The End is Near for Faith in AGW

When the public learns about huge faults in the skeptic scientist accusation, combined with the faults in the IPCC, the result may send AGW into total collapse.

Guest post submitted by Russell Cook

I’m preaching to the choir here when I say appearances of people hiding AGW’s problems beg for clichés – the emperor has no clothes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here, move along. But I’m not a scientist, nor do I have a scintilla of expertise to say with any authority that the IPCC is wrong and skeptic scientists are right.

The one thing I can do is offer an ordinary citizen’s informed view of what the barrier is preventing skeptics’ viewpoints from being heard, and how that barrier can turn from the paper-thin success story it is into a cancer that has the potential to wipe out the entire ideology of AGW.

Notice that I said ‘informed view’. I watch the mainstream media, but I also read sites like this one, while a large chunk of the public does not. Therein lies the problem, as evidenced by this example: On October 12, 2007, the PBS NewsHour aired a glowing broadcast about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize, in which IPCC scientist Michael Oppenheimer offered scary scenarios rivaling those in Gore’s movie. Two days prior, a UK judge ruled there were nine errors in the movie and it could only be shown in UK schools “with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination”. Yet, I defy anybody to locate a solitary mention of this in any NewsHour broadcast.

See the problem? From my extensive digging through the NewsHour’s broadcast archives, Michael Oppenheimer has appeared on the program eight times and three other IPCC scientists have appeared there on six occasions collectively, all speaking at length about AGW with no rebuttal. How many times have skeptic scientists been allowed a similar opportunity there? Zero. Our friend Pat Michaels appeared once briefly in a taped segment to give his thoughts about ClimateGate…. four months after that event was breaking news.

The nothing to see here, move along tactic works fine as long as the bulk of the audience doesn’t know legitimate skeptic scientists exist.

The keyword is ‘legitimate’, and that’s where the barrier comes in. When a large portion of people around the world learn about global warming through Al Gore’s movie and through internet repetitions of its details, or from viral regurgitated details from anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan’s 1997 The Heat is On and 2004 Boiling Point, then the perception is there are no legitimate skeptic scientists.

The Gore / Gelbspan / internet repetitions are one-and-the-same. Skeptic scientists are accused of being in a fossil fuel-funded conspiracy to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact“, and this mimics the old tobacco industry conspiracy. Everybody remembers how well that one turned out.

The key to the whole accusation is the “reposition global warming” sentence – it’s in Gore’s movie, it’s in two of the three global warming nuisance lawsuits, and was spread out as far as the eye could see on the internet beginning largely in 1996. When I first stumbled onto the phrase in late 2009, my google searches yielded seemingly endless amounts of accusers using the phrase, though lately all of my online articles about it have ‘tainted’ the search results rather noticeably.

Here’s the big problem I found:  That accusation is based on a 1991 memo no one was allowed to see, using an out-of-context sentence, promoted by a person who was not a Pulitzer winner despite accolades to the contrary, who was credited with finding the memo by Al Gore, but Gore had the memo collection in his own possession four years earlier.

And just days ago, Gore mysteriously contradicts himself again in Rolling Stone about who found the memo. He also slams the mainstream media, who’ve been largely responsible for creating and maintaining the barrier keeping the public unaware about skeptic scientists. But, that’s a rather old ruse to to prompt left-leaning journalists to say to themselves, “I’m not going to be duped into diluting the importance of this issue by giving equal time to skeptic scientists”. None of the current media people are insulted because they say, “I’m not that guy.” It’s been a very clever tactic, of course dependent on reporters intuitively knowing all skeptic scientists must be accepting fossil fuel money. Seventeen+ months of research on this allows me to point out these problems in my latest article, “Pt II: Is Gore’s Accusation of Skeptic Climate Scientists Still a Hoax?

The thing to consider here is that AGW promoters absolutely, positively do not want to see the kind of debate that occurred at last November’s US House testimony between Richard Lindzen and Ralph Cicerone. Otherwise, it becomes abundantly obvious that Lindzen’s level of expertise is not something that would be paid for and pre-scripted in an Exxon conference room. And most critical of all, no reporter must ask in response to such an accusation, “There is proof that he’s literally paid to make that stuff up, right?”

Their mantra is ‘settled science’ / ‘corrupt skeptics’ / ‘the media dilutes the issue by talking to skeptics’. This only works when there is faith in that whole system, as in the US investment banks circa 2007 and Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme.

Wipe out the faith in this mantra and what happens?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bob Diaz

To me, it seems that the AGW believers can keep going and going on. Mostly because the media is withholding the key information from the public.
There’s just too much invested in this scam to give up now. As long as the lies keep coming forth, they can maximize their deception.
We could have massive amounts of snow in Southern California in the middle of summer and the believers will still pump out the same AGW myth.

Arn Riewe

It’s an interesting day at WUWT. Just after I posted a link to Walter Russell Meade under the last post on Tim Wirth, up pops this post focusing on Al Gore, an even more relevant topic to the blog by Meade, ‘The Failure of Al Gore: Part One”.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/
It’s a sad thing to watch as CAGW gasps for it’s last breath.

It really does not matter who paid for the work.
IS THE SCIENCE VALID?
ARE THE FACTS VALID?
The bearer of the tidings is irrelevant.
Those who do not know science like to rely on the level of trust they have in the bearer, but we also have to have some honest, independent scientists to vet the tidings. Our big problem is that we have few scientists at the moment that the government respects and has not tainted. Thus, our skeptical scientists would be the best checkers.
It’s a fallacy that skeptics are funded by big oil. First, the vast majority are not and, second, big oil does not oppose carbon regulation. They stand to profit hugely from carbon controls; it is only the warmist bedwetters who would like us to think that big oil is against controls as the warmists, in their small-brained thinking, assume big oil is not smart enough to thrive in any environment.

DesertYote

All well and good, but the issue is not about AGW. The media promotes AGW because it aids in advancing their Marxist agenda, not because they actually believe the junk science.

chemman

Arn Riewe says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:11 am
——————————–
I read the entire article earlier today. It really doesn’t take AGW to task. It appears to be a rehab attempt on Al Gores character for being a hypocrite by one elite covering for another elite.

G. Karst

I’m sorry, but I have read this post twice and I am still confused, as to subject, conclusions, and content. I am not, even sure, who is writing? Anthony or guest Russell Cook? Maybe, one of the sharper readers can help this old man out? GK

Laurie Bowen

I would only have two questions for AL GORE . . . . at least for now!
1. Have “Season” change, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Floods, Droughts, Tsunamis, Tornado’s, Hurricanes, Blizzards, Mudslides, and even Asteroids . . . have been a matter of living or dying since time began?
2. Is Man’s “behavior” responsible for them?
And after that . . . I would axk! Do you think there was ever a garden of Eden on this earth?
Ya, reckon he would give you a direct answer? That’s all I have to say . . for now!

Jeff B.

The big problem with everything right now is the media’s outright lies and omissions. Were it not for their cover, many other scams would be exposed. “Journalists” are the lowest of the low. Right up there with rapists and murderers with the impact they create on their fellow man. The central focus should be on discrediting the mainstream media altogether. Fix that and everything else gets fixed automatically.

CRS, Dr.P.H.

Once out of office, he (Gore) assumed the leadership of the global green movement, steering that movement into a tsunami of defeat that, when the debris is finally cleared away, will loom as one of the greatest failures of civil society in all time.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/
*sigh* I wish I had written that! Lovely prose!

rbateman

Things that challenge the AGW Mantra that are not controlled by the Media or the Agendists:
1.) Cooling weather/longer winters – claiming AGW causes this is stupid squared, and everyone knows it.
2.) Recent findings about the Sun – fresh science that interrupts the AGW monotonic broadcast
3.) Overexposure by the Media of Alarmist claims coming from AGW proponents that crumble to uncertainty when questioned. It’s getting rather obvious that a lot of them don’t really believe what they are claiming, and much easier to see that they are being paid to take a side.
4.) Skeptics with a long history of being in their fields are getting some air time, and the public loves when the story gets a fresh look.
5.) AGW is getting moldy, and it’s starting to stink.

rbateman

Oh, and one more thing…(heh heh heh) Mr. Gore…
We checked out your alibi on rising sea levels….seems you made a mistake on your timing.
It’s a rerun.

Also from “The Failure of Al Gore: Part One”
“Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch. …”

re: big oil, GE, etc.
Don’t know of a single company that fears regulation that raises their and their competitors’ prices. They lobby for it (and given a near fixed rate-of-return, a price increase helps all but the customer). The only thing business fears is unfettered competition – where all their past laziness (and corruption) is exposed – and customers again get to vote with their wallet.

P Walker

G Karst ,
I had the same problem . I think Russell is implying that if the media , or some portion therof , were to give a balanced view of climate science then people would cool on warming . Unfortunately for us , most media types support the socio-political-economic agenda that the people who push AGW endorse . In other words , it’s politically correct so the MSM follows it blindly – right or wrong .

R. Davidson

How can we say the alarmists are losing when their crap is being taught in our (Canadian) schools? My 8 year old granddaughter is brainwashed and frightened by the AGW crap.

R. Gates

Not likely. Too much solid science supports the notion that the huge increase in CO2 since the 1700’s is affecting earth’s climate. More likely that skeptics to this will slowly find something else to rally against as the evidence to changes in earth’s natural systems continue to mount.

rbateman

People have a nasty habit of remembering what you said, especially when it turns out you were wrong.
The BS detector is then in the ‘on’ position.
In thier minds, they start to consider what Gore is: another politician with an axe to grind and he wants to do it on your nickle.
Now, who was the politician who, just last week, was caught on tape and forced out?
Darn, the name escapes me, something about “Oscar”, or was it “Meier”. Rats.
Gosh, you don’t think ‘they’ would toss thier #1 Attack Dog Advocate under the Bus, do you? Gulp.

bjedwards

Another day, another conspiracy theory.

@R. Gates
Your “solid science” needs to be scraped off your shoes – from the stench, I’m assuming you been stepping in it for years…

Theo Goodwin

R. Davidson says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“How can we say the alarmists are losing when their crap is being taught in our (Canadian) schools? My 8 year old granddaughter is brainwashed and frightened by the AGW crap.”
Yes, the government unions and time-servers in the US are indoctrinating our children too. Fortunately, we have a strong home schooling movement and strong religious school infrastructure. The answer to this problem is less government, less public schooling.

Kev-in-Uk

Those like R Gates – who with their dogmatic mantra and ‘faith’ in the concensus – should be ignored.
To be perfectly honest, if I had my way, when CAGW is finally dead – all those who followed the dogma (note I do not say those that ‘promoted it’ – see later) should be put on an island somewhere with a few matches and nothing but trees! We’ll then see how serious their green credentials pan out after eating sushi for a few months! LOL
As for the actual alarmist peddling, fraudulant and false reporting scientists – they should simply be banned from working in science ever again – stripped of all their assets, and forced to live in the same way as the general population that their work and the impositionof CO2 reductions would have so badly affected. i.e. in total energy poverty, preferably in somewhere nice and cold !
There is of course another group of scientists – those that I’ll call the bandwagon bunch. Those who added ‘global warming’ to every funding request!! They should simply be jailed (IMHO) as it’s not even entrepreneurial – it’s robbing us as taxpayers! They are no better than common thieves or pickpockets!
I’d also like to shoot all the politicians that acted so irresponsibly, injumping on the votewinner green bandwagon – but the trouble with that is that there will simply be a shedload more the lying cheating bar stewards to replace them! (No offence to Bar stewards by the way – you know what I mean!) – so perhaps, we should just install all the politicians on an iceberg – that way, as it melts, they can leave out their fantasy of ‘global warming’ !

Beesaman

Also the reason that Mann et al continue is that it gives them power and influence, something they would never have had in normal circumstances. Now they have that power and influence they will do everything to keep it. Change peer review procedures, deny access to information, deny positions to sceptical scientists, attach themselves to idealogies that no neutral scientist would consider academically healthy, buy in media bloggers to shout down reasonable debate, create scare stories, that MSN lap up, to try to panic citizens, foster the myth of the bad sceptical science (when in truth all science should support scepticism as a healthy point of argument) and so on…….

Beesaman

Sorry spelling mistakes mainly due to lack of glasses, left both pairs in uni and can’t be bothered to go in till Monday for them so enjoying life as a blur, either that or get longer arms…….

Latitude

LOL @ Gates….
the science is so solid you’re still here trying to push it………………….
HUGE increase
40% increase
.028 to .039
There is nothing on the face of this planet that could even tell…………………..

Hugh Pepper

Wouldn’t it be far more appropriate to make a documented case, if you really are convinced that you have a valid point to make. There is an accepted process which you and other “skeptics” are able to join, if you so choose. If you have well researched evidence to support your case, present it. This is how knowledge is advanced, and how credibility is achieved. Our knowledge of the climate has been developed as a result of the efforts of thousands of researchers from all over the planet. You are free to contribute to this process, directly by doing your own research or, indirectly, by supporting the work of other researchers.

u.k.(us)

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Not likely. Too much solid science supports the notion that the huge increase in CO2 since the 1700′s is affecting earth’s climate. More likely that skeptics to this will slowly find something else to rally against as the evidence to changes in earth’s natural systems continue to mount.
====
The current rally is against uninformed opinions driving economies.
First things first.

The way I see it is that the problem of children’s ignorance is the teachers themselves. They have been infected by this awful scam. Teachers, per se, are not renowned for their original thinking.

I see that BJ Edwards has invaded the WUWT site.
I would like to warn everyone that this troll has battled with the likes of Delingpole (of the UK Daily Telegraph), and lost. He/she is now attempting to infriltrate our most illustrious message board.
Take care in what you say!

Dan in California

It is no secret that the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia (home of Phil Jones) was founded with money from British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. Even Wikipedia’s history of CRU includes that. It’s a strange world indeed that the AGW enthusiasts are in fact funded by Big Oil and that’s OK, but the skeptics are vilified by the cries of tainted funding.

This is what the BBC wrote apparently in response to a complaint recently from a UK MEP (Member of the European Parliament) :
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/06/flying-porkies.html
“Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Climate Change page on the BBC’s Weather website. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that in terms of impartiality, the BBC has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”
This is the BBC that used to make superb science programs like Horizon which even at age 8 I would stay up and watch even though it was past bedtime 🙂 And now that same series was given to Paul Nurse’s recent shameful program.
My own position is “undecided”, I suppose lukewarmer ? – certainly of the opinion that its not worth billions of my tax £s spending on it. The lack of coverage of the debate though means I visit places like this to get an even handed balanced exposure to the debate – which in turn may lead me to be more skeptical.
What I would like is for the BBC to restore my faith – I actually DO like it as an organisation despite what others may think. What I want is an honest, open, even-handed debate exploring all arguments and all avenues. What I get though is driven by the attitude shown in the quote above.
Self-defeating nonsense.

Ross

I think the best argument against the “sceptics are funded by big oil” lie is to remind the “believers” in this lie that “big oil” is actually having difficulty in supplying customers rapidly enough and does not need to promote itself or its products at all. Propoganda is a waste of money for them.
I hardly see any adds like “go well, go Shell” – prominent in the 70’s anymore – in fact I can’t remember any recent oil adds.
How many of your neighbours picket their local gas station ? Pronably none.
People have voted with their economic decisions. As my brother once said to me in the 70’s “anyone who thinks people are going to give up their cars is nuts”
With the proliferation in vehicles and car companies I’m kinda thinking he might have been right. Even the greenies drive cars – OK they’re Prius but they still burn fuel.

rbateman

Hugh Pepper says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm
The NULL hypothesis stands. The AGW proponents hide thier formulas and refuse to debate.
Which brings us to the political arena, where the AGW proponents have made thier stand.
They will more than likely be up on charges as soon as the political winds are finished shifting the other way. Matter of time. The pols won’t save them, but will be more than eager to throw them under the bus to save thier own careers. Bet on it.

Theo Goodwin

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“Too much solid science supports the notion that the huge increase in CO2 since the 1700′s is affecting earth’s climate.”
I ask you for the 1,000,000 time: do you have some reasonably well-confirmed physical hypothesis which goes beyond Arrhenius and which enables explanation and prediction of some phenomenon that can be classified as CAGW. No such physical hypotheses means no science. You know that none exist. So, please give up this nonsense about solid science. There is none.

Mark M

Things would be better for us sceptics if only the people writing these blogs were comprehensible. I think I get the gist, but it’s not easy.
Let us take a lesson from these climate warriors – make the message clear, simple and repeated ad infinitum.

Theo Goodwin

Hugh Pepper says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“There is an accepted process which you and other “skeptics” are able to join, if you so choose. If you have well researched evidence to support your case, present it.”
Once again, Hugh Pepper, aka “the computer,” reveals that he has no clue about scientific method. Science is the critical enterprise par excellence. Some scientists propose hypotheses and all scientists criticize the hypotheses, including those who proposed them. There is no symmetry between a scientist proposing a hypothesis and a critic. Criticism based on observational evidence must be supplemented by criticism based upon logic and scientific method, something that not one pro-AGW scientist has the least inkling of, including Hugh Pepper.

rbateman

$100 Billion spent on the study of Global Warming, and what do we have to show for this vast sum?
Can’t predict an earthquake, volcano or even the weather next season with the Global Models.
The smart ones got out of boat a while back. The greedy, the arrogant and the just plain dumb sail into a cruel storm of public anger.
The end for AGW will come faster than previously imagined.

Louis

R. Gates says:
“…Too much solid science supports the notion that the huge increase in CO2 since the 1700′s is affecting earth’s climate.”
The huge increase in CO2 began in the 1700’s? Does that mean that the only way to save the planet is to turn the clock back, as far as our technology and population size is concerned, to that of the 1700’s? If that is what you want, count me out. I’ll take my chances with a little warming.

Lawrie Ayres

Hugh Pepper must be very new to the “debate” or he would know that the sceptical scientists have been battling for years to have their work published. He should know that the so called prestigeous journals will not publish papers questioning the “settled science”. Like much of the MSM they are in thrall, for whatever reasons, of the AGW hypothesis.
As rbateman points out above; the hypothesis is being falsified not by scientists but by nature itself. As the rate of emissions diverge ever more with the temperature the hypothesis is no longer sustainable. It has failed. Now the race is on to find some explanation for the temperature slowdown without referring to the sun, clouds or oceans because those have been the drivers of temperature up til now but the warmers know it’s CO2 and nothing else.
The sceptics have a problem having their voices heard. The AGWers have a problem because their hypothesis has failed.

higley7 says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:18 am

It’s a fallacy that skeptics are funded by big oil. First, the vast majority are not and, second, big oil does not oppose carbon regulation. They stand to profit hugely from carbon controls; it is only the warmist bedwetters who would like us to think that big oil is against controls as the warmists, in their small-brained thinking, assume big oil is not smart enough to thrive in any environment.

I think it goes beyond simple exploitation of the subsidy river, etc. I think Big Oil, and anyone else with relevant expertise and skin in the game can conclude fairly rapidly that the “replace oil with renewables” mantra is a no-hoper fantasy. So, in a sense and to a degree, Big Oil etc. have little to lose by letting that train wreck proceed, because fossil fuels will be the de facto necessary fall-back.
But the risk is that in the process, the train wreck will harm so much of the economy that demand and infrastrucure are compromised and suppressed for decades to come. Given that there is little that Big Oil or anyone who is vulnerable to the demonization Alinsky tactic can do in the short term, it may just be that they’re keeping their powder dry. Only those like the Kock bros. who are secure enough and far-sighted enough to defy the hate-mongers can overtly oppose Greenism and Climate Pseudo-Science. Big Oil is probably re-assessing the risk factors very frequently now.
It’s on balance probably just as well that Big Oil doesn’t weigh in at this point, though the atmosphere and optics suitable for putting some real money into skeptic science is fast approaching, if the House sticks to its guns.

typo: Koch bros. I mis-spelled it phonetically, sort of.

FredK

I came across this quote the other day attributed to Georg Lichtenberg which for me sums it all up.
He writes
“The most heated defenders of a science are those who cannot endure the slightest sneer at it, are commonly those whose have not made very much progress in it and are secretly aware of this defect.”

Ex-Wx Forecaster

So many quotes apply. Here’s one:
It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.
—Will Rogers

charles nelson

R Gates.
I often find that the way something is expressed can make a difference to people’s understanding of an issue. This might help you in your confusion and anxiety.
Let’s say that we currently have 400ppm (a bit high but a nice round figure and generally acceptable to all parties) of CO2 in the Atmosphere.
Now pay attention!
400 divided by 1,000,000 then multiplied by 100 = 0.04 by my figuring that is
1/ 25th PART OF ONE PERCENT….
OK, once again let’s be generous…let’s say that the amount of CO2 has increased in the modern era by 100ppm.
100 divided by 1,000,000 then multiplied by 100 = 0.01 or
ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF ONE PERCENT.
Now maybe, just maybe, if you were to conduct an experiment in a sealed black box in a top laboratory; you ‘might’ just be able to detect a change in the infra red absorbption characteristics of the ‘modified atmosphere’.
But in an open system, such as our planet, where conduction, radiation, and convection are free to take place, where the average temperature at 300hPa is between -30 and -60 degrees C…
where the Arctic and Antarctic regions are in frigid darkness for three months of the year, and where ocean currents can transport heat thousands of miles….
…a change in atmospheric composition of ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF ONE PERCENT is….
I’m hunting for the right word here….NEGLIBIBLE.
(by the way 300hPa is the air pressure at the cruising height of airliners. That turbulence you experience is the earth’s natural cooling system at work.)
Now R Gates does that make you feel any better?
No? …Tsk, you know I didn’t think it would!

Myrrh

Big oil and Maggie created CRU, against coal. Coal is abundant practically everywhere and cheap resource. Accusing ‘skeptics’ of being funded by big oil is propaganda deflection to avoid scrutiny of their interests. The clever bit came when this combination roped in the greens to push their agenda for them, and they’ve been easy enough to keep distracted.

charles nelson says: June 25, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“Now maybe, just maybe, if you were to conduct an experiment in a sealed black box in a top laboratory; you ‘might’ just be able to detect a change in the infra red absorbption characteristics of the ‘modified atmosphere’.”

No such experiment needed. Just look at the Earth’s outgoing IR spectrum. The top graph. See the big chunk missing around 600-700 cm^-1? That’s what trace GHG’s do. It isn’t minor.

Richard Hill

Not only R. Gates but also the APS, AAAS, AMS, NAS, Royal Soc, CSIRO,,, and most, if not all, scientific/technical representative bodies have official positions recognising the science behind global warming.
The MSM would be at fault if they ignored these authorities and followed a few bloggers instead.
The commenters here at WUWT would be better advised to put their efforts into convincing these representative bodies to change rather than mouthing off at poor old R. Gates and the MSM. Many WUWT commenters are members of professional bodies. Are the WUWT commenters making an effort to influence their own professional body?

Jeff Hare

Why has no-one explained the ‘Keeling’ graph relationship to the ‘UAH’ satellite measurement of average global temperature??
With a constant increase in CO2 concentration (Keeling graph) and a varying (dip, then increase, then plateau of) average global temperature (UAH data), surely the premise that CO2 drives global temperature is debunked…

Girma

With out accelerated warming, AGW is without any scientific foundation.
The global mean temperature data shows no accelerated warming due to increase in human emission of CO2 as shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/lUQBhX
The IPCC interpreted the data by comparing the global mean temperature trend for one period that has only one warming phase with the trend for a longer period that has both a warming and cooling phases, and it then declared accelerated warming. This is fraud.
http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
The AGW scare has no scientific foundation.

Nick Stokes says:
“No such experiment needed.”
That is the mantra of the alarmist crowd. Models trump experiments in their world. Not in ours.

tolo4zero

“reposition global warming as theory rather than fact”,
And from the Alarmist side…
“ behaving as if climate change exists and is real”
From a British Think Tank
Warm Words :How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?
“To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”
http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=485