Climate Change

ippc The Real Debate Over at Kae's website I came across this link to the The Skeptic’s Handbook Even if you are a died in the wool Chicken Little and member of the Church of the Latter Day Alarmists you should read it. Nothing like an alternative opinion sprinkled with facts to get you thinking. Another good read is posted at the Climate Skeptics

5 comments

  • I’ve been waiting a while for someone who doesn’t believe in warming or greenhouse to post actual evidence to the contrary, and I’m sorry to say, this isn’t it.

    1) The Hot Spot claim; This one I’ll need to find someone to explain to me, but it strikes me as a straw man, as nobody else is making claims about it, only the skeptics.

    2) Ice Core Claim; I don’t know why skeptics keep saying this, as every graph of the available data I have seen shows that CO2 and temperate move in concert.

    3) Temperatures are not rising claim; They are, look at the data. Try wikipedia, there is a graph there up to 2008 and you can clearly see the trend line is up. You can also see that there have been several “dips” in the trend for a short period before another stretch of warming well beyond the previous peak. To say the temperature has “stopped warmining” is disingenouous.

    4) More CO2 matters less and less claim; That’s not what the ice core data shows, it shows a pretty much 1-1 relationship; More CO2 = More Heat.

    Finally, the “knock out blow” for this particular skeptic is the complete lack of an alternative theory to explain the obvious warming trend.

    Perhaps the next skeptic link you find can answer this final question, which would be a good start to making the point.

  • Finally, the “knock out blow” for this particular skeptic is the complete lack of an alternative theory to explain the obvious warming trend.

    The Sun! Sun spots we barely understand and climate cycles that could be 100 000 years from hot to cold

    Getting hotter, getting colder, CO2 will kill us. It has always got hotter and colder and CO2 has never killed us.

    The debate is really about is it AGW or natural? I’ll go for nature every time but that just puts me on one side of the ideological debate. It’s like the world is arguing over semantics in the Bible – it’s the same thing. Iv’e lived through impending Ice Ages, overpopulation and the world starving and it’s all from the same type of people.

    …look at the data. Try wikipedia

    …look at the data. Try agenda!

  • Poor Mathew – a new comer to the subject…

    Try http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    It is fun as well as informative.

  • I am srpiursed when I read of a person, an academic with time to research current peer reviewed literature, who has failed to notice that in this calandar year, all the arguments supporting the AGW hypothesis have been shown to be false.

    • The translation into braille takes a little time and he/she is possibly a little hard at hearing, try drawing a picture for him/her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *