.99 in 1966 or 0.93 of a degree. It was back up to 9.72 by 1978, down to 9,23 by 1988 and up to 10.24 by 1999.
So the recent “warming” from 1988 to 1999, of 1.01 degrees, is only 0.08C greater than the decline to 1966. That is, it is essentially within the historical range.
One can also infer what has happened to the Arctic ice sheet through this period. The sheet was small from 1950 to 1961 but advanced considerably by 1966. It had declined somewhat by 1978 when the satellite scans began and had undergone a mild expansion to 1988 followed by a contraction to 1999.
Clearly, any study that limited the data set to 1979-2000 (ie every one peer approved by IPCC) could plausibly conclude that the ice sheet was in decline. Any anecdotal evidence from the previous 13 years would also suggest a long term decline. But in the context of 1950 and 1961 data there can be no such conclusion. The ice sheet is acting normally, it is the Gullible Warmers who are acting abnormally.
Ian raves again without checking his source. Alas his comments about the IPCC and 1979-2000 are wrong. Sigh.
Luke,
Tell me if this is “less than a single billion.”
“According to OMB [Office of Management and Budget], from 1993 to 2004, [US] federal funding for climate change increased from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation.”
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-1122T
“Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.”
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=289
Obviously we’re a bit over a billion, if I did the math right.
Now Luke, what’s the odds that AGW deniers get much of this money? Sorry, this money’s for AGW proponents.
And as any researcher will tell you, it’s nearly impossible to get negative results published anywhere, on any topic whatsoever.
This game is rigged in favor of AGW.
I’m mad enough that I have to have my car inspected for auto emissions every year. Whenever someone wants to “save the world,” I’m one of those who has to pay for it. Can I get a grant?
Woody,
I bet if you wrote a grant application appropriately, and made it look like “research into the deadly greenhouse gas emissions of automobiles,” someone out there would buy you a Ferrari and even take care of the servicing (to ensure the quality of the data).
For all the money being thrown around to prove AGW, all the commentators here could have a brand-new Ferrari and it wouldn’t make a blip on the blizzard of cash being squandered.
Unless Luke thought the money came from Exxon.
No Schiller – that’s nonsense – those numbers aren’t right. They come from a government source which we all know you can’t trust. Total fabrication. I’m sceptical about all that sort of stuff. They’ve wrapped up the weather forecasting budget in there.
And given Iraq is running at $2B per week, just stop shooting for a month and you’ll be square.
Luke,
Now it’s *your* job to tease the numbers out. And of course to explain why “weather forecasting” is not part of things. Surely, the “climate catastrophe” we are all said to face will have some associated weather–and we have been led to believe that “forecasting” is what the AGW thing is supposed to be.
Work hard, Luke. You’ve got to account for $30-40 billion, so that we can see the rest is for what–TV and radio announcers?
And I’d like to see your numbers on the contribution of the war in Iraq to global warming. You raise an interesting question. Do you have stats on the amount of CO2 emitted per cartridge?
My guess is, a can of beer emits more CO2 than a cartridge. Have you studied the effects of beer on global warming as well? And speaking of beer, what’s the impact of barbecues?
And you still haven’t explained how most of the increase in CO2 is radioisotopic, i.e., not from fossil fuels.
Luke, your job is barely begun and you’re falling behind already. Actually, you’re losing it. Can’t even get the money part right within a factor of 30. And can’t meet arguments on their merits, either.
Run, Luke, run.
Schiller, the real climate site uses C14 levels(or lack thereof) as proof that the CO2 levels ARE from fossil fuels. So someones use of the figures, or their interpretation, is a bit rubbery.
Could you post a link if you haven’t already?
Schiller we’ve already given you all the carbon isotope links which you’re obviously incapable of reading. I mean not even serious contrarians debate this stuff. Let’s try and not be silly here. If you are serious pls provide a critique of what has been presented. But that requires understanding and reading skills.
BBQs and beer – I’m incensed – you’re not serious are you.
Iraq war – say a trillion wasted bucks piddled up against the wall. Think how far you’d be towards zero-gen, nuclear fusion-hydrogen or solar with that sort of cash.
And you’ve forgotten El Nino and climate variability which you have already in the world, so in fact the additional work to do climate change is really only about $10-$20 M by my calculations. It’s up to you to prove otherwise and you haven’t done so.
Schiller you’re going down on this one big time.
Boyos, stop squabbling. The world has heated up and cooled before. Civilizations have disappeared. Why should it be different for us? If lice infestations become too large the host does something drastic to rid itself of the pest. Maybe we are the pest!
Hmmmm, man as disease again. So why stick around, Rhyl.
So what is the opinion of a sceptic worth? Part of the worth is in the presentation.
If it is politely presented, and sticks to the argument without ad hominen or other abuse, the opinion of a sceptic can have considerable currency.
I know I like reading such articles – from all sides of an argument. I also find, for me, the ad hominen tactic does an opinion little service.