Bad News for the Climate zealots

[DodgyAgent]

I think everyone should read this and then make their minds up Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change? - Climate Change Debate - ProCon.org

[pjclarke]

I think everyone should read this and then make their minds up Is Human Activity Primarily Responsible for Global Climate Change? - Climate Change Debate - ProCon.org

Disagree. Assembling a bunch of 'for' and 'against' quotes means not a lot unless you can investigate the evidence behind them.

But let's see what kind of team the 'against' side can muster shall we? The 'Pro' arguments come from scientific bodies such as the AGU (20,000 members) and the IPCC (approx 2,500 contributing authors) while the 'against' arguments are advanced by individuals, such as:

Patrick Moore, previously of Greenpeace. We've seen an example of his reliability already.

Willie Soon, an astrophysicist. Very well rewarded.

Will Happer. Last year Happer told*undercover Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce*research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour.

Tim Ball. Retired 1996. Lied about his credentials and dropped a libel lawsuit against a plaintiff who claimed he was ' viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.'

Don Easterbrook. Retired Geology lecturer. In 2013 the faculty at his former University got a bit cross at Don associating himself with the department and wrote an open letter

On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic.

William Gray (deceased), retired 2005, accused by Dr Judith Curry of 'brain fossilisation'

Steven F. Hayward, PhD Not sure his Doctorate in American History is much use in countering the arguments of the American Geophysical Union.

James M. Inhofe, United States Senator. No scientific training, since 1999 has received over $2 million in political contributions from the oil and gas industry.

I don't know who compiled the lists of arguments but it seems that to counter the considered arguments of every scientific association on the planet - representing tens of thousands of practicing scientists - he or she struggled to find 10 contrarian climatologists. Instead - with a few exceptions - dredging up a motley crew of emeritus, discredited, retired or dead scientists from other disciplines.

I am not surprised. While in the media and tabloid science, there is a false perception of an equally balanced debate, the scientific community long since moved on from 'is it happening?' to 'how bad is it going to get?'.

I will now be accused of ad hominem arguments and told that consensus is not science.

[DodgyAgent]

Disagree. Assembling a bunch of 'for' and 'against' quotes means not a lot unless you can investigate the evidence behind them.

But let's see what kind of team the 'against' side can muster shall we? The 'Pro' arguments come from scientific bodies such as the AGU (20,000 members) and the IPCC (approx 2,500 contributing authors) while the 'against' arguments are advanced by individuals, such as:

Patrick Moore, previously of Greenpeace. We've seen an example of his reliability already.

Willie Soon, an astrophysicist. Very well rewarded.

Will Happer. Last year Happer told*undercover Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce*research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour.

Tim Ball. Retired 1996. Lied about his credentials and dropped a libel lawsuit against a plaintiff who claimed he was ' viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.'

Don Easterbrook. Retired Geology lecturer. In 2013 the faculty at his former University got a bit cross at Don associating himself with the department and wrote an open letter


William Gray (deceased), retired 2005, accused by Dr Judith Curry of 'brain fossilisation'

Steven F. Hayward, PhD Not sure his Doctorate in American History is much use in countering the arguments of the American Geophysical Union.

James M. Inhofe, United States Senator. No scientific training, since 1999 has received over $2 million in political contributions from the oil and gas industry.

I don't know who compiled the lists of arguments but it seems that to counter the considered arguments of every scientific association on the planet - representing tens of thousands of practicing scientists - he or she struggled to find 10 contrarian climatologists. Instead - with a few exceptions - dredging up a motley crew of emeritus, discredited, retired or dead scientists from other disciplines.

I am not surprised. While in the media and tabloid science, there is a false perception of an equally balanced debate, the scientific community long since moved on from 'is it happening?' to 'how bad is it going to get?'.

I will now be accused of ad hominem arguments and told that consensus is not science.

If you read the "for" arguments properly they are full of cliches and hysterical finger pointing whereas the against are sensibly made points about the validity of the comments of the zealots . I dont really care about the ad hominen argument I just see the hysteria of your lot and think "what a bunch of arseholes" . It is not even proven that CO2 causes global warming anyway.

[pjclarke]

It is not even proven that CO2 causes global warming anyway.

You really don't have clue one, do you?

[DodgyAgent]

You really don't have clue one, do you?

well does it?

[WTFH]

If you read the "for" arguments properly they are full of cliches and hysterical finger pointing whereas the against are sensibly made points about the validity of the comments of the zealots . I dont really care about the ad hominen argument I just see the hysteria of your lot and think "what a bunch of arseholes" . It is not even proven that CO2 causes global warming anyway.

...and if you read the "against" arguments presented on here, "science is wrong" because it's all about money.

[DodgyAgent]

...and if you read the "against" arguments presented on here, "science is wrong" because it's all about money.

Which is probably the most logical thing on the document

[DimPrawn]

If recruitment agents got a 20% cut of all Carbon taxes, we might be hearing a different story....

[DodgyAgent]

If recruitment agents got a 20% cut of all Carbon taxes, we might be hearing a different story....

"might" !?

[Mordac]

You really don't have clue one, do you?

What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I'll help you out here, it's 0.04%.

200 years ago, it was around 0.033%. Given the worlds population has gone up by several billion, and almost every country is now chucking out emissions, it seems a rather small increase. Maybe, just maybe, CO2 isn't the real problem. It does smack a bit of lazy science to blame CO2 in that case.