Deconstructing the AGW responses to skeptics' issues

Perhaps we could all do this together, in odd moments. I regard it as vital and crucial to reclaiming true Climate Science. This work would build up a head of steam over time, remembering that "knowledge is power":

to write well-referenced "mirror" articles that answer every "straw man"* article
on every prime AGW website "rebuttals of skeptics' issues".

I think that over time, this would cut the AGW fuel lines dry, drip by drip. This needs to be owned by the skeptics' community in effect, so that nobody can say it is just "that lone eccentric" or "funded by exxxxx" or "in denial of what science says" or "afraid to face global warming implications". I'm far more afraid of the mass deception called "anthropogenic global warming" that has been developing in the name of science but is actually a counterfeit lookalike, than I'm afraid of climate change. Over time, I've come to believe that IPCC has played fast and loose with Science in every single part of its work, to present a scary "SCIENCE-LOOKALIKE" that is not at all justified by true Science. We have a positive goal - to reclaim and rebuild the true Climate Science as service to humankind.

The most important websites that have listed "answers to skeptics' issues" are, in my opinion,

• BBC Climate Skepticism: the top ten (10 issues),
• New Scientist Climate Change: a guide for the perplexed (27),
• Real Climate Responses to common contrarian arguments (40+ against "contrarians" and 200+ in total, suspicions that most if not all will be found seriously flawed scientifically if you probe - this is the AGW flagship),
• Skeptical Science Skeptic Arguments (blog-style, 52 issues, each with a very welcome thread that is actually open to all to reply), and
• Gristmill How to Answer a Climate Skeptic (at least 70, but since they are listed under four types of classification, Stages of Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, and Levels of Sophistication, it's harder to count.

AGW replies to skeptics' issues appear to be almost always debunking "straw men"* and just need clear, simple, relevant, sourced science and evidence. Several AGW science issues I am personally certain have been disproved, but either I don't have the proof to hand, or I cannot follow the details but sense the presence of the true science and expertsamong the skeptics. This is often the case at Climate Audit, since I'm not a statistician. I don't think I am alone in such experiences. 

As Lawrence Solomon realized in writing The Deniers, many top science experts still say "in my area of expertise, AGW / IPCC science is mistaken - but I still believe in AGW / IPCC generally." Writing my skeptics' primer helped me to join up the dots and discover the total hollowness of the IPCC / AGW thesis. I could then see that we appear to have a totally new scientific Watergate on our hands, unbelievable and unwelcome as it seems.

Now we need a library of "context-sensitive" rebuttals. Warren Meyer has started this. Chapter 9 of his book available online at Climate Skeptic deconstructs all 26 of New Scientist's "answers to skeptics". I would like to see short pieces to mirror each original "rebuttal of skeptics", easily available online side-by-side with the original "refutations", with similar format and key words to help them appear adjacent to the New Scientist articles when people google.

I've made a start at my end by reformatting the BBC Top Ten to include a third column. A nice easy start. The original BBC Top Ten is in two columns. The first column is Fred Singer's Top Ten, the second column is Gavin Schmidt's refutations of Fred Singer. But there is no space in the BBC presentation to refute Schmidt. So I'm providing this space for all of us. I've filled in my own answers - but this is emphatically Work In Progress.

Below, you can link to the pages I have extracted from BBC, New Scientist, RealClimate, Gristmill and Skeptical Science. Each page contains all the hyperlinks to the articles that need deconstructing. In RealClimate, Gristmill and Skeptical Science, the articles are followed by discussion threads that may need to be taken into account. Now here's the proposal:

Choose an article you'd like to deconstruct, do a preliminary piece, put it on your website, and send me the URL. If it looks promising and able to become good enough in the end, I'll redo the hyperlink on the relevant hyperlinks page, to make it link direct to your article; I'll change the hyperlink colour to red. Then other people can visit our website to check which articles are being deconstructed. They can have a look at the deconstructions, and add comments and suggestions in our phpBB Forum. The Forum can accommodate a thread (preferably just one) for each article. From the red hyperlinks, people will be able to see which articles are already "work in progress" so they can choose from the rest, if they want to join the project. The only stipulation, apart from obvious courtesies and adherence to good science and good practice, is that you format your pages to make your reply visible alongside a fair copy of the original article - as I've done with the BBC.

I am not yet sure that we can handle a wiki for this project without leaving it open to abuse - yet I feel that in time, a wiki would the format of preference, if we can codify the ground rules well enough. There's an interesting wiki here that so far holds excellent quality and might work.

*straw man argument: this seems to be pretty much the universal AGW tactic against skeptics. First, state "this is what skeptics say" but state what is out of date, or only a part of the issue, or a misrepresentation, "cherry-picking" etc. Then procede to demolish it. Easy. Of course, skeptics then look gullible, unscientific, in a tiny minority, in denial, in the pay of exxxx, and totally untrustworthy. When, as these AGW websites do, multiple arguments "debunking" skeptics are piled up together, it takes some effort / courage / idiocy to actually check the skeptics to see if they have been fairly represented.

All help and ideas, to make this a feasible project, welcome: contact points - see top of page.
Lucy Skywalker

Key pages: the lists of hyperlinked issues (these are lists of hyperlinked issues extracted onto fresh pages here, to show the extent of the work to be done) BBC Climate Scepticism Top Ten work now in progress RealClimate Responses to Contrarian Arguments (45/200+) New Scientist Guide for the Perplexed (27 issues) Skeptical Science Sceptic Arguments (52 issues) Gristmill How to Answer a CC Skeptic (70+ issues) Any other vital deconstructions? Iain Stewart? Deconstructing the Pillars of the IPCC to be developed - pages to be created as and when needed Temperature Record & falsifications (McIntyre, McKitrick, Hill, etc) Carbon Dioxide & falsifications (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski, etc) Political Usurping of Science (Monckton, Everett, Gray, etc) Greenhouse Gas Science & falsifications (Monckton, Spencer, etc) Deconstructing Al Gore's film (Monckton, Johnston, Rossiter, etc) Solar Science (Svensmark, Usoskin, Shaviv etc) Other Issues to be developed - pages to be created as and when needed Evidencing CAGW tactics eg subtle ad homs and "straw men" Rebuilding the science we need - holistic dimensions Developing this as a community project Where skeptics agree with AGW eg The planet DID warm (briefly)