Note – this will be pinned as a top post for a few days. Other posts will appear below this one.
UPDATE: Josh weighs in with a Friday Funny.
UPDATE2: McKibben has a Forrest Gump moment with his latest propaganda video
I’m doing something I’ve never done before, I’m asking every reader of WUWT to write a letter to the editor this weekend. I don’t take this step lightly, but given what I’ve observed the last few days, I think it is time to stir the power of our collective WUWT community for the common good.
Readers may recall the debunkings I regularly put forth any time paid activists like Bill McKibben, Joe Romm, David Suzuki, or Brad Johnson (and others) try to make claims that human induced climate change is making our daily weather “more extreme”. You know and I know that this is “garbage science” (even worse than “junk science”) because it is an attempt to twist science to strike fear over climate into the hearts of the average citizen. It is an act of desperation, rooted in the fact that the modeled warming scenarios described by the scientist activist high priest of the global warming movement Dr. James Hansen, just have not come to pass. Climate feedbacks don’t seem to be strong, climate sensitivity doesn’t seem to be high, there’s been no statistically significant warming in the last decade, and thus the only thing left is to blame bouts of normally occurring severe weather on climate change. The level of thinking sophistication here isn’t much different from blaming witches for bad weather in medieval times, but the sophistication of telegraphing this message to the weak-minded is far more sophisticated than in those days.
And, yesterday, we saw a message similar to calls made during those dark times “she’s a witch, BURN her!” in Steve Zwick’s rant on Forbes.com where he says:
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. … They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?
The level of delusional fail here is off the scale. If this were an isolated incident, we could simply laugh it off as the hateful rantings of a person afflicted with climate derangement syndrome. But there’s more.
Yesterday, it entered my children’s school (see below), and this week, we saw a survey on “extreme weather” conducted by Yale, use a phrase in the press release that is straight out of a propagandist organization, Bill McKibben’s 350.org. The heat is on to make climate all about the weather for propaganda purposes, and there’s no data to support it. It is a lie of global proportions. We need to step up. Here’s what I found in my children’s school yesterday:
At my children’s school yesterday, they had a book fair. In that book fair was this display from the publisher of a new book INsiders – Extreme Weather.
Of course you know what book I picked up to look at first, and it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this (I highlighted the relevant part digitally):
“Some scientists”? I think the author really meant “some activists”.
To be fair, there are some very good sections of the book well rooted in science, for example this one on lightning:
I know the author, H. Michael Mogil, who is well rooted in science, and who is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. I can’t imagine him fully signing off on the climate=severe weather idea as McKibben et al put it. But, I think there was pressure from publishers to include the section on climate linkage, and I think he hedged his statement as best he could. My point is that is it beginning to pervade children’s books.
Also this week we had this poll released from Yale University, which got a ton of press thanks to it being carried in the Associated Press. It even made my own local newspaper.
The poll itself is a logical fallacy, with sloppy questions like this one:
I give it a thorough debunking here with a strong emphasis on the reporting bias introduced by our technologically saturated society. Anyone with a cellphone can report severe weather now and within minutes it can be known worldwide.
Here’s a quote from the lead author that was carried in news stories, bold mine:
“Most people in the country are looking at everything that’s happened; it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll. “People are starting to connect the dots.”
At the time, I didn’t note the significance of the “connect the dots” meme, but one of our sharp WUWT readers pointed out that this is the new catchphrase of Bill McKibben’s 350.org movement.
In tips and notes this morning, Nick Ryan confirmed this for me with this letter from McKibben he posted.
Subject: Good news.
From: organizers@350.org
To: nick_ryan@xxxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:57:30 +0000
Dear friends,
Good news this time.
At some point every one of us at 350 has thought to ourselves a little despairingly: is the world ever going to catch on to climate change? Today is one of those days when it feels like it just might happen.
A story on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times described a new poll — Americans in record numbers are understanding that the planet is warming because they’re seeing the “freaky” weather that comes with climate change.
And the story ends by describing the next step in this process: May 5, the giant Connect the Dots day that people are joining all around the globe: http://www.ClimateDots.org
When the zeitgeist conspires to help our efforts, we need to make the most of it. Two weeks is plenty of time to organize a beautiful photo for May 5, one that will help spread this idea. Are you in a place where flood and rain have caused havoc? Ten people with umbrellas can make a memorable “climate dot” for all the world to see. You’ll think of something appropriate for your place — and you can find lots of examples and ideas here.
This movement is growing quickly, and with not a moment to spare — new data from scientists like Jim Hansen at NASA shows that our carbon emissions have already made extreme weather many times more likely. We can’t take back the carbon we’ve already poured into the atmosphere, but if we work together hard and fast then we can keep it from getting steadily worse.
Earth Day is coming up this weekend, and there will be thousands of events across the US. Each one of them is a great place to spread the word about the big day of action on 5/5. When you’re on the front page of the Times it’s a sign that the message is starting to get through — but only one American in 300 reads that newspaper. Now it’s up to all of us to make sure that everyone around the world gets the message, and Connect the Dots day on 5/5 is our best chance to do that. Please join us.
Onwards,
Bill McKibben for 350.org
P.S. It is key to remember that these photos from May 5 are not just for their effect on that day. We need a bank of images showing the human face of global warming — pictures we’ll use for the hard and direct political work of the next few years. If people don’t know there’s a problem, they won’t try to solve it. So let’s show them on 5/5. Here’s a heartbreaking example, from some local activists in Texas:
Climate Activists in Texas
Clearly, due to the timing and the reference he made to “People are starting to connect the dots.”, the poll conducted by Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University is just a tool that is connected to this 350.org “climatedots.org” campaign, it isn’t science, it is blatant advocacy disguised as science of the brand Dr. James Hansen practices.
So looking at what is going in total this week, I think it is time for us to exercise our own rights to free speech, and thus I’m asking WUWT readers to write letters to the editor to your local newspapers and magazines to counter what will surely be a blitz of advocacy in the coming days.
This tactic is used by these NGO’s so there is nothing wrong with it. It is free speech in the finest American tradition. There is one hitch though, and that’s the newspaper editors back-channel.
You see, one of the perks of being a journalist in the TV and radio news business is that I’m privy to how things work. In print media, editors have established a back-channel to alert each other of potential letter writing campaigns, such as those form letters like we see from “Forecast the Facts”.
The key is to make this your own letter, in your own words. While I can suggest topics, the letters need to be written in your own words for them to be accepted.
You can start here with this essay, and draw from it.
Warren Meyer made some excellent points yesterday in his Zwick rebuttal at Forbes:
A Vivid Reminder of How The Climate Debate is Broken
I really liked this part, which speaks to reporting bias (like we have with severe weather):
In the summer of 2001, a little boy in Mississippi lost an arm in a shark attack. The media went absolutely crazy. For weeks and months they highlighted every shark attack on the evening news. They ran aerial footage of sharks in the water near beaches. They coined the term “Summer of the Shark.” According to Wikipedia, shark attacks were the number three story, in terms of network news time dedicated, of the summer.
Bombarded by such coverage, most Americans responded to polls by saying they were concerned about the uptick in shark attacks. In fact, there were actually about 10% fewer shark attacks in 2001 than in 2000. Our perceptions were severely biased by the coverage.
How to write a letter:
1. Go to your local newspaper website, locate the guidelines for letters to the editor. Typical letter policies limit letters to 200-250 words.
2. Do your research, craft your letter carefully. Cite facts, cite statistics such as I offer on WUWT. Use your own words, don’t quote me, though quoting people like Professor Grady Dixon “…it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes” is fine.
3. [added] Readers are submitting content ideas in comments, have a look at those. Fr example Steve E. writes: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s posting on the IPCC SREX Report, “A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change” here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html is also a good source for letter content.
4. Send it, being mindful of length and guidelines.
Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since CO2 supposedly acts like a blanket the storms should get less violent !
Thermodynamics tells us that wind speed is proportional to temperature difference not absolute temperature.
DR says:
April 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm
“Sure Eric, it’s never happened before…
http://www.real-science.com/climate-liars-work-wikipedia-npr”
A hundred year flood is an impressive event. This map shows that a large number of locations received a once in a hundred year event from Virginia to Vermont.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/27/us/preparations-for-hurricane-irene-and-reports-of-damage.html
If some reporter misspoke and said it was the biggest rainstorm in centuries and was incorrect, so what?. It doesn’t prove that this was insignificant.
The statistics show that there has been a trend in the Northeast to bigger rainstorms and the models indicate that this trend is going to intensify. The government of my state is prudent for to design bridges and culverts to handle what is to come.
Netdr says:
April 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm
“Since CO2 supposedly acts like a blanket the storms should get less violent !
Thermodynamics tells us that wind speed is proportional to temperature difference not absolute temperature.”
This is an oversimplification. Wind speed is not the whole story. What actually appears to be happening, as I pointed out above, is that the jet stream is weakening, causing weather systems to remain in place longer. This leads to more extreme weather – heat waves lasting longer, and rain events lasting longer.
Eric Adler says:
“The statistics show that there has been a trend in the Northeast…”
The issue is global warming; actually, the lack of it. The Northeast is a relatively small region, and is not indicative of what is happening globally. Which is that the planet is in a “Goldilocks” climate. We couldn’t ask for anything better.
And:
“…the models indicate… ”
“The models” indicate anything that might increase the chances of a federal grant. They have nothing to do with reality, except by chance, and the models are consistently wrong. All of them. Only credulous head-nodders believe in always-wrong computer models over the empirical evidence that routinely falsifies them.
Eric Adler says:
April 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm
The idea that average global temperatures have been flat is wrong. The year 1998 was a strong El Nino year, which made the earth’s surface temperature hot, and 2011 was a strong La Nina year which cooled the earth’s surface. The ENSO cycle is an example of an internal variable which creates a lot of noise in the earth’s surface temperature. Eliminating the effects of internal variables shows that the underlying trend of the earth’s surface temperature is warming. This is shown by all of the major indices of the earths temperature, including the lower tropospheric satellite temperature records.
I do not agree with your conclusions above and here is why.
See the graph below and note the following and let me know if you think I am being unfair.
1. This last La Nina is NOT the warmest La Nina in the last 16 years.
2. The first flat green line (slope = -0.000125181 per year) extends for a period of 15 years and 5 months since November 1996.
3. The first flat green line starts and ends with a La Nina so there was no cherry picking here.
4. The second flat purple line starts in 2000 and also starts and ends with a La Nina.
5. CO2 went up steadily while the temperatures stayed flat.
6. If the right points are picked both before and after the huge El Nino of 1998, the slope line can be perfectly flat either way. That is because La Ninas around 1998 balance things out.
7. IF I wanted to cherry pick two slopes, I would have come up with either the brown line going up or the blue line going down, depending on what I wanted to show.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.83/normalise/plot/rss/from:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1995.83/trend
Bernal says:
April 21, 2012 at 2:48 pm
“I doubt that there are many who read your words here at the mad dog WUWT web-site who deny “the Earth is warming.”
I haven’t taken a poll of the posters, but it is noteworthy, that the owner of the web site, Anthony Watts, does deny that the earth is warming. He claims the temperature record is broken, and hailed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature BEST project, when it was first announced, because he hoped it would show that GISS, NCDC and HADCRUT are all wrong. He believes that global warming is a result of manipulation of the temperature record and the Urban Heat Island Effect. When the BEST results validated these temperature records, Mr Watts cried foul.
.
The fact that scientists fly to international conferences doesn’t make them hypocrites. Pluggable hybrid vehicles, nuclear, solar and wind power hold promise to reduce GHG emissions drastically. It would also help to modify settlement patterns so more people could use human power or public transportation. This will not impoverish anyone.
Werner Brozek says:
April 21, 2012 at 5:45 pm
“Eric Adler says:
April 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“The idea that average global temperatures have been flat is wrong. The year 1998 was a strong El Nino year, which made the earth’s surface temperature hot, and 2011 was a strong La Nina year which cooled the earth’s surface. The ENSO cycle is an example of an internal variable which creates a lot of noise in the earth’s surface temperature. Eliminating the effects of internal variables shows that the underlying trend of the earth’s surface temperature is warming. This is shown by all of the major indices of the earths temperature, including the lower tropospheric satellite temperature records.”
I do not agree with your conclusions above and here is why.
See the graph below and note the following and let me know if you think I am being unfair.
1. This last La Nina is NOT the warmest La Nina in the last 16 years.”
You are correct. The last La Nina is the lowest La Nina in the last 16 years, which is what I wrote in my post. The second coldest La Nina was in 2007.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
In addition the current solar cycle is quite weak. Despite this, the last decade is the warmest in the surface temperature record.
You used the UAH graph as your demonstration, rather than the surface temperature record.
It is well known that the lower troposherical satellite temperature record is much more sensitive to the ENSO cycle than the surface temperature, so the strong El Nino in 1998 will make that year the warmest. Adjusting the temperature record for ENSO, cycles, solar cycle and volcanoes a clear increasing temperature trend due to the Green House Gases emerges.
Smokey says:
April 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm
“Eric Adler says:
“The statistics show that there has been a trend in the Northeast…”
The issue is global warming; actually, the lack of it. The Northeast is a relatively small region, and is not indicative of what is happening globally. Which is that the planet is in a “Goldilocks” climate. We couldn’t ask for anything better.”
You can be relied upon to distort any point that is made to support the theory of AGW. Increase in intensity of rain events is going to be a regional effect of global warming. The Northeast, which gets a lot of rainfall, is where it is intensification of rainfall events is going to happen. All locations on the globe are not expected to see this phenomenon in equal measures.
Unfortunately, even the existence of “a clear increasing temperature trend” does mean that it was caused by CO2 emissions. The only “evidence” for such is the models’ output, which has been programmed to presume that increasing CO2 is the driver for the increased temperatures. The lack of an alternative hypothesis is indicative of the mindset of the alarmists rather than proof of their hypothesis.
Eric Adler,
Thank you for your model-based predictions of the future. I rarely make predictions myself, because reality has a habit of falsifying them.
You say — twice — that your predictions are “going to happen”. Well, we’ll see about that. But keep in mind that the alarmist crowd has been wrong about everything so far, and I wouldn’t bet against that particular trend changing any time soon.
And speaking of distortion, you say:
“You can be relied upon to distort any point that is made to support the theory of AGW.”
May I point out that there exists no such thing as “the theory of AGW”. That is like saying “the theory of Santa Claus.”
AGW is a conjecture. It is not testable or falsifiable; two requirements of a scientific theory [and of a scientific hypothesis, for that matter]. Only true believers would use a nonsense phrase like “AGW theory”. It’s what sets apart the wild-eyed eco-cultists from honest scientific skeptics.
Eric Adler says:
April 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm
the last decade is the warmest in the surface temperature record. ….You used the UAH graph as your demonstration, rather than the surface temperature record.
Actually I used RSS and you did say “(Warming) is shown by all of the major indices of the earths temperature, including the lower tropospheric satellite temperature records.”
With regards to the warmest decade, check out the following and scroll down:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Global%20temperature%20trends
Note that of the five temperature sets listed, three show a cooling over the last ten years and two show no change. So yes, I agree the last decade was the warmest on the temperature record, but the first five years of the past decade were warmer than the last five years. In addition, two even show cooling over the last 15 years!
Eric Adler. you missed this;
http://drtimball.com/2012/claims-global-warming-increases-severe-weather-are-scientifically-incorrect/
jaschrumpf says:
April 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm
“Unfortunately, even the existence of “a clear increasing temperature trend” does (not) mean that it was caused by CO2 emissions. The only “evidence” for such is the models’ output, which has been programmed to presume that increasing CO2 is the driver for the increased temperatures. The lack of an alternative hypothesis is indicative of the mindset of the alarmists rather than proof of their hypothesis.”
Your post is totally wrong. The fact that CO2 absorbs and reemits IR radiation, thereby reducing the rate of escape of heat from the earth atmosphere system, and increases its temperature, especially in the nighttime has been understood since 1859, when John Tyndall published his work on this. The fact that water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback mechanism which amplifies an increase in temperature has also been understood for a long period of time, and has been confirmed by satellite measurements of H2O in the atmosphere. This is a valid, and confirmed physical theory, based on experimental evidence, not a presumption. Satellite measurements have confirmed the reduction in outgoing radiation intensity at the absorption lines of CO2 and H2O.
Instead of relying on websites run by anti AGW bloggers for your knowledge, you should consult more scientific web sites to educate yourself properly.
Adler conjectures:
“his is a valid, and confirmed physical theory…”
No, it is not a “theory”. If it was a theory it would make accurate predictions. But it cannot.
You really need to get up to speed on the difference between a scientific conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law. Displaying your ignorance does not help your argument.
Eric Adler April 21, 2012 at 12:06
The idea that average global tmeperatures have been flat is wrong.
No it isn’t. Even at Realclimate they admit another few years of flatness and they will have to have a major rethink.
ENSO is ruled out. It’s been pretty much flat since 1997, ie about 15 years, and ENSO cycles are typically 5 years.
Ocean content. If there was even a grain of truth that ocean heat content clearly is going up, there would be no argument at all. But there isn’t. Why do you think Trenberth talks of the heat he so desparately hopes is ‘hiding’ down there ?
In fact the denial that the earth is warming is being pushed by those with a strong advocacy agenda.
It’s being pushed by people who look at the facts, and by people who are sick of being lied to by government lackies. Close to 100% of climate science is funded by government, which has a vested interest in convincing us that CAGW is true, since this means it (government) can increase taxes and other coercive controls over society. And from Climategate and the coverups of it, we know that dishonesty in climate ‘science’ is rife. And it’s not just a few rotten apples like Jones and Mann, since these people are still in their jobs – the failure to expel or discipline them tells us the whole barrel is rotten (with a few exceptions of course).
the ratio of record high temperatures versus record low temperatures is rapidly increasing with time
It isn’t.
Eric,
Your implicit claim that the feedack from clouds is understood to be large and positive, is quite simply ludicrous. We don’t even know the sign, let alone the magnitude.
Eric Adler says:
April 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm
You must be new in town. I envy your ignorance. It must be nice to live like that.
You think you’ve got it bad, here is a search run at the National Curriculum Website in Australia ( http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Search?a=Science&q=climate+change ) of Government Propaganda inserted into the National Curriculum. Yes, everyone write letters to paper and School Principals where your children are being indoctrinanted – This list is just the Science Curriculum
investigating the effect of climate change on sea levels and biodiversity
ELBS1184 | Elaboration | Year 10 | Science | Science Understanding | Earth and space sciences
considering the role of science in identifying and explaining the causes of climate change
ELBS1202 | Elaboration | Year 10 | Science | Science as a Human Endeavour | Nature and development of science
considering the scientific knowledge used in discussions relating to climate change
ELBS1210 | Elaboration | Year 10 | Science | Science as a Human Endeavour | Use and influence of science
considering how computer modelling has improved knowledge and predictability of phenomena such as climate change and atmospheric pollution
ELBS1205 | Elaboration | Year 10 | Science | Science as a Human Endeavour | Nature and development of science
People can use scientific knowledge to evaluate whether they should accept claims, explanations or predictions
ACSHE194 | Content description | Year 10 | Science | Science as a Human Endeavour | Use and influence of science
Literacy
Personal and social capability
Critical and creative thinking
Ethical behaviour
Sustainability
Advances in scientific understanding often rely on developments in technology and technological advances are often linked to scientific discoveries
ACSHE192 | Content description | Year 10 | Science | Science as a Human Endeavour | Nature and development of science
Literacy
Sustainability
Global systems, including the carbon cycle, rely on interactions involving the biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere
ACSSU189 | Content description | Year 10 | Science | Science Understanding | Earth and space sciences
Literacy
Critical and creative thinking
Ethical behaviour
Sustainability
Scientific understanding, including models and theories, are contestable and are refined over time through a process of review by the scientific community
ACSHE191 | Content description | Year 10 | Science | Science as a Human Endeavour | Nature and development of science
Information and communication technology capability
Critical and creative thinking
Sustainability
And, Eric
Even more laughable is your claim that switching to other energy sources “will not impoverish anyone”.
At least be honest and say something like: ok energy costs will rocket up (by a factor of 10?), energy will be vastly less convenient, and this will need to be brought about by means of a lurch towards a more totalitarian society – but at least the planet will not fry.
@Anthony Watts
Anthony, why am I seeing Barack Obama 2012 election ads on your site. I understand you need the advertising revenue but isn’t this a pretty big conflict of interest?
I would say this is akin to John Boehner publicly trashing Obamacare, yet at the same time investing in Cardinal health.
[Reply: WordPress/Google selects the ads, not Anthony. Click on them to provide a little income to WUWT… then disregard. ~dbs, mod.]
“Eric Adler says:
April 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm
A hundred year flood is an impressive event. This map shows that a large number of locations received a once in a hundred year event from Virginia to Vermont.”
You seem to have missed the implications of what you are saying. If a flood in a secular event, that means it has happened before and is not “unprecedented”, and at at a time when human emitted CO2 was much lower than it is now. And if it is “once in a hundred years”, that would seem to suggest that it had happened 2 hundred years ago, 3 hundred etc. (To be sure of this you would have to check local records, newspapers etc.)
I would be more inclined to ask why the Vermont authorities had not already been designing infrastructure with the known wildest variations in mind. Have you asked them? I suspect it’s because the policy makers believed in the AGW crapola.
I recently complained to the CBC about their coverage of the scam. Here’s what the the Ombudsman said in reply to my concerns:
CONCLUSION
The United States National Research Council, in summarizing the science on climate change, says “there is a strong, credible body of work, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful examinations of alternative explanations.”
There has not been a peer-reviewed journal publication by climate scientists, nor any national or international scientific body of standing, dissenting with this view.
The relevant scientific consensus — that is, the consensus among scientists whose work is in the relevant field — is that climate changes are in large measure generated by such activities as burning fossil fuels and deforestation and are largely irreversible. The
4
relevant scientific discussion involves the extent of such damage and the principal political discussion involves how to tackle and mitigate the human-caused effects.
It is true that several scientists in other fields have expressed skepticism in popular media about climate change research, but they have not produced peer-reviewed material to support their opinions.
CBC’s standards, and those of most other news organizations, urge caution in dealing with any scientific or health claims that do not pass a scientific journal’s peer review. In the absence of such content, it would violate policy for CBC News to compare rigorous science with opinions and raise false hopes.
The segment put its focus on international performance, on policy and on the conference’s quandaries in effecting practical measures. It did not have any need to further review this science or in any way suggest the science was open for debate.
The segment’s focus was on the performance of countries under the Kyoto Protocol and on the ambitions for the Durban gathering. There remained uncertainty about the ability of leaders to reach an agreement.
McBean’s description of the IPCC report he co-wrote was not inaccurate. The report predicted more hot days, more heavy rains, and several other effects, and it determined that even seemingly minor shifts in climate could have profound, catastrophic consequences in heavily populated and economically developing regions of the world.
There was no violation of CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.
Sincerely,
Kirk LaPointe
CBC Ombudsman
cc: Jim Handman, Executive Producer, Quirks & Quarks
Linda Groen, Director, CBC Radio Current Affairs
A truly stunning bit of arrogance/ignorance!
The best debunking material for AGW comes from real-science Steve Goddards site where there is a clear presentation of official temperature, ice data, etc., so well presented at times, in fact, that there is no comment required.
http://www.real-science.com
I hope this is not true as i took a look at Goddard,s site. I hope someone keeps up hisd good work RIP
http://www.real-science.com/attention-scientist-steven-goddard-dies-at-81
And the lies are:
• Climate is an unchanging, constant
• Normal weather patterns do not have ‘extremes’
• CO2 increase by itself is all that is required for the dire IPCC predictions
• The climate models have consistently and accurately predicted the surface temperature behavior over the past decade, as well as the lack of warming in the mid-troposphere
• Polar bears can’t swim and are declining in numbers
• Blah, blah, blah….