Tom Nelson writes in a Response to Don Cheadle, some things I thought worth repeating here, because it succinctly sums up the position of many climate skeptics.
===========================================================
(This post was written to respond to Don’s Twitter question here)
Don, off the top of my head, here are some things I believe:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
3. Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901
6. We can’t burn fossil fuels forever without running out
7. Alternative energy research is a good thing
8. Energy efficiency is a good thing
9. Destroying the environment is a bad thing
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generations
Some things I don’t believe:
11. The Earth is a more dangerous place at 61F than at 59F.
12. Carbon dioxide taxes can prevent bad weather
13. Trace CO2 causes drought
If the hard evidence supported the idea that trace CO2 is dangerous, I would be fighting very hard ON YOUR SIDE.
CO2 hysteria risks making energy less available and affordable for poor people who currently have no connection to stable grid power. Many of those people’s lives could be greatly improved by a big honkin’ coal plant instead of some solar panels and wind turbines.
=================================================================
I would add these to “Some things I don’t believe”:
14. Global warming/climate change causes severe weather (There’s no proven link.)
15. “Ocean acidification” as a claimed byproduct of increased CO2 (It is not a significant problem).
15. Michael Mann (on anything).
16. Various explanations for “the pause”:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amen to that!
Excellent. This is highly accessible stuff, and as such it would be good if it were widely disseminated. The quality of public debate over climate would thereby have an increased chance of improving by leaps and bounds.
Excellent apologetics; I wish others would write as carefully. However, the word “trace” in #13 is still waving a red flag in front of the bull. I’d change it to “increased.”
On the “Claims I don’t believe” section, you are using negatives.
Are you saying that you DON’T believe that there are NO proven links between global warming and severe weather? That is what you are saying, although that might not be what you are meaning to say.
REPLY: Clarified – Anthony
You don’t believe Michael Mann on anything?
How about in his book where he posits a negative feedback in the tropics, possibly Cane’s Pacific Thermostat, that would serve as a long-term negative feedback to global warming?
I don’t believe anything.
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Harris-Mann_Historic_Temp_Chart.jpg
MikeN says:
April 15, 2014 at 10:46 am
“If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?”
“I dunno, Mom, maybe, if the bridge was on fire or there was a 5-piece chicken nuggets down there, or something. Geeze, people jump off of bridges for lots of reasons, quit being so rigid & controlling.”
I am not convinced that 600 ppm of co2 will destroy our biosphere. On the contrary, I think it will thrive.
I suppose I should know who Don Cheadle is but to be honest I really don’t care enough to look it up. He appears at first blush to be someone who kisses statuary. Probably more than I need to know. I also wonder why people treat Twitter as if it were a conversation and not a series of poorly jotted off soundbites presented in a “Got your nose” style.
I far prefer watching the British parliament at http://www.parliamentlive.tv where considered and intelligent debate is better stated and without empty platitudes.
I utterly reject bad weather induced co2. Utter garbage with no evidence.
Co2 induced extreme weather of 1935? 1936? Bear these headlines next time you read about the weather being weird or extreme. Such claims are utter garbage as long as they are not backed up by multiple lines of peer reviewed evidence. Batshit.
I would also suggest that in the things I believe section
CO2 is a net benefit to the biosphere releasing one of the base elements in building life on this planet in a readily usable form ( there will always be winners an losers in a biosphere but I do mean NET benefit )
I’d add something about CO2 as plant food and the already positive effects of increased yields.
I would change #1 to
CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases.
And another category: “Things I believe that ‘your side’ does not believe”.
Increased CO2 levels increase plant growth.
Well said! Totally agree with everything you said, only two things I would add are:
The phrase “unprecedented” has been used by AGW supporters both in the context of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. The fact is both have been a lot higher in the past.
Anthony,
This post via JoNova recently compliments this article.
Just a few things where I’m not sure I agree.
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect – Perhaps in a closed system this is true. But we don’t live in a closed system and I think there’s 4.5 billion years of earth history saying showing CO2 levels have no effect on temperature.
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century – Any data I see supporting this is highly adjusted, with the entire upward trend due to the adjustments. I believe there was a Little Ice Age and things have warmed since then, I just can’t say with any certainty that the warming continued in the 20th century.
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901 Did they? I see lots of tide gauge data showing no rise for the past 30 years.
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generations. But at what cost to current generations? And frankly I tend to doubt we can even project exactly from where future dangers might be coming.
1. of course
2. obviously not
3. so what? what is 3-4%….get it in perspective
4. the planet recovered from the erased LIA in the 20th century, the overall trend is still down
5. 65% of tide gauges show no sea level rise or sea levels falling, satellites are tuned to convenient tide gauges the just happen to be the ones showing sea levels rising
6. that a WAG, we’ve been running out for over a century and just “discovered” the largest resources yet
7. find some that work first
8. 9. what the hell does this have to do with anything other than some warm and fuzzy crap
10. where is that video of the nut jobs beating drums in the woods when we need it
…good grief
Mooooooo. Co2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. Since the industrial revolution there has been a trace rise of this trace gas co2. Trace is the only description for it.
Ditto – Well put Tom
In addition, I believe:
* In the scientific method of testing model predictions against objective evidence.
* Upholding high scientific integrity is vitally important and is being degraded by some alarmists falling for Noble Cause Corruption.
* Objective validated and verified models with wide ranging debate to make policy. We cannot rely on global climate models for policy decisions when > 95% of 34 year predictions exceed the objective data of subsequent global temperatures.
* We need “red teams” to “kick the tires” and objectively test models against data. e.g., See The Right Climate Stuff and Climate Change Reconsidered by the Nongovernmental Panel International On Climate Change (NIPCC.)
* Earth’s climate is highly stable with natural phenomena controlling temperature within fairly narrow bounds geological range of about +/- 6 C (well above frozen and well below boiling.) (aka “negative feedback loops” – without “active” controls)
* Cold Kills. Cold waves kills far more than heat waves.
* People prosper during warm periods We are currently in a balmy interglacial period. The Roman Warm Period was much more productive than the Little Ice Age. People migrate to warmer climates when they can. e.g. from New York to Florida.
* Glaciation promises greater danger Descending into the next glaciation would be far more catastrophic than mild warming. Will we be able to generate enough warming to prevent it? Yet humans survived the last glaciation and the rapid warming to the Holocene Optimum.
* CO2 is vitally important plant food. Historically increasing CO2 has boosted agricultural and is projected to continue to do so for the next generation. e.g. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Stimulating $15 trillion in crop production
* Wise environmental stewardship must be coupled with caring for the poor. See Cornwall Alliance. e.g. Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.
I believe that much of what you believe, I believe.
lol all decontextualised reasons. They WANT people to keep the narrative decontextualised from the ice age cycles.
belief? whats wrong with knowing?
where is
‘this is an inter glacial warming period so expect warming’
‘no proof ice age cycles have ended’
‘polar ice has melted before’
‘the sea level has been higher’
‘predictions from unverified models are used to scare people’
‘the standard of science is prove predict so where are the confirmed predictions’?
etc
A couple more things I don’t believe:
17. The science is settled.
18. The debate is over.
Love Tom Nelson, but what has happened to his blog??
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
It used to be the greatest resource on the
warmingchanging planet. But no more. This month he has entered a single post [which is usually a link to another article] yesterday (the Response to Don Cheadle), and on April 8th (a single link), and on April 3. He used to put dozens of links out every day.Oh well. I know, he’s busy with other things. But I wish he’d get back to helping all of us by putting his [previously] great blog back to the way it was. Yes, like the song, the way it was. Or does anyone know of an alternative source for skeptical climate links, other than ClimateDepot? Or with a good skeptical blog roll? Thanks.
“”
I would add these to “Some things I don’t believe”:
. . ..
15. “Ocean acidification” as a claimed byproduct of increased CO2 is not a significant problem.”
“”
Do you mean “IS a significant problem.”?
You will not believe the number of Warmists who think I either have
1) special fossil fuel interests;
2) am being paid to be sceptical;
3) no children to worry about.
I have not share or interest in fossil fuels except as a consumer. No one pays me a cent to hold any view and I have 3 kids.
They simply cannot comprehend how someone can be sceptical of the IPCC’s projections and claims as well as many papers that make their way to WUWT for ‘blogger comment review’.