Top ten annoyances in the climate change debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter fultonfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Number 8 is my favorite. Anyone who knows anything about computer modelling knows that models will tell you anything you want them to. Sorta like statistics; a useful tool, but only if one knows what to look for, and only if the data are presented properly (and honestly).
 
I thought I would give my opinion on some of his list.
  1. Umm it still can mean natural climate change. And yes perhaps some of the media has started to relate all climate change to manmade climate change. And from what I have seen on these forums and others at least in the USA the public laymen are still divided on the issue of natural versus manmade.
  2. Ummm I have yet to actually hear someone call someone a climate change denier because they believe in natural climate change. Actually in the current manmade versus natural climate change debate that typically refers to someone that either denies that the climate is changing at all. Or basically ignores all the evidence that says that man has something to do with it and insists it must all or mostly all be natural despite the fact that the evidence does not suggest that.
  3. Plenty of skeptic papers have been published. Even in highly respected journals like Nature. Here is a few I found in this comment on real climate, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-5/#comment-142293
Soon and Baliunas, 2003.
Soon et al, 2003.
Schwartz, 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research.
Scafetta and West, 2005.
Scafetta, N., and R. C. Willson, 2009.
McKitrick, McIntyre 2005.
Lindzen, 2001.
Miskolczi, 2007, Idojárás.
Tsonis , 2009, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS.
Craig & Lohle 2008.
Douglass et al.2007.
Klotzbach et al, 2009

I think the emails by the way were talking about the first paper listed. And I am sure there is more then this this was found in like 30 seconds. I am sure if someone looked they could find more.
  1. I wonder does he mean a written debate or like a public debate in front of people kind of thing? But anyway this link may help explain why public debates really donlt work out that well. greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/why-wont-al-gore-debate-climate-change/
Basically a public debate really wouldn;t allow the time for a proper debate. Really the best place for debate remains in the peer reviewed science.
  1. Uhhh I have never heard of climate models all saying that clouds will have a positive feedback. Though clouds are still a uncertainity in climate modeling. scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/models-dont-have-clouds.php
Ok really most of this really seems to be his personal opinion and I have seen little evidence to support what he says.
 
Still trying to rehabilitate the compromised realclimate I see.

Don’t forget, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This interactive graphic shows 43 independent studies (i.e., not funded by anti-capitalism statists or flogged by the PR firm for leftists causes behind realclimate) that have found global evidence of the Medieval Warming Period (i.e., it was not a geographically-isolated event).
They show the late 20th century temps as non-unique and cooler then the MWP. What AGW? AGW is a fraud.

pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
 
Climate change makes my head hurt. There is so much money to be gained or lost depending on who is “right”, I really don’t know what to believe. I just do common sense things to limit my impact on the environment and leave it at that.
 
Love it! Thanks for the posting.

I am all for taking care of our resources, but not when they make a religion out of caring of “mother gaia”
 
RWMorris said:
Are you sure Algore is not number 8?
Click to expand...
Actually number 8 should be the Manbearpig. 😛

You know most of what I’ve seen for Climate Change looks hinky to me. I think the thing that bothers me most, is how its like blatant propaganda. When honestly I think if scientists had just said: “Hey guys, you know even in the best of circumstances we have limited supplies, and its silly to over use toxins in our air or water supply when we have viable alternatives.” In other words, “conserve, and act like you’ve got some sense.” I think most people would have accepted that as reasonable. I mean I personally support conservation, and environmentally friendly products, but I swear sometimes when I see and hear environmentalists I want to go empty a can of Final Net.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top