Well, now there will never be any question about whether Scripps is political or not. They even made up a graphic to go with the story here. When a prominent scientific organization allows a member to resort to name calling on an issue in an official communications on their website, it cheapens the whole organization.
This appears to be a response to John Coleman’s hour long video special. It was dated the same day as the video release, Jan 14th. Of course, when you read his website at richardsomerville.com you may come to understand that he may not be speaking for everyone there at Scripps. Here’s his page at Scripps. Perhaps the UCSD President might benefit from some communications about the use of his institute to label people with differing views on science.
A Response to Climate Change Denialism
Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:
1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.
2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.
3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.
4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.
5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned. Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.
6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.
— Robert Monroe
Jan. 14, 2010
h/t to WUWT reader Skepshaka
Did you notice something? About Richard Sommerville’s statement? His sentences? They’re all short. He’s frustrated. He’s angry. He’s old. Out of touch. And not thinking very straight. Calm down, its OK. Retire. Fish. Garden. Reminisce.
[snip – sorry, just a bit OTT]
1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science.
This is an assertion not in evidence. In fact, I assert the opposite.
2. The greenhouse effect is well understood.
Really? It is not the total water vapor which is most important (measurements show this goes up with temperature) but rather the amount of water vapor near the upper tropospheric emission level which is important. Mann and presumably Somerville assure us that they are certain that the Clauius-Clapeyron equation which dictates that water vapor increases with temperature increases applies to the upper troposphere. Too bad that observations indicate that this is not occurring. See Patlridge, et al, 2009, “Trends in Middle- and Upper-level Tropospheric Humidity from NCEP Reanalysis Data”. Without increased specific humidity above 850 hPa, the AGW hypothesis is null and void.
3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.
Arctic sea ice loss in 2007 was due to winds blowing the ice out to sea where it eventually melted. Notice that the 2009 arctic ice anomaly is back to normal. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 years. Since 1900, sea level has been rising at about 20cm per century, and hasn’t changed much recently – as seen in the graph below.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Ri…
The slope is pretty constant and has even flattened since 2006. If you want to see the big picture, look here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
Note that from 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, sea level rose about 14mm/year – which is more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year. . 8,000 years ago it was rising at four times the current rate. Wow! Using Somerville’s argument, it must have been hot! (Not)
Point 3 is a bunch of hooey.
4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.
Why would ice ages have anything to do with warming in the last half of the 20th century or the subsequent cooling in the first ten years of the 21st century? What a random comment. Regrading man-made changes in the greenhouse effect, why has it cooled in the 21th century? CO2 has gone up but temperature has not. Maybe the natural variation in the earth’s climate accounts for the changes we have witnessed. Mann’s and the rest of the AGW models cannot account for this decline in temperature.
5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.
LOL! Official science has placed its entire creditability behind AGW. How creditable will official science be when AGW collapses? Somerville, you and your colleagues have screwed the pooch. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=screwed%20the%20pooch
6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results.
And the question remains, how will these organizations ever recover their credibility after such a debacle?
((Kim.
Even for a climatologist, Somerville has revealed himself as remarkably ignorant and/or disingenuous. You pick ))
How about delusional?? Funding parasite?? The Hippies have a lot to answer for.
regards
“”” Steve Oregon (10:51:12) :
Busy people
http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people/
Board
Richard Somerville
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Dr. Somerville is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on…
Founding Board
Jane Lubchenco
Dr. Lubchenco serves as Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to her Senate confirmation in early 2009, she resigned from the Board of Climate… “””
Well the good Dr Jane Lubchenko performed a very famous experiment that is on youtube apparently; someone posted it here.
She took “ordinary tapwater”; which presumably contains the usual chlorine, fluoride, and whatever other governmnet mass medications they are doing these days, and she dyed it blue with “a common laboratory blue dye”.
Next she chilled it down by adding big chunks of dry ice; which bubbled furiously from the bottom of the cylinder. This chilling changed the “common laboratory blue dye” to a “common laboratory yellow dye.”
It was a demonstration which she said showed how coral reefs, and shell fish can be harmed by CO2 in the atmosphere.
The obvious conclusion from her experiment is that corals and shellfish cannot suvive in “ordinary tap water” that is chilled with “dry ice”, and dyed yellow, with “a common yellow laboratory dye” but that presumabbly they can survive in “ordinary tap water” that is dyed blue with “a common laboratory blue dye” at room temperature.
Way to go Dr Jane; you are a flippin teaching genius. I could suggest some improvements in your experiment. First of all, instead of using “a common laboratory blue dye”, try using something like an Aniline blue dye which is somewhat more color fast, and doesn’t change color when you chill it.
Then instead of using “ordinary tap water” in your experiment; which might vary from municipality to municipality, I would import some much more ordinary water (by orders of magnitude) from Australia, and get it from the Great Barrier Reef, where it has actually been observed that corals and shellfish, can in fact survive and prosper. I have never actually found any real corals growing in “ordinary tap water” but I have actually caught real live shell fish in something quite close to “ordinary tap water, namely the water in the Sacramento/San Joachin river delta system. One day there, while fishing with my son for striped bass, with flies, we found a spot with some nice bass on it, but then I made 23 casts to a particular area, and on 21 out of those 23 casts, I actually caught 21 live clams; each of which had actually grabbed my 4 inch long Clouser Minnow Fly, and had the hook point right inside its shell. Agressive little buggers they were about an inch in diameter, and they really smacked that fly hard.
So I know that shellfish will grow in “ordinary fresh water”, but I am not sure about the “ordinary tap water” with chlorine and fluoride in it.
But Dr Jane, if you saqy it is true; I believe you, because aren’t you an oceanographer or something?
Reaching far, far back into my memory, I remember the old science fiction mag Analog. The basic thesis of the mag was to take a possible and then run with it to see what the results were. Not a lot of BEM stories. In addition to the stories, the mag would actually run some scientific content every issue. One of the issues ran a article on the greenhouse effect and how it was possible to construct a greenhouse to a reasonable degree using materials (salt comes to mind, and sodium chloride is transparent in the infra-red) the greenhouse effect had nothing to do with the absorption. Heat was absorbed during the day and then radiated out in the infra-red. However, since there was no convection because of the enclosure, the interior remained warmer than the exterior by a reasonable degree.
Not to say that CO2 does not effect things as a minor forcing, but the “greenhouse effect” as commonly enunciated has more to do with atmospheric convection than it does with molecular absorption.
Here’s one more to add to the list offered above by Harry: CFCs, One such unknown, CFCs, has recently been indicted. (See below.) The case the author makes is at least as persuasive as the case against CO2. It most definitely establishes that the science is NOT settled.
“The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.”
Well then, it must have been the warming from CO2 that helped creat the conditions for life on this planet instead of the sun. Statements like this from people with such credentials really reinforces my belief that an education doesn’t equal intelligence in many cases. (No dissrespect to the many educated and intellegent folks here.)
I just got Robert Monroe on the phone (the guy whose name is at the bottom of the announcement) and asked him what was meant by denialist and whether it had something to do with Holocaust denialism. His definition was that it was someone who denies a point of view irrespective of the evidence presented. So then I asked if thats what they were doing by denying the skeptic viewpoint. he seems to think its not. i then told him that many skeptics find the term denialist insulting since it associates us with Holocaust deniers. Instead we should respect each others points of views and be respectful. He seemed to agree.
Overall he was receptive to conversation, so if you guys want to call him he might be willing to reconsider the use of the terminology. His number is on the Scripps website.
Out of a sense of fairness I offer to Richard Somerville the same degree of respect he has shown to me. Richard, coincidence is not causation, and bong water shouldn’t be used to make the Kool-Aid.
Somerville isn’t a “climate scientist.” He’s a “theoretical meteorologist”… A climate modeler. He has no background in anything related to paleoclimatology (geology, geophysics, paleobotany, physical geography, oceanography, etc.). Unless someone understand how and why the climate has changed in the past, they can’t even begin to model how the climate should be changing now.
Anyone with at lease a half-decent geoscience education would know that there are enough data out there to reasonably conclude:
The Earth’s climate is relatively insensitive to atmospheric CO2 fluctuations between 200 ppmv and 7,000 ppmv. If the Earth has never before behaved as if the climate is highly sensitive to CO2 changes of a few hundred ppmv, it’s unlikely to be doing so now (no matter how many times some physicists say “Stefan–Boltzmann”).
Phanerozoic CO2 v Temp
The Earth’s climate has been warming since about 1600 AD along with the natural progression of a ~1,470-yr solar-driven climate cycle…
Moberg
The 1,470-yr cycle is painfully obvious in ice cores…
GISP2
The warming from 1976-1978 to 2003-2007 occurred when the PDO, ENSO and other decadal/multidecadal oscillations were in positive or warm modes…
PDO Phase vs HadCRUT3
There has been no global warming since at least the year 2000…
UAH LT
There are also sufficient data from fossil plant stomata question the assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels (~275 ppmv) to ~388 ppmv today was unusual or even primarily anthropogenic…
SI vs MLO & Ice Core
His use of the phrase “climate change denialists” is prima facie evidence of his cluelessness. Michael Mann very annoyingly used a similar phrase (“climate science deniers”) in his idiotic letter the the Wall Street Journal.
No one is denying “climate change” or “climate science.” However the science of the role that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions play in climate change is just about as unsettled as science can be.
However the fact that in 1998, Jimbo Hansen accurately predicted the growth in atmospheric CO2 over the next 20 years…
Hansen’s CO2 Model
And then the actual warming was less than that which Hansen predicted for a world in which anthropogenic carbon emissions ceased after the year 2000…
Hansen’s Model vs UAH
Might just be a CLUE that the climate modelers lack a sufficient understanding of how the climate works in order to accurately model it.
I would ask Dr. Somerville what John Isaacs would think of his comments? Surely there is some shame left in climate science.
Isaacs was one of the great men of oceanography, professor at Scripps and until his death the Director of IMR (UC San Diego). Isaacs despised academics who would distort science to achieve academic funding. Isaacs was perhaps the last of his breed- a man who could rise to high rank without a Ph.D and perhaps Ph.Ds are why we have no more John Isaacs.
A great (and typical) Isaacs’s quote:
“I have much greater faith in simple observations and untrammeled
thinking than I have in sophisticated observations and simplistic thinking!”
SIO is ground zero for the modern concern that elevated CO2 emissions would result in global warming. Austrian Geochemist and nuclear scientists Hans Suess, was hired in 1955 by Roger Revelle to study C14 in atmospheric CO2 both as a consequence of atomic bomb tests and to study how it cycled into the deep ocean as a means to figure out the age of the oceans – the latter in response to the International Geophysical Year (1957). The atmospheric studies led Suess and Revelle to speculate that humanity was carrying out a global geophysical experiment through the carbon dioxide emissions linked to industry and the modern lifestyle. They saw implications for AGW, a concern which Revelle pursued in further studies. A good history can be found at
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm
Yup, AGW is DEFINITELY a CULT.
There can really be no other logical explanation.
P Gosselin (09:59:50) :
Somerville was one of the warmists who participated in the NPR IQ² debate in 2007 with gavin and eckwurzel against stott. lindzen ans crichton. Somerville & Co. got their clocks cleaned in short order. He’s another distinguished climate loser that can be simply ignored.
_______________________________________________________________________
Good recall, PG!
[URL]http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20938/Climate_Realists_Beat_Alarmists_in_New_York_Debate.html[/URL]
“Somerville, speaking next, immediately backpedaled from any notion that he believed global warming was alarming or catastrophic.
“The motion before us, global warming is not a crisis, means we ought to know what crisis means,” Somerville stated. “The word does not mean catastrophe or alarmism. It means a crucial or decisive moment, a turning point, a state of affairs in which a decisive change for better or worse is imminent.”
Somerville then asserted, “the science community today has impeccable settled science … that demonstrates the reality of global warming and its primary origin in human activities. … We also have powerful tools to project many aspects of the future climate with considerable confidence.”
Global warming “contrarians,” argued Somerville, are like people who argue HIV does not cause AIDS and that continental drift is mere fantasy. Responding to the reality that Galileo and Einstein were similarly viewed as contrarians in their time, he said, “An occasional Galileo does come along or an Einstein. Not often. Most people who think they’re a Galileo are just wrong.”
Finishing his remarks, Somerville asserted the scientific community is in near-universal agreement that human-induced global warming is intensifying and is causing a litany of climate crises, such as rapid sea level rise, more frequent and severe tropical storms, and receding ice caps.
“None of these observational facts is a surprise to the science community,” Somerville claimed. “They are what we had predicted.”
Riiiight.
To throw his own words back at him.
“3. Our climate predictions are coming true…. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.”
So, if their predictions are coming true, how come he claims the ice melt is “happening faster than the anticipated worst case”. So their predictions are too conservative?
“Sam the Skeptic (10:19:52) :
This has to be the weirdest piece of writing ever to come out of what I was led to believe was a reputable scientific institution.
Richard de Sousa sums it up succinctly [though quoting the recent European weather as an argument does not help – PLEASE, weather is not climate!].”
Agreed, but this “weather” is signaling a change from a warm cycle to a cold cycle and it has to start somewhere. I say it started several years ago and will get worse.
in point 4, Somerville seems to be saying that if climate change happens quickly, it must be manmade. Britain descended into the Little Ice Age over just 20 years. So how did the tiny, not burning much fossil fuel late Middle Age population cause climate change? But of course, I’m forgetting – LIA never happened!
Now why didn’t he just tell us this years ago?? Think of all the time that’s been waisted with all this silly science stuff. Everyone can just go home now and take up gardening or something.
Ok AdderW
I just have to respond to this:
“Some people (old professors and the like) should stop spreading their “scientific drible” after a certain age. It seems that they stagnate and are unable to absorb new knowledge after a while and just get embarrasing as they regurgitate ancient knowledge as if cast in stone.”
This is just ageist, unfounded and unkind and demands a response.
There have been many disparaging comments by warmists and the MSM that skeptics are all old, retired and out of touch. Many are, in fact, in retirement or at the end of their careers but they are in no way out of touch with science. The warmists and MSM know very well why this is but refuse to say it. It’s simply that this demographic is secure enough finanacially and have established reputations so they can speak out without fear of reprisals, which we know about all too well from the CRU e-mails.
One of the reason that there has been an appropriate skeptical response in the scientific community to AGW in the face of this overwhelming unholy alliance of Big Green and Big Appropriations Science is because there are these experienced, reputable senior scientists who are, both willing to speak out and, in a secure retirement position to do so. These people include principled people like Roger Pielke Sr. and Steve McIntyre and many, many others.
I’m sorry that your supervisor was so difficult. I know from experiences of some of my friends what a problem that can be. I was lucky. My supervisor was an outstanding Physicist of international renown. He passed away just one year ago. I never discussed climate with him but I know very well what he would have said to me if I said I’d built a climate computer model that trumped the data.
“MJK (10:20:21) :
Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers refusing to accept that any warming has taken place –often resorting to juvenile arguments that a couple of cold weeks in the U.S and Europe prove global warming to be false. Note Henry Chance above now goes as far to use a rainy day in California to support his denialist stance. He is not alone. Earlier this week it was a snowy day in the Australian alps that had everyone talking. Such comments (while getting alot of airtime at the moment) are very damaging to the cause of legitimate sceptics who have a valid claim that we need to investigate the claims surrounding AGW more closely.”
Unfortunately true. As the comments grow here, the more they’re devolving into petty politically jeering. I’ve pointed out before the way forward is not to drive a wedge between the political extremes but to occupy the middle ground and bump the warmists to the far left and the denialists to the far right.
ClimateGate is the paradox. It’s been seized upon as proof that the climate record has been corrupted, with the implication that there’s been no warming. This has somehow been extrapolated to suggest the entire climate circus is part of a single conspiracy.
More likely the planet has warmed somewhat and we should until proven otherwise just accept that. Real skeptics should now be asking whether the warming is a continuing trend, to what extend we play a part, and whether it’s feasible to try to reverse it.
Why is the Somerville article dated July 12, 2006?
“It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.”
That is the part that gets me. If AGW is just some baseless cult, then it is an awfully big cult.
As a geologist, I took special offense from Somerville’s item #4, wherein he stated:
“For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.”
Recently, a paleobotanist studied some alpine soils in the Alps and found, to her amazement, that the switch from temperate-climate pollen to glacial-type pollen took only 3 years!
This was corroborated by another researcher that studied some lake sediments in England and found that the switch from a warm, interglacial regime to a glacial regime took as LITTLE AS 4 MONTHS!!
In light of these OBSERVATIONS, it is completely absurd that Mr. Somerville would make statements that assert transitions from interglacial to glacial epochs are “slow-acting processes”. Last time I did the math, both a three-year and a four-month time span are much shorter than “a few decades”.
In fact, it is the next Glacial Epoch I fear more than anything the earth faces, except perhaps a planet-killing asteroid strike.
Certainly these are just a couple of examples indicating Somerville is woefully uninformed, and yet he has the audacity to use his vaunted position to spread disinformation.
No other explanation than a cult.
Okay, I wrote Somerville this e-mail
“1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm.” Assertion
“This is solid settled science.” Assertion.
“The world is warming.” It has for half of it’s 4.5 billion year history.
“There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more.” So it warmed until 98. So what. Proof of warming is not proof of AGW.
“Human activities are the main cause.” Assertion.
“The warming is not natural.” Assertion.
“It is not due to the sun, for example.” Assertion.
“We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide” False assertion. We cannot measure the feedback.
“and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.” False assertion. We don’t know that TSI is the only solar effect. Showing that it is not TSI is not showing that it is not the sun. Showing that it is not the sun is not the same as showing it is not natural variation.
“2. The greenhouse effect is well understood.” False assertion. Climate feedback is part of the effect and it is very poorly understood.
“It is as real as gravity.” False assertion.
“The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old.” Irrelevant.
“Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat.” Irrelevant. It is the feedback that is the basis for dispute.
“We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it.” So what?
“ We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.” So what?
“3. Our climate predictions are coming true.” False assertion.
“Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes.” False assertion. They are happening at the low end of the predicted changes.
“Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case.” False assertion. 2007 is weather, not climate.
“Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable.” Unsupportable speculation.
“Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.” Unsupportable speculation.
“4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over.” False assertion.
“The refutations are on many web sites and in many books.” The sources for false refutations is irrelevant.
“For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming.” Straw man.
“We know why ice ages come and go.” Assertion.
“That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years.” Assertion.
“The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes.” Misleading. Implies that slow acting causes are the only things available. Error in your logic to say that if you eliminate one cause you have eliminated them all.
“But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.” Assertion.
“5. Science has its own high standards.” We’ve seen them from climate gate, the IPCC glacier melting projections, and the IPCC use of Wiki graphs.
“It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.” It works by people cherry picking climate proxies and using them upside down.
“It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals.” Carefully reviewed by friends who never seem to find the errors.
“Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it.” False assertion. Only friendly scientists are given the data necessary to reproduce the research. Then the research is reproduced by a cabal that is coordinating their efforts.
“Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned.” Which is why we have a 10 to 1 variance in climate sensitivity estimates.
“Science is self-correcting.” Given enough time.
“People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science.” Like the IPCC when they miss glacier melting projections by 315 years. Like Briffa when he uses proxie samples that are too small for his methods. Like Mann when he cherry picks proxy records to suite his needs.
“When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.” When you claim that logic and reason work differently for different professions, you are just plain wrong.
“6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results.” Simple lie. They were endorsed by a small committee from those organizations who did nothing at all to determine the their truth.
“It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.” Straw man.
“ The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it” Illogical argument from authority.