Roy Spencer: Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Debate

Excellent.  Hard to excerpt because it is all so spot on.  I will give two examples:

2. “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH….

6. A lack of common sense. Common sense can be misleading, of course. But when there is considerable uncertainty, sometimes it is helpful to go ahead and use a little anyway. Example: It is well known that the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth in response to radiant heating by the sun. But when it comes to global warming, all climate models do just the opposite…change clouds in ways that amplify radiative warming. While this is theoretically possible, it is critical to future projections of global warming that the reasons why models do this be thoroughly understood. Don’t believe it just because group think within the climate modeling community has decided it should be so.

8 thoughts on “Roy Spencer: Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Debate”

  1. The conclusion of 7 – “The implication is clear: if the data do not agree with the models, it must be the data’s fault.” – erm, was that not explicitly stated in one of the first-to-be-extracted CRU Emails?

  2. Since my joke went down quite well on The Air Vent, I repeat it here:
    I’m not a denier, I’m a refutenik.

    We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
    It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
    So if the mains stream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
    Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.

    If you have a Facebook page post the two links.


  4. I have just read an annoying little article at Times Online entitled “Flushing out the High Priests of Climate Change”. The heading would suggest a serious commentry on the significance of Climategate but is in fact a rather dishonest attempt to downplay the issue.

    The article also states that the heavy rain that has recently hit North West England was predicted by climate change models, is this true? or is it a case of fitting events to the theory after they have happened?

  5. stonyground,
    Since the models actually say nothing, they can be made to say anything.
    They are as useful as, although much more expensive than, reading entrails.

  6. Thanks for that hunter. It would appear that the warmists now have as much credibility as the Bishop of Carlisle saying that the floods are the result of us not taking our gay-bashing seriosly enough.

Comments are closed.