My inbox has been full of this issue this week, and I see it mostly as a tempest in a teapot. But since there is an interest, I’m putting this up for discussion. I can understand the situation, running the most viewed climate related blog, where I’ve noted that a small minority of people can cause a lot of trouble and waste a lot of time. Those people often go astray of the site policy for WUWT, and sometimes find themselves banned for repeated bad behavior. Those that might have contentious views but aren’t intractable zealots learn to work within policy and stick around, and contribute to debate here. That said, a “blanket ban” just wouldn’t work nor would it be sensible. Imagine if a single WUWT moderator decided to make a blanket policy change here. -Anthony
From Fox News:
Critics are slamming Reddit over a single moderator’s decision to ban climate-change skeptics from contributing to its science forum, attacking the move as “political censorship.”
In an op-ed titled “Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?” Nathan Allen — who described himself a Ph.D. chemist for a major chemical company and a moderator on Reddit’s “/r/science” forum — explained his decision to wipe comments from some users he dismissed as “problematic.”
“These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking,” Allen said in his article, which is posted on Grist.org. “They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.”
Allen went on to attack climate-change skeptics further, saying that evidence to support their position “simply does not exist” and that such people are “enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.”
‘[Climate skeptics are] enamored by the emotionally charged … arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.’
– Reddit moderator Nathan Allen
Finally, Allen called for other news outlets to follow his example, asking “if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?”
The move has drawn accusations of hypocrisy, as Reddit claims to be a haven for free speech and debate. The site describes itself as a place “friendly to thought, relationships, arguments, and to those that wish to challenge those genres.”
Brendan O’Neill, in a blog post for the UK Daily Telegraph, said Reddit has “ripped its own reputation to shreds,” and described the move as “political censorship, designed to silence the expression of dissent about climate-change alarmism on one of the Internet’s most popular user-generated forums.”
James Delingpole, columnist, climate skeptic and author of “The Little Green Book Of Eco Fascism,” was even louder in his criticism.
“The greenies — and their many useful idiots in the liberal media — are terrified of open debate on climate-change because the real world evidence long ago parted company with their scientifically threadbare theory,” Delingpole told FoxNews.com, arguing that Allen’s tactic is part of a “classic liberal defense mechanism: If the facts don’t support you, then close down the argument.”
Victoria Taylor, Reddit’s director of communications, told FoxNews.com that while it was Allen’s prerogative to ban climate-change skeptics from “/r/science,” his statements “do not reflect the views of Reddit as a whole, or other science or climate-oriented subreddits.”
More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/19/critics-blast-reddit-over-climate-change-skeptic-ban/
h/t to WUWT reader “Pete”.
I see you are very sensitive about your position and did not publish my comment due to use of the word denier. However you failed to make any comment on the facts I gave you regarding Australia in 2013 registering its hottest day, month, season in a 12 months period and almost certainly its hottest calendar year. This in itself is not evidence of global warming but the same pattern is being reproduced around the globe.
Recent research shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise. In previous research global surface temperatures have been based on incomplete data, with some regions left out (most notably over Africa, the Arctic, and Antarctica). The most northerly latitudes have been warming faster on average than other spots on Earth since the late 1990s, so if you leave them out you see a somewhat cooler global average than you should.
As for CO2 – it is well established in the scientific literature as a greenhouse gas and its steady increase in concentration in the atmosphere correlates with the observed rise in global temperatures.
I have never read any blogs on Reddit. I came across this thred by other means.
David, the term “Denier” is a dishonest ad hominem that is frequently used in an incoherent way by AGW proponents trying to attack those who hold a scientific viewpoint different from their own. It is used by those who are ideologically biased and cannot rationally defend their position but instead frequently resort to censorship.
Ok – we will leave that issue about denial. What about the rest of my comment?
David says:
December 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Ok – we will leave that issue about denial. What about the rest of my comment?
If you talk Australia the best is to let the australians tell you their point of view:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/a-few-facts-on-flannery-climate-council-and-propheses-of-bushfire-no-long-trends-for-katoomba/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/australias-record-hottest-12-month-period-junk-science-say-the-satellites/
“Again, for the third time, the more accurate, more comprehensive satellites show it was a hot year, but was probably not a record. Satellite data shows we didn’t have a hot angry summer. Man-made emissions were probably not to blame for the hot angry summer we didn’t have. And now apparently we also haven’t quite had the “hottest” 12 month period since 1910 either, but the hottest since 2010. (But what’s a hundred years between friends?)”
As for CO2 – it is well established in the scientific literature as a greenhouse gas
“The science” of CO2 contains a lot of still to be clarified unknowns, Claes has several posts about it:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/OLR
however CO2 even if taken granted what alarmists say, would in best case cause 1°C warming for doubling. That is no future catastrophy.
David, we have been told weather is not climate. Are record cold temperatures a sign of global cooling?
Skeptics support that there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age but we do not find this alarming.
We have also been saying for some time that temperature trend for the last 15 years has been flat or decreasing based on Satellite data,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/trend
David, it appears you have never actually read any of the skeptic’s actual arguments and have instead resorted to repeating inaccurate talking points. If you are interested in learning actual skeptic arguments I suggest watching the following lectures and comment on something we are actually talking about,
Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, UHA.
You argue your case by using an Australian website produced by people who are not climate scientists and who do not think global warming is happening – why should I trust their interpretation of the data?
Having been to Canada I have seen the devastation to the forests being caused by the pine beetle due to warmer winters not killing the larvae. Visited Scandinavia where the locals very readily talk about the warmer winters and reduced snowfall.
WHile these are only personal observations they dovetail with the measurements of a warming landmass and ocean.
I have looked at the satellite images of reduced Arctic ice – yes there is more sea-ice in Antarctica due to increased precipitation and wind movements.
Do you think this is all being manufactured by scientists all over the world?
Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.
It is better to trust these scientists and take action rather than the few who disagree.
David, you complain about the arguments of a website not run by climate scientists, then support your argument with anecdotes from non-scientists about their feelings on weather events?
What is the starting date for the satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice? How do you know the Arctic ice has not been reduced to the same levels in the past?
There is scientific evidence that there has been less Arctic Sea ice in the past,
Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago (Norwegian Geological Survey)
I don’t see the point in asking idiotic questions about if we believe that scientists are manufacturing the satellite measurements of current Arctic sea ice conditions. I asked you to please address actual arguments being made not ridiculous talking points that have no basis to actual discussions that go on here.
What are these “climate science institutions” are how many scientists do they represent?
And, re your lectures by Lindzen and Christy – don’t you have something up to date?
Why are you offended at being called a denier yet call my comments ridiculous? Here is a list of scientific organisations that agree the world is warming:
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Biology, UK
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
“Up to date”, David?? Scientific facts do not change.
David says:
“…you failed to make any comment on the facts I gave you regarding Australia in 2013 registering its hottest day, month, season in a 12 months”
That is simply local weather. Understand? It’s local.
Then David says:
“You argue your case by using an Australian website produced by people who are not climate scientists… why should I trust their interpretation of the data?”
Apparely David ignored the comments of MIT’s director of its atmospheric physics department, Prof. Richard Lindzen. Dr Lindzen is the country’s premier Climatologist, in arguably the world’s best engineering school. Who should we listen to? David [“Having been to Canada…”&etc]? Or Dr Lindzen? Because they cannot both be right.
David continues:
“Recent research shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise.”
Flat wrong. <— those multiple data sets are empirical observations, accepted by even the most rabid, wild-eyed climate alarmists. David's opinion is not sufficient to counter those verifiable real world scientific facts.
Finally, David falsely asserts:
“Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.”
David is, as usual, flat wrong. Empirical [real world] measurements show conclusively that the rise in CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures.
David, whatever you learned at the alarmist blogs you frequent is misinformation. It is wrong. You have been lied to; bamboozled by people who are spoon-feeding you alarmist propaganda for their own self-serving agenda.
Stick around here for a while, and you will begin to see that very clearly.
You know I hope your views are correct because if they are we will not inherit a warmer globe with all the harm it will cause.
I understand you are passionately opposed to the consensus view about global warming – I realize science is not based on consensus but on observed fact, in this case it is the consensus of the interpretation of those observed facts. But science is rarely black and white – there is always room for a dissenting view and those views have to be considered. That is what has been happening and the views of Richard Lindzen have been critiqued and found to be in error.
I see you just wish to ridicule my views (eg. Otherwise, he is just another amusing character who strayed away from one of the echo chamber alarmist blogs) and you just dispute my facts. I gave you facts about our recent weather in Australia – I understand the concept of local weather – Australia is a big continent so we are talking about regional weather. I said my observations were personal but they dovetail in with observed measurements.
For records in other parts of the world see: http://tcktcktck.org/2013/08/summer-of-2013-brings-record-breaking-heat-to-asia-europe-north-america/56088#sthash.z8MKwXnT.dpuf.
So it is not local but global weather that has set records this past year. Put this together with the period of the past few decades and we are talking about CLIMATE.
The arguments haven’t changed.
In case it was not clear in my previous response. David, the main arguments in those lectures have not changed in the last couple of years.
Go look up the logical fallacies ‘ad hominem’ and ‘strawman’. You are presenting ridiculous strawman arguments for positions that we do not hold. Is you intent to make yourself look ridiculous here?
Strawman, which skeptic here does not believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age?
David, this is not 2006 we are well aware of your fictitious argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. I have now asked you three times to actually address an argument we are making. Have you just stumbled upon this debate this week? Now please answer my question,
How many scientists does those organizations represent as holding that position? *
* Please provide empirical evidence to support any numerical totals you use.
David says:
December 22, 2013 at 6:42 pm [ … ]
David is amusing. He lists places like the Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences, the Palestine Academy, the Sudan Academy of Sciences, the Ecological Society, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Nigerian Academy, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Society of Zoologists and many similar non-climate oriented groups [while insisting above that only climatologists count], in his desperate Appeal to Authority fallacy — but David never provides any testable, measurable science to support his belief system. [Note to David: anyone can cut ‘n’ paste nonsense like your list, but the only thing that really matters here at the internet’s “Best Science” site is empirical, testable facts and measurements — something you seem to avoid at all costs].
The Wood For Trees site downloads the HadCRU, GISS, and other databases, which all show conclusively that as CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures do not follow. Thus, the CO2=cAGW conjecture is decisively falsified.
If David wants to have any credibility at all, he will dispense with Mauritius, Zimbabwe, and the rest of the organizations whose opinions have been bought and paid for, and instead argue based solely upon scientific facts. So far, he has not done so.
Empirical scientific measurements show conclusively that ∆CO2 does not cause ∆temperature. Therefore, the entire alarmist climate scare is debunked.
If David has testable, measurable scientific facts that support his belief system, I urge him to post them here and now. Otherwise, he is just another amusing character who strayed away from one of the echo chamber alarmist blogs. You know: one of the blogs that censors all scientific scepticism, and only allows wild-eyed arm waving of the Chicken Little variety.
Facts, David. We need facts. Not assertions, opinions, and appeals to corrupt authorities. TIA.
David, also you list is not “climate science institutions” (very few such specialized institutions exist) as you falsely implied.
David, I see you have managed to avoid all of my questions.
Please provide the poll of the world’s scientists to support your argument. (We are well aware of the bogus “97% studies)
Why do you keep repeating debunked talking points? Your statement is a factually untrue. The existence of a criticism does not mean the criticism is valid. Dr. Lindzen has rebutted all published criticisms made against his scientific arguments.
You have not presented any relevant facts but multiple logical fallacies and refuse to actual respond to my arguments, let alone answer my questions.
David, you say “Recent research shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise.”
Sadly the temperature record has been manipulated. It is not currently hotter.
David says:
December 22, 2013 at 5:12 pm
You argue your case by using an Australian website produced by people who are not climate scientists and who do not think global warming is happening – why should I trust their interpretation of the data?
David, the site argues with real data for Australian climate.
The satellite data supports the arguments of the skeptics.
What do you bring against satellite real data? What are your arguments?
No real data. Annecdotes.
While these are only personal observations they dovetail with the measurements of a warming landmass and ocean.
There is no measured ocea warming for the 0-100 m surface data in the ARGO data. Did you know that? What is the quality and error marging of warming of ocean for the rest where we have only annectdotal data?
I have looked at the satellite images of reduced Arctic ice – yes there is more sea-ice in Antarctica due to increased precipitation and wind movements.
Do you think this is all being manufactured by scientists all over the world?
What increased winds and precipitation in Antarctica? Do you have data to back that out?
And if increased wind and precipitation cause the increase in ice in Antarctica could than not cause the decrease in ice in the Arctic?
You grant it for one side and not for the other, however the global sea ice is over the normal? And now it is summer in the Antarctic?
Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.
It is better to trust these scientists and take action rather than the few who disagree.
Trust is good, but control is better.
Your arguments are very weak and miss the logic. Mostly appeal to authority.
Based on your answers you do not seem to have taken the time to read through the comments and our arguments, but just post lost of posts with same regurgitated arguments that we have already seen.
As Poptech above said:
Poptech says:
December 22, 2013 at 8:40 pm
David, I see you have managed to avoid all of my questions.
…..
You have not presented any relevant facts but multiple logical fallacies and refuse to actual respond to my arguments, let alone answer my questions.
This is no screaming contest David.
Either you have arguments or you lose the point irrelevant of the fact that you post again and again the same nonsense. That is not an argument.
Try to argue your case with real arguments based on real data.
David says:
December 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm
You know I hope your views are correct because if they are we will not inherit a warmer globe with all the harm it will cause.
Where is the harm? The last 150 years warming has been good for the overall biosphere, did you know that? The carbon cycle of the whole biosphere increase by and estimated 30% since the Little Ice Age. Did you know that?
The estimated greening of the planet is of about 10% in the last 3 decades based on satellite studies. Did you know that?
Why not? Is this not important according to you?
You bring record warm examples, have you looked at the record cold too?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/30/july-ends-on-a-frigid-note-as-record-cold-outpaces-warmth-nearly-10-to-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/01/record-cold-in-interior-alaska-heading-into-the-usa-agriculture-at-risk/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/record-cold-and-snow-to-hit-central-usa/
David, there is only one atmospheric direct cause of heat waves over land (blocking highs). So you need to be able to mechanistically link that the direct cause (blocking highs) was charged up (stalled, increased LW infrared radiation in the blocking high area, etc) by anthropogenic additions to greenhouse gasses. The portion of greenhouse gasses that is anthropogenic is quite small. In order to attribute your blocking high heat wave to anthropogenic influence you need to know the energy available from the anthropogenic addition to the atmosphere and compare it to what is needed to increase the natural state of blocking high heat waves to a new state of heat waves.
I will save you the trouble. There isn’t enough energy.
Your second course of action would be to consider increased water vapor. Models postulate and base their warming projections on increased water vapor due to increased anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere as the primary source of increased LW infrared heating. If you are going to say that it is increased water vapor that did it, show me the data that describes an increase in water vapor near/in the hotspot areas where records were set.
David, your third option is to run a regional scale projection of climate models that cover your heat wave areas and see if they accurately reflect observations. If they do not, one has to question whether or not our understanding of anthropogenic warming mechanisms are accurate.
I will save you the trouble. It has already been clearly established that our understanding of anthropogenic warming mechanisms are not accurate. Models do not match observations at any scale.
In summary, for you to continue to state that humans are influencing weather pattern variations (IE climate), demonstrates a lack of knowledge on your part of the current state of climate science research.
David,
Warning: You are now on a site that allows all sides of a debate. It is not a propaganda site that limits comments to those supporting one side or the other. Therefore, you must demonstrate credibility by providing the basis for the assertions you make.
You assert that “Recent research shows that [global] temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise.”
I provided several databases of global temperatures showing that your assertion is wrong. The ball is now in your court: refute what I posted, or concede the point.
Next, you asserted that “Almost every major climate science institution agrees the data shows a warming planet and that the main driver is CO2.”
Once again, I showed that your assertion is wrong, replying:
“If David has testable, measurable scientific facts that support his belief system, I urge him to post them here and now…. Facts, David. We need facts.”
But you provided no testable, reproducible data to refute the scientific evidence that I posted above.
David, I sincerely hope that you see what has happened: you have been getting your misinformation from the media, and/or blogs that have an agenda in getting you to believe that there is runaway global warming in progress. But the scientific facts are as follows:
1. There is no runaway global warming. None
2. All climate parameters being observed today are well within historical norms
3. Prior to the industrial revolution, global temperatures were both higher, and lower, than they are now. CO2 had no correlation to rising temperature
4. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming
5. The only verifiable relationship between temperature and CO2 is this: ∆T causes ∆CO2. There is no scientific evidence that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None.
Climate models are wrong. All of them
Draw your own conclusions, David. You’re an intelligent guy. And as you do, remember that there is an immense amount of money riding on convincing people that “carbon” is a probloem.
“Carbon” is not a problem. CO2 is both harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere at current and projected concentrations. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.
Please go back to wherever you are getting your misinformation from, and get whatever scientific evidence you can to refute the points raised here. We’re all ears, because scientific skeptics want to understand how the universe works. But we have no patience with people who use anti-science propaganda to push their climate alarmist agenda.