1. illconsidered
  2. Some sanity from the Globe and Mail

Some sanity from the Globe and Mail

By illconsidered on December 7, 2009.

The Globe and Mail has an article by Thomas Homer-Dixon and Andrew Weaver on "responding to the sceptics" that can be read here. It is rather shorter than How to talk to a climate sceptic, having only 4 points.

This is the overview of their Q&A:

  1. "GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED."

    Nonsense.

  2. "RECENT WARMING IS MOSTLY DUE TO AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION COMING FROM THE SUN."

    Rubbish.

  3. "THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING."

    Yes, but so what?

  4. "SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY IS SO GREAT THAT WE CAN'T MAKE FIRM POLICY DECISIONS."

    Wrong.

Of course they offer a lot more detail, which you can read here.

Tags
Debunking
mainstream media

More like this

Muller is rubbish
But he isn't a tosser. I'm sure he'll be glad to know that. Which Mullah do I mean? I mean Richard Muller (who has one of the worst-looking websites in the known universe, beaten only in my personal experience by TimeCube and (of course) Lubos). Muller is running the Berkeley Earth Surface…
Force F from outer space
Most normal people would have been content to have produced one game-changing theory of climate but David Evans is not a normal person. No! He has squillions of degrees from Really Prestigious universities and has, on his own, invented entire new types of Fourier analysis. So it is with no…
What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
As you can imagine, the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide attracts a lot of comment from people who are less than inclined to agree with the general thrust of the material. Most can be easily answered with a pointer to another article or a rephrasing or expansion on one of the points in the…
Two opinion pieces. Or three, if you count James. But that's four if you count me. Oh hang on, I'll come in again.
Ah, enough science (or at least computation) what about the advocacy then? Talking about advocacy is great, you don't have to have a clue about anything factual, its all so meta. JA, as usual has a nice thoughtful post which you should read. I'll just throw in some... some what? Well, some words.…

Nice to hear about some intelligent reporting about AGW in the "MSM". So often they play up the controversy to attract readers...

Of course living in Toronto I also have to watch the National Post's disgustingly dishonest B.S. on the same subject.