|
Climate Science: A Problem
of Tyranny
The skeptics' position |
Official Science's attitude to climate skeptics | Arm
yourself with the Skeptics' Handbook |
Arm yourself with the science | Debunk
the debunkers | Answer the key CO2 issue
| "Consensus says" | But
skeptics say
A personal statement
of the "climate skeptic" position
We maintain that the hypothesis of harmful Anthropogenic Global
Warming, as currently handled by the IPCC, Al Gore, James
Hansen, the RealClimate website, nearly all of the top scientific
organizations, and most of the media, is a travesty of Science.
We are aware that the warming that has happened recently is
well within the range of natural causes. We maintain that
many of the temperature records, as presented to the public,
are highly questionable. We maintain that carbon dioxide is
virtually incapable of warming the planet any further, is
not even remotely capable of approaching dangerous "pollutant"
levels, is absolutely essential to the existence of all plant
life, and in its current minor increase, is beneficial to
all plants. We appreciate that it is difficult to imagine
that such a deeply mistaken scientific hypothesis could have
arisen. We maintain that the evidence, which is multidisciplinary,
multifaceted, nuanced, complex, and accumulating, is totally
on our side, when put in context. We seek to demonstrate this
evidence in its true context, and debate with courtesy. We
strenuously maintain the need for complete transparency, and
availability for public checking of both data and methodology,
in all science issues of political concern. We maintain that
we have been suppressed and misrepresented in the scientific
journals, and that there are not enough scientifically-trained
reporters or politicians to appreciate the onesidedness of
the picture with which they have been presented by official
Science. We maintain that Science is too important to be allowed
to continue its one-sided representations without allowing
climate skeptic minorities to speak for themselves and choose
how they want to pass their messages to the public. We maintain
that official Science has done nothing while iniquitous means
have been employed to discredit sceptical minorities and gag
the opposition. We therefore have to cope with tarred images
and face highly prejudiced attitudes, before we can even address
the real scientific issues. Our funding to do this is only
the tiniest fraction of the funding available to mainstream
Science.
Common
attitudes in official Science towards climate
skeptics:
Here are common "warmist" perceptions
of the skeptics whom they often call "denialists":
- sceptics are not peer-reviewed
climate scientists, therefore they have not
earned the right to speak about Climate Science
with authority;
- their followers are
old people who don't want to believe that their
lives have been built on an unsustainable model;
- true scientists are
frustrated at the tactics of the sceptics;
- sceptics are associated
with right-wing US politics;
- sceptics don't want
to give up their freedoms, and this is why they
deny the science;
- sceptic "science"
is cherry-picked, twisted and misstated to form
a false impression of uncertainty (or certainty
that whatever heating there is, is not caused
by CO2); they harp on about long-discredited
theories and the Medieval Warm Period;
- the IPCC is the voice
of reason and there's good reason to believe
it's conservative in its projections of warming;
- there's a conspiracy
to suppress the truth; it invariably fails to
address or explain the data;
- sceptics use fake experts:
lots of big names are the same hacks for the
tobacco companies, others are scientists who
are wrongly included because they said something
that was quoted out of context, others simply
have no credibility as experts on climate like
TV weathermen;
- sceptics move the goalposts;
- sceptics have impossible
expectations – they refuse to accept when
their challenges to the science have been addressed
- every time you think you've satisfied a challenge,
they just invent a new one;
- sceptics use ad hominem
arguments: Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots
of energy!
|
|
Can
one effectively counter such claims by
getting to the heart of the matter and the science
with clear, simple facts and arguments? Jo Nova
says Yes!... in her
Skeptics
Handbook
“What evidence is there that more CO2
forces temperatures up further? The climate is
complex, but the only thing that matters here
is whether adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will
make the world much warmer. Everything hinges
on this one question. Having a real debate IS
the best thing for the environment. Don’t
let people confuse
global warming with greenhouse
gases. Proof of global warming
is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that
warming.” |
 |
|
Can
one readily grasp the basic science
that shows the official position is untenable
- that humankind's CO2 emissions are not causing
catastrophic warming? Professor Bob Carter says
Yes. Watch the video parts one,
two,
three
and four.
There is no evidence that late twentieth
century temperatures or rates of change were exceptional
in a historical context; and the world has not
warmed since 1998. If you think this is too
simple to be true; if you think it impossible
that so many people could have been fooled over
such a simple issue, GO CHECK THIS FOR YOURSELF.
My
whole Primer is written to enable
you to reclaim your power by understanding Climate
Science.
|
 |
|
Can
one "debunk the debunkers" in sufficient
details if one needs to, to show there
is no trace of "denial" (in our position
at least)? Can one show that the skeptical knowledge
base is scientific and is not just "cherrypicked"?
Skeptical
Science gives strawman "what
the skeptics say" and then gives "answers".
It has published a
Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism,
however, several skeptics have answered its claims:Lubos
Motl, here
(refutes each issue briefly) here
(answers the unholy c**p about photosynthesis)
and here
(bad sensitivity science); Climate
Views, Joanne
Nova (several articles), or John
Kehr who joined a discussion there:
"[My] comment [perfectly courteous,
simple science] has been removed from their
website. I find it disturbing, but unsurprising
that when someone used science to refute the evidence
they brought to the table, they respond by attempting
to silence the opposition." See Kehr
also here
here
here
here;
Steve Goddard one
two
three
four
five
six
seven.
|
 |
|
Can
one prove the key CO2 "forcing" issues?
George
White says YES! in his CO2
Forcing: Fact or Fiction
(powerpoint)
What evidence is there that more CO2 forces temperatures
up further? None in the ice core records; none
in the science of radiative physics; none anywhere.
Learn about the geological record which gives
the clearest and strongest evidence for greater,
and faster, temperature changes in the past. Learn
that Climate Change has always existed and will
always exist. Learn that our contribution is scarcely
measurable. |
 |
|
Scientists
have trumpeted these as "well-proven and
well-known":
- our CO2 emissions
are seriously accumulating in the atmosphere,
raising CO2 levels;
- this is proven
by the changing 12C - 13C carbon isotope ratio;
- the GHG power
of these CO2 emissions is real...
- ...and is amplified
by water vapour to dangerous levels;
- this must be
the cause of recent global warming because the
sun's change is too small;
- scientists have
reached consensus and no reasonable peer-reviewed
scientist disagrees;
- so if we don't stop
emitting CO2, global warming will rise to levels
dangerous for the survival of life on earth
|
|
But
Climate Skeptics note the evidence which says:
- Temperatures have always
gone up and down; there is perfectly valid evidence
that temperatures were higher than now in the
Medieval Warm Period, and even higher in earlier
periods, the Roman and Holocene Warm Periods;
- As to rate of change
of temperature, both the Central England Temperature
record, and the ice core records, show times
when the rate of change was faster than during
the 1970-2000 period of warming;
- Serious problems exist
with the temperature records: neglected effect
of Urban Heat Islands, many serious station
problems, loss of rural stations, uncheckable
"corrections" to the data; it is doubtful
if there has been any significant global warming
in the last decade;
- Worse problems exist
with the paleoclimate proxy records: highly
unsuitable proxies, suspect calibration, inadequate
samples, prejudicial statistical methods, unavailable
data and methodolody, and the corruption and
malfeasance exposed by Climategate;
- CO2: Geological and
stomata records of CO2 show levels as high as,
or higher than today; before 1950 there is no
certainty of CO2 levels because ice core CO2
levels are suspect; the claim that CO2 rise
drives temperature rise, is not evidenced anywhere;
recent records and ice cores both suggest the
opposite, ie CO2 lagging temperatures;
- CO2 as greenhouse gas:
even the IPCC figures show that CO2 alone cannot
produce dangerous warming if its level continues
to rise: the "dangerous" effect would
only happen if CO2 increase also caused water
vapour to increase to amplify the greenhouse
effect of CO2; however it is only climate models
that suggest this would happen
- Water vapour: there
is no evidence of feedback in the real world,
despite the climate models' insistence; water
vapour actually decreases at critical levels
as CO2 increases;
- Water
and water vapour in all their many forms have
many "negative feedback" mechanisms
like tropical storms, that cool excess solar
heating; this is also sheer commonsense;
- Basic science has been
forgotten: What about Henry's Law causing oceans
to absorb 49/50th of all CO2, and to outgas
as temperature rises? What about plants needing
CO2 to grow, and benefiting from extra CO2?
- Carbon isotopes: There
are natural reasons for the 12C/13C balance
change in CO2;
- "Environmental
problems" - the "alarming effects"
reported, like increased tornadoes and sea level
rise, polar bear and Arctic ice loss, are all
lies and misrepresentations; moreover warmth
is, historically, far more beneficial than cold.
- There is perfectly
adequate evidence that it's the Sun: Total Solar
Irradiance is insufficient in itself, but there
is still correlation, suggesting either unrecognized
amplifying factors or an unrecognized cause
of both.
- Climate skeptics have
been marginalized, gagged, threatened, slandered,
impoverished, and misrepresented, often but
not always deliberately, in ways that ordinary
folk have no idea about, though since Climategate,
more and more people are realizing that this
is the case; the reverse is not the case.
- NOW
GO READ MY PRIMER!
|
|
*straw man argument: First, state "this
is what xxx 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. xxx then look gullible,
unscientific, in a tiny minority, in denial, in the pay of
exxxx, and totally untrustworthy. When, as 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.
updated 5th February 2011
I'm open to further updating if you let me
know. I hope eventually this will get transferred to a wiki.
My first MediaWiki attempt, Neutralpedia, disappeared (it
was hosted by someone else). My second slumbers like the Sleeping
Beauty.
|
|