Saturday, 9 July 2011

Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

A debunking of the global warming agenda by Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist. [Hat tip Ian J.]


  1. Mark Chiddicks9 Jul 2011, 12:18:00

    We're taking our advice on climate science from Creationists are we?

    look the man up - he campaigns for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools and his main reason for believing that global warming is a myth is that, and I am not making this up, he doesn't believe God would let it happen.

  2. Mark.
    He makes his argument without any direct or indirect reference to god. The argument you make is the fallacious one known as poisoning the well.

  3. OK, I watched the whole thing. I lost count of the straw man arguments that actually began immediately.

    Everything Roy Spencer says can be rebutted, easily and proveably.
    But the man, obviously a talented man, to boot, upsets me. Here's why, PC:

    I have a nearly three year old daughter. The Hadley Centre (and other credible sources) says that BAU will result in a 4 degree global average temperature rise by 2060.

    Gwynne Dyer says if that is the case, billions will die. I suspect he is correct but hope not.

    My point is that my daughter in 2060 will be will be only 52 and my grandchildren (from her) maybe 25 years younger. (My other grandchildren are older than my daughter).

    Although we are in Godzone territory as far as climate change goes, only a fantasist would think we could remain unaffected.

    So what's your problem, PC?

    Why do you post such disinformation?

    It's easy to ask, who is paying you, but that is a cop out.

    Do you have children?

    Do you care if human civilisation survives or not?

    Why wouldn't you want a cleaner, quieter, healthier future for our descendents, coupled with continued economic growth?

    Hydrocarbons are a finite resource.

    Let me know what part of that fact you cannot comprehend.

  4. Fascinating comments from the pro-AGW sector here.

    After all the evidence showing that AGW is untenable - so much of it showcased on Not PC it would take a week just to read - they still pile on as if nothing but this video had been said, as if this video had been produced 10 years ago.

    There's nothing to be learned about climate science from such people, but there are important lessons in epistemology (and psychology).

  5. Jeff

    What evidence?

    I suggest you look up the definition of evidence before replying.

    Curmudgeonly contrarianism is not evidence, sorry.

  6. Luc,

    As someone with degrees in both Philosophy and Physics, I'm pretty sure I know the definition of evidence.

    But if you're actually interested in some, take a look through the voluminous collection on this site alone, which I've actually reviewed (along with dozens more, including peer reviewed papers).

    Maybe it will alleviate some of your concerns about your daughter.

  7. about manning up and be a real Father to your child rather than a scaredy cat jellyman quacking in fear at what ifs and other politically motivated BS?

  8. Luc, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick.
    Do you seriously believe global warming is happening because of human interference, if so, did you also believe there was going to be massive disruption & the world was going to end, because all our computers were going to spit the dummy on new years day in 2000.
    How about the coming of the new ice age, they were predicting in the 1980's. Did you believe that one too?
    Your worried about the global temperature in 60 years time?
    We cant even get reliable weather forecasts for the next day!
    When I start to see accurate weather forecast, I might think of weather scientists in a credible light.

    I think your somewhat paranoid worrying about your daughter having to put up with a temperature rise of 4'C in 60 years, how about living for the now & teaching her how to put shoes on & other relevent stuff like that instead?

  9. Luc,

    Why did you have a child if you were worried about the effects of global warming? They've been talking about it much longer than 3 years.

    You should have thought about your future childs welfare, instead of demanding I do.

  10. Nice comment Luc. I see it's illicited shrieking from the usual suspects, but no evidence to support their denialism funnily enough.

  11. This is Gwynne Dyer speaking. You cant see me but I am right next to you. Don’t be afraid.

    “Do you have children?”

    The carbon foot print of having children in the West will crush mother gaia.

    Are you are white middle class?

    If so discuss sterilization immediately for the benefit of mother gaia. Green Party NZ says this isn’t an order but a strong recommendation.

    Then again lets just get this idea bedded in before making it a commandment.

    Remember Gwynne Dyer is everywhere. I will know.

  12. Mark, if Hitler believed 2 + 2 = 4, would it cease to be so? Jon's right.

    Luc, you've not provided a single example of the countless straw man arguments. Do we have to take you on faith?

    The Hadley Centre, (nameless) other credible (to whom?) sources and other organisations (state science institutes, universities, academic journals, TV channels, newspapers, etc.) are subject to political capture. Just present their arguments and let us pick holes if we can. Holes like no increase in global average temps since 1998.

    Your 3yo daughter? Oh Puhlease, you're Maude "Won't somebody think of the children?!" Flanders." Typical pinko saps are always keen to couch their arguments as if to be concerned for someone other themselves, as if altruist motivations was the litmus test of being right. It ain't.

    Care about your daughter's and grandkids' welfare? Then care about preserving liberty, not propagating hysteria designed to underpin arguments for increased state control of the economy and our lives in general - that's what keeps us from eating grass like they do in North Korea.

    PS Anony-mite, the burden of proof is on those advocating the positive, that GW is man-made. It's up to us skeptics to respond to the arguments in favour as best we can.

  13. "It's up to us skeptics to respond to the arguments in favour as best we can."

    Then why do you do such a poor job by reverting to ad hom abuse, straw men, dodgy science and squawking? Do you ever explore why you're a skeptic?

  14. The warmist comments these days are invariably another instance of a principle I stated in my "Progressive's Handbook of Argument": (paraphrasing) when you've been utterly defeated in a debate, wait a little while, then start over as if nothing had been said.

    Every single claim of the AGW crowd has been undermined or completely contradicted time and time again by both peer reviewed evidence and analysis from credentialed people like Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels. Yet, all that evidence and argument is simply ignored by the AGW crowd.

    Here's a suggestion, since you didn't take up my suggestion of exploring the voluminous material available on the subject on this very site.

    Read just the first chapter of Ronald Bailey's Global Warming and other Eco-Myths. Just one chapter!

    The warmists will never do it. Like all other Progressives, they never read anything except what they agree with - because, their pretensions to the contrary, they have zero interest in objective science.

  15. Why is it that you accept without question the views of aging contrarians like Michaels (who accepts AGW is real BTW) and Lindzen and not the vast majority of the scientific community? For proponents of A=A you sure have an aversion to those aspects of reality you find ideologically difficult.

  16. Occam's papercut11 Jul 2011, 22:49:00

    Anonymous. Bzzzt, sorry but thank you for playing. "vast majority of scientists" is a known falsehood. Acquaint yourself with physical scientists indebted to neither side of the "debate" and you'll discover what they really think. Apart from that you are merely conducting ad hominem arguments and argument from authority. Not very scientific of you is it?

  17. Occam's papercut11 Jul 2011, 22:58:00

    Luc... "My point is that my daughter in 2060 will be will be only 52 and my grandchildren (from her) maybe 25 years younger. (My other grandchildren are older than my daughter)."

    And your children and grand-children are far more likely to die from:
    - car crash
    - heart disease
    - cancer
    - bee sting
    - drown at the beach

    than from the improbable effects of an improbable rise of 4 deg C in 50 years postulated by a corrupt institution.

    Yet will you:
    - prevent them driving a car
    - prevent them eating a bad diet
    - force a full medical every year
    - force them to never walk barefoot in the grass
    - not take them to the beach in summer

    No? These are all far more likely to kill your descendants than your feared temperature rise yet I can guarantee you will do precisely none of these drastic actions to curtail their lives, liberty, freedoms or choices.

    So much for "think of the kids" eh?

    (Personal disclosure, I have young children).


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.