For some months now, I have struggled with this site.
In the political and economics arena, there never seems to be any shortage of stuff to write about. That is in large part because when I and others take a position, folks who disagree will respond, and interesting discussions rage back and forth between blogs.
For some years on this site, I have endeavored as a layman to help other laymen understand the key issues in the science. When I first started, I had assumed my role would be pure journalism, simplifying complex arguments for a wider audience. But I soon found that my background in modelling dynamic systems (both physical and social) allowed me to spot holes in the science on my own as well.
But of late I began to run down. Unlike in the political / economic world, there is little cross-talk between blogs on different sides of issues. I could flood the site with stupid media misinterpretations of the site, but it is not what I am trying to do here and besides Tom Nelson has that pretty well covered.
As in the political world, I try to read blogs on all sides of the debate, but in the climate world there was far less interaction. There is only so long I can go on repeating the same arguments in different ways. The problem is not that these arguments and holes in the science get quickly dispatched on other sites, it is that they get ignored. Both sides are guilty of this, but alarmists in particular thrive on knocking down straw men and refusing to address head on the best skeptics’ arguments (which is not to say that certain skeptic sites don’t have the same problem).
But the new Global Climate Change Impacts Report (pdf) released yesterday has re-energized me. This document represents such an embarrassment that it simply begs to be critiqued in depth. So over the coming weeks I will work through the report, in semi-random order, picking out particularly egregious omissions and inaccuracies.
I am glad you are not burned out as I very much enjoy reading here not just your blogs but the responces as well. I personally think that the input of CO2 by humans could go either way. Many might look at this as idiotic but I have been reading and listening to climate raving for over 30 years and believe that the fact is the climate will change. That is just fact and this is with or without human intervention. My belief at this time is that currently the earth (without the human influx of CO2) could go back into a very cold period but with the human influx of CO2 we might just be preventing it. I have no scietific facts just hunches based on the last 30 something years of reading and listening. Now let the badgering begin!
Look at all the people who have tried to leave comments or questions at realclimate and never get posted. There is no interplay because the alarmists will not allow it. WUWT, Climate Audit, and Airvent all accomodate alarmists and often allow and even invite alarmists to post their own complete posts on their sites.
The alarmists have the news media in their pockets. Why would they engage with skeptics? It only gives the skeptics the opportunity to blow holes in their propaganda. Same reason they never agree to debate.
Roger Pielke, Jr has pointed out the serious misrepresentations in this latest pile of garbage. And he’s an alarmist. Still won’t change anything, though. Expect to see the same quality debate in the news media which we get on every other big political issue — none. It will be all propaganda, all the time.
“I have endeavored as a layman to help other laymen understand the key issues in the science”
Nope. You’ve endeavoured as an idiot to mislead other idiots. You don’t understand the science! What on earth makes you think you do?
Nice ad-hominem attack, Hunter. I read articles and blogs on both sides of this issue, including those by meteorologists and climate specialists. These lead me to believe this site is essentially correct in most of its analyses. What have you to contribute, other than bile?
@Hunter “You’ve endeavoured as an idiot to mislead other idiots. You don’t understand the science! What on earth makes you think you do?”
Aren’t you the guy who pretends to be a scientist yet don’t even understand simple things like the difference between positive feedback and amplification? Looks like your ad hominem describes you better than it does the blog host.
I’ve read this blog for ages but have never seen you (or your sock puppets) post a single, solitary bit of “science”… Just abuse and ad hominems. Why do you bother? You just make yourself look like an abusive, ignorant fool.
The climate alarmist / skeptic blogs have their uses even if most of what they say is ignored by the other side.
The summary document you wrote is really is good. Pat Michael’s Climate of Extremes is better, but from the skeptic side your book is short, sharp and worth reading and free.
The issue will be decided by the thermometer, not climate audit or WUWT or real climate. We’re going to get to see what the result of increased human output of C02 is. The Chinese, the world’s number one emitters of C02, have little interest in what the West chooses to do.
But, should the thermometer fail to show increases at least upwards of 0.2 C / decade over the next 20-30 years then the consensus will change. It’s important that the arguments for why that may be the case are detailed as the climate blogs do. The skeptic blogs also allow people who are skeptical but haven’t read much to find out about the issue from the skeptics side.
It would also be very interesting to see what the US and other administrations are really saying internally also. They might put out press releases saying certain things, but serious cuts in emissions would be very hard to sell politically. The Europeans with their enthusiasm have not managed to cut emissions significantly since about 2001 or so.
As with all things natural: The effect can ~never~ overcome the cause.
Your work is much appreciated. Glad to hear you have a new found sense of energy/passion. Keep up the good work and thank you again.