2011-02-02 18:25:17Carter Crocks Ten facts about climate change
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.184.89

 

I got a little steamed earlier about the confusion certain of my fellow geologists cause with misinformation about climate change, so I banged out this draft as therapy.

This is very rough and certainly can't be used in its present format but I thought I would throw it out as a work in progress that we might be able to use in a future Carter Crocks series. I started with the "Ten Facts" but we could easily add his other decalogue "Ten Myths" (who does he think he is, Moses?)

These could be summarized in one list with one-liners for his Facts and Myths and corresponding one-liner rebuttals, with links to more extended comments and further links to SkS rebuttals and some graphics.

I have somewhat arbitrarily added "verdicts" of "Crock" or "Strawman". Some don't really  fit so I may add another category  "Dogwhistle" where he doesn't actually say why the "fact" is significant it just kind of gets insinuated (the models are uncertain, so why worry?) Some icons for these verdicts might be fun.

I'm hesitant about my comments on the climate models and my inner Joe Romm tends to come out when I try to argue the politics, so please correct me where I'm wrong or out of line.

It's a pity we don't have a Wiki structure where we could all edit stuff like this. I expect John's busy, though (to say the least). 

Carter's comments are in, what else, brown. 

I'm struggling with the hyperlinks, I appear to cut and paste the links into the box but the wrong address gets pasted, I'll get it right tomorrow, Bed time,


 

 

 Skeptical Science considers Bob Carter’s: Ten facts about climate change 


1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it. 

Our Response: Climate has, of course, changed before. No climatologist has ever assumed that the Earth had a stable climate before the industrial revolution; the wild swings in climate during the ice ages are well known and ancient global hothouse and icehouse conditions are known to anyone who has studied the earth’s deep past.  It may well be sensible to prepare for a changing climate but it certainly does not follow that it is the only sensible thing to do. Reducing human carbon dioxide emissions will result in better climate outcomes and will reduce the chance and severity of longer term climate feedbacks

Our Rebuttals: Climate’s changed before  ; {we need a “Resistance is futile” rebuttal} Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate 

Our Verdict: Straw man 

 

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958.  In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts. 

Our Response: Measurements of surface temperature by thermometers, radiosondes, satellites, buoys and ship measurements all show a consistent increase in global average temperatures. Since 1958, the Earth has warmed by about half a degree Celsius.

Our Rebuttals:Ten temperature records in a single graphicSatellites show no warming in the troposphere; It's microsite influences 

Our Verdict: Crock

 

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

Our Response: Numerous human fingerprints can be detected in global temperature patterns. These include: an observed change in the spectrum of the radiation escaping to space dues to increased CO2 in the atmosphere; an increase in the measured  infra-red radiation returning to the surface, due to the increased greenhouse insulation effect; nights are seen to be warming faster than days and winetrs are warming faster than summers, both consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect; and the stratosphere is observed to be cooling as predicted by climate models.

Our Rebuttals See the “Human Fingerprints” in the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. 

Our Verdict: Crock

 

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas. 

Our Response: It is true that the Earth would be insufferably cold in the absence of the greenhouse effect, this is not news and nobody has ever proposed doing away with it.  Water vapour does indeed contribute a great deal to the greenhouse effect but its concentration is determined by the temperature of the air. As CO2 concentrations increase and the temperature rises, the amount of water vapour in the air increases, resulting in the amplification of the effect, a positive feedback. All climate models consider the fast feedback effect of water vapour.

Our Rebuttals: Water vapor makes for a wet argument;  CO2 is just a trace gas 

Our Verdict: Straw man


5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

Our Response:  During the ice age cycles, CO2 concentrations lag, by approximately 800 years, changes in global temperatures triggered by variations in the tilt and orbit of the Earth. During the ice ages CO2 acts as a powerful amplifying feedback,  increasing during the warming phases and decreasing as new ice ages set in. Seasonal cycles are observed in CO2 concentrations in the famous saw-tooth Keeling Curve. Plants grow faster in response to seasonal temperature increases and they absorb CO2 by photosynthesis. So, yes, in a sense CO2 concentrations do lag seasonal temperature changes, in spring and summer, local CO2 concentrations go down and in the fall and winter concentrations increase. The seasonal and ice-age responses of CO2 to temperature are opposite in direction because the ice age CO2 response is driven by the oceans, whereas the seasonal cycles are driven by the growth of plants on land. Some climate events, such as the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum appear to be driven by sudden changes in CO2 concentrations and a temperature increase of 6 degrees followed quickly and it is very probable that CO2 was the primary forcing agent in this case.

Our Rebuttals: CO2 lags temperature ; Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record

Our Verdict:Crock 


6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body. 

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".   


Our Response:  The IPCC was formed to summarize the latest published science and to prepare reports on the state of the art for the general public and to inform policymakers. IPCC scientists are drawn from many different countries and do not represent any particular region, culture or ideology. While some critics consider the IPCC’s reports to be alarmist, others consider them to be unduly conservative. http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

{What is Lorenz’s paradigm shift? Chaos theory? WTF has that got to do with the IPCC?}

Our Rebuttals: Is the IPCC alarmist?; IPCC overestimate temperature rise

Our Verdict: Crock

 

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto was a "first step" then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.


Our Response: The costs, benefits and other economic consequences of CO2 reduction policies are uncertain and are debated by economists. Precise estimates of the amount of cooling that these measures might effect is uncertain and depends on the results of the climate models that Carter claims are unreliable in his “Fact #8”. In contrast to the rather alarmist tone of Carter’s unreferenced quote from the Russian advisor, let’s consider the words of Mr Putin’s  successor, Dmitry Medvedev: “What’s happening with the planet’s climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, meaning all heads of state, all heads of social organizations, in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate”. 

Our Rebuttals: Economic Impacts of carbon pricing  http://www.skepticalscience.com/economic-impacts-of-carbon-pricing.html; Saving Money by Pricing Carbon http://www.skepticalscience.com/saving-money-by-pricing-carbon.html

Verdict: Crock


8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.


Our Response: Nobody disputes that there are uncertainties in predictions of climate models and it’s certainly the case that certain factors, such as the influence of clouds, are the subject of intense research. But we can’t make an accurate prediction of any non-linear process 100 years into the future but this does not mean that models are useless

Our Rebuttals: Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted? http://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm

Our Verdict: Crock


9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

Our Response: One of the main goals of developing future climate models is to improve the reliability of predictions of future climate changes at a regional scale. Current models do make regional predictions and it is true that the predictions are uncertain. But it makes no sense to imply that because our lack of ability to make accurate and fine-grained predictions of climate is insufficient for us to be concerned and take action to reduce risks. We also can’t predict the timing, exact coordinates of magnitude of the next earthquake in California but that doesn’t mean that no action can be taken to mitigate future damage.

Our Rebuttals: {Do we have anything on regional predictions?} How reliable are climate models?

Our Verdict: Crock


10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate. 

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

Our Response: Attend any scientific conference and you will see plenty of vigorous debate in certain areas and consensus in others. Scientists are in broad consensus that humans have significantly  increased CO2 concentrations over a relatively short period, that increased CO2 leads to warming and that warming attributable to human influences has been observed. All scientific research tries to extend the limits of our reliable knowledge. That there are scientists who question the foundations rather than work on the frontiers is a good thing but their numbers, in any science, are few.

Our Rebuttals: Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Our Verdict: Crock



Our Final Verdict: Bob Carter presents “10 Facts About Climate Change”. Skeptical Science counts eight crocks and two strawmen.



 

2011-02-02 19:19:47Selected input
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.57.8

2) On the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect: Parker (2004) did an interesting study that showed that:

- Yes, there IS a UHI effect: on windy nights, temperatures are cooler than on non-windy nights, in urban areas; but

- No, the general increase in temperature is the same for the set of windy and non-windy nights.

In other words, we can detect a UHI effect, but it is not fooling us about the fact that temperatures are going up. They ARE going up.

 

4) I guess you mean:

"-180 C" => "-18o"

 "+150 C" => "+15o"

 Also: the link CO2 is just a trace gas  doesn't work.

 

5) Another point that seems to have been left out: The fact that excess CO2 was caused by processes involving temperature increase in the past does not mean that excess CO2 today cannot give rise to temperature increase today. This is like saying, "Before the year 1100, there is no evidence of anyone having died from gunshot wounds. Therefore, people cannot die of gunshot wounds, even today." The weak point here is that there were no firearms before 1100, so of course no one could have died of them. Likewise, previous to the current era, no one was burning fossil fuels, so previous history does not tell us what CANNOT happen.

 

6) I haven't read Tennekes' papers; but it sounds like he's referring to the fact that we will never be able to get a weather prediction beyond 3 or 4 weeks due to the inherent instability of the phenomena and the spacing limitations on the measurement grid. It's a strawman, because we don't need a weather prediction, we need a climate prediction, which is a statistical result; this can be done. It seems closely related to 8) and 9).

 

 

2011-02-02 19:36:14
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

"1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it. "

 

I think some analogies to show how retarded his 'logic' is might help the general reader?

Bob Carter: "People have always died and always will. The assumption that prior to this no-one died it simply wrong. The only sensible way to deal with your cancer is to prepare for it"

Your doctor: "You have cancer, we have therapies for dealing with cancer, I suggest you try them"

 

"2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons."

This graph is good. UAH/RSS satellite plus HadAT2 weather balloon.

 

 

 

Models do struggle with regional projections. We've got pretty good ideas of the overall patterns, but a shift in the wettening belt by a few hundred km (5 grid cells say) fucks up your regional projection. At least, that's the impression I got from speaking to a guy who works with the models (although on feedbacks and radiative transfer rather than regional projections)

2011-02-03 02:00:26comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.14.78

Number 4 should be addressed by lacis et al 2010 and schmidt et al 2010.

Gives the exact proportions (25% , 50%, etc...) and shows that without CO2 the water vapor effect shuts down.

Number 10 you can use the doran and zimmerman paper data

2011-02-03 03:24:22
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Good comments so far.

1) I'd add that the Holocene had actually been relatively stable, until the past century.

2) This is one where my reaction was "WTF, did he actually say that?".  Absolutely absurd.

3) I'd also link to the "it's not us" rebuttal wich discusses the fingerprints in more detail.

4) Ditto what Robert said about Lacis et al. 2010 and Schmidt et al. 2010.

5) The claim that temp changes precede CO2 changes on an annual timescale is just plain wrong.  Don't know of any studies on this off the top of my head (except that Soares was wrong).

7) Saving money by pricing carbon is going to become Monckton Myth #11, FYI, and the link will change.  I'll make it into a rebuttal - probably either Mitigating would cost more than the damages it would prevent or Mitigation costs too much (or both).  I'd also change the wording - these measures aren't going to cause cooling, they're going to slow warming.  Need to discuss that the benefits (avoiding climate change impacts) will outweigh the costs of carbon pricing, as discussed in Monckton Myth #11.

8) Might be worth linking ton Monckton Myth #3: linear warming.  Could also discuss that while projections aren't perfect, they give us an idea about the risks involved (MM#5: dangerous warming and is it safe to double co2).

9) I'd add a link to Hansen 1988 and note that his projections, despite using much less sophisticated climate models, were broadly correct.

10) Agree with Robert on Doran and Zimmerman.  Also Oreskes (2004).  For the 'thousands of scientists' link to the OISM petition rebuttal.

This might be a good article to do the equivalent of what we did for Monckton vs. Steketee.  Do a series of blog posts debunking each of Carter's claims, Crocks #1-10.

2011-02-03 13:01:28
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.184.89

Thanks for the excellent comments, everyone. I'll incorporate them all. I will also try to come up with some one-line rebuttals. Some of the rebuttals will grow to page length, particularly if I add some graphics. This means that we can't put all ten in one article because it would be way too long. I'll think about it and have another look at the way John has organised the Monckton Myths and try to make this fit the same general mould, to keep it user-friendly.

Dana, yeah, the annual cycle of CO2 comment of his wasn't worthy of a response since it has nothing to do with climate (there are local night-day CO2 cycles, too) and it's regional, not global so, I'll just blow it off as irrelevant.

2011-02-04 14:11:22Revision (work in progress)
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.184.89

Under construction

Skeptical Science considers Bob Carter’s: Ten facts about climate change 


1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it. 

Our Response: Climate has, of course, changed in the past and no modern climatologist has ever disputed this. The wild swings in climate during the ice ages are well known and ancient global hothouse and icehouse conditions are well known to the geologists and climatologists who have studied the earth’s deep past. However on the 12,000 year timescale of the period of human civilization, the Holocene, the climate has been stable.  Implying that the fact of natural climate change rules out any modern human role is absurd. That would be like arguing that because many species became extinct naturally, then humans could have had nothing to do with the disappearance of the dodo.

It may well be sensible to prepare for a changing climate but it certainly does not follow that it is the only sensible thing to do. Reducing human carbon dioxide emissions will result in better climate outcomes and will reduce the chance and severity of longer term positive climate feedbacks, such as carbon releases from soils, tundra, gas hydrates and the oceans. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to mitigate whatever we can and adapt to the change that can't be avoided.

In short: We have changed the modern climate and we do have the capability to reduce our future influence on it.

Our RebuttalsClimate’s changed before  ; {we need a “Resistance is futile” rebuttal} Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate 

Our Verdict: Straw man 

 

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958.  In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts. 

Our Response: Measurements of surface temperature by thermometers, radiosondes, satellites, buoys and ship measurements all show a consistent increase in global average temperatures. Since 1958, the Earth has warmed by about half a degree Celsius, by any measure. The Urban Heat Island effect is real but peer-reviewed articles such as Menne et al (2010) show that siting problems problems with weather stations in the US are small, can be corrected for and have slight effects on temperature trends.

Our Rebuttals:Ten temperature records in a single graphicSatellites show no warming in the troposphereIt's microsite influencesOn the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record

Our Verdict: Crock

 

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

Our Response: Numerous human fingerprints can be detected in global temperature patterns. These include: an observed change in the spectrum of the radiation escaping to space dues to increased CO2 in the atmosphere; an increase in the measured  infra-red radiation returning to the surface, due to the increased greenhouse insulation effect; nights are seen to be warming faster than days and winetrs are warming faster than summers, both consistent with the anthropogenic greenhouse effect; and the stratosphere is observed to be cooling as predicted by climate models.

Our Rebuttals: The human fingerprint in global warming 

Our Verdict: Crock

 

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas. 

Our Response: It is true that the Earth would be insufferably cold in the absence of the greenhouse effect, this is not news and nobody has ever proposed doing away with it.  Water vapour does indeed contribute a great deal to the greenhouse effect but its concentration is determined by the temperature of the air. As CO2 concentrations increase and the temperature rises, the amount of water vapour in the air increases, resulting in the amplification of the effect, a positive feedback. All climate models consider the fast feedback effect of water vapour.

Our Rebuttals: Water vapor makes for a wet argument;  CO2 is just a trace gas 

Our Verdict: Straw man


5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

Our Response:  During the ice age cycles, CO2 concentrations lag, by approximately 800 years, changes in global temperatures triggered by variations in the tilt and orbit of the Earth. During the ice ages CO2 acts as a powerful amplifying feedback,  increasing during the warming phases and decreasing as new ice ages set in. Seasonal cycles are observed in CO2 concentrations in the famous saw-tooth Keeling Curve. Plants grow faster in response to seasonal temperature increases and they absorb CO2 by photosynthesis. So, yes, in a sense CO2 concentrations do lag seasonal temperature changes, in spring and summer, local CO2 concentrations go down and in the fall and winter concentrations increase. The seasonal and ice-age responses of CO2 to temperature are opposite in direction because the ice age CO2 response is driven by the oceans, whereas the seasonal cycles are driven by the growth of plants on land. Some climate events, such as the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum appear to be driven by sudden changes in CO2 concentrations and a temperature increase of 6 degrees followed quickly and it is very probable that CO2 was the primary forcing agent in this case.

Our Rebuttals: CO2 lags temperature ; Geological Society discuss climate change evidence from the geological record

Our Verdict:Crock 


6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body. 

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".   


Our Response:  The IPCC was formed to summarize the latest published science and to prepare reports on the state of the art for the general public and to inform policymakers. IPCC scientists are drawn from many different countries and do not represent any particular region, culture or ideology. While some critics consider the IPCC’s reports to be alarmist, others consider them to be unduly conservative. http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

{What is Lorenz’s paradigm shift? Chaos theory? WTF has that got to do with the IPCC?}

Our RebuttalsIs the IPCC alarmist?IPCC overestimate temperature rise

Our Verdict: Crock

 

 

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto was a "first step" then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.


Our Response: The costs, benefits and other economic consequences of CO2 reduction policies are uncertain and are debated by economists. Precise estimates of the amount of cooling that these measures might effect are uncertain and depend on the results of the climate models that Carter claims are unreliable in his “Fact #8”. In contrast to the rather alarmist tone of Carter’s unreferenced quote from the Russian advisor, let’s consider the words of Mr Putin’s  successor, Dmitry Medvedev: “What’s happening with the planet’s climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, meaning all heads of state, all heads of social organizations, in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate”. 

Our Rebuttals: Economic Impacts of carbon pricing  http://www.skepticalscience.com/economic-impacts-of-carbon-pricing.html; Saving Money by Pricing Carbon http://www.skepticalscience.com/saving-money-by-pricing-carbon.html

Verdict: Crock


8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.


Our Response: Nobody disputes that there are uncertainties in predictions of climate models and it’s certainly the case that certain factors, such as the influence of clouds, are the subject of intense research. But we can’t make an accurate prediction of any non-linear process 100 years into the future but this does not mean that models are useless

Our Rebuttals: Chaos theory and global warming: can climate be predicted? http://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted.htm

Our Verdict: Crock


9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

Our Response: One of the main goals of developing future climate models is to improve the reliability of predictions of future climate changes at a regional scale. Current models do make regional predictions and it is true that the predictions are uncertain. But it makes no sense to imply that because our lack of ability to make accurate and fine-grained predictions of climate is insufficient for us to be concerned and take action to reduce risks. We also can’t predict the timing, exact coordinates of magnitude of the next earthquake in California but that doesn’t mean that no action can be taken to mitigate future damage.

Our Rebuttals: {Do we have anything on regional predictions?} How reliable are climate models?

Our Verdict: Crock


10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate. 

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

Our Response: Attend any scientific conference and you will see plenty of vigorous debate in certain areas and consensus in others. Scientists are in broad consensus that humans have significantly  increased CO2 concentrations over a relatively short period, that increased CO2 leads to warming and that warming attributable to human influences has been observed. All scientific research tries to extend the limits of our reliable knowledge. That there are scientists who question the foundations rather than work on the frontiers is a good thing but their numbers, in any science, are few.

Our Rebuttals: Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Our Verdict: Crock



Our Final Verdict: Bob Carter presents “10 Facts About Climate Change”. Skeptical Science counts eight crocks and two strawmen.


2011-02-05 08:15:22
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.134
4) the temperatures stil need to be corrected
5) it could be made shorter. Also, add a sentence to clarify when CO2 act as a feedback and when, as now, as a forcing.
6) I think that Lorenz is quoted for the chaos theory, but it's unclear; we should read the original claim by Hendrik Tennekes.
8) you should add that climate as a long term trend is not chaotic.
9) scientists are developing regional climate models. On the continetal scale they already works relatively fine.
10) "almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate".
(i) you should highlight that for some reason they were not able push it to any Academy of Science of the world nor almost any profesional scientific organization.
(ii) underline that they do, indeed.

2011-02-05 08:54:53
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.184.89

Thanks, Riccardo 

I have only got part way  through the corrections that people suggested. I am really just doing this as a kind of darft for the Carter Crocks, it will be much too long and unwieldy, especially once I put in some graphics. 

Perhaps there should be some central post, like John made for Monckton with hyperlinks to the rebuttals. maybe some of the rebuttals might merit full stand-alone blog posts like Dana, John and others have done for Monckton. carter's arguments are so weak and poorly argued that it almost seems to be a waste of time going after him. I suppose as long as people take him seriously we have to. At least Monckton and  Lindzen have some cleverness to their disniformation, whereas Carter just appears dumb. He is also dishonest in that in the Monckton documentary he implies that the existence of ancient carbonate rocks is some kind of an inconvenient and suppressed fact, whereas they have been studied to death and he is surely aware of tha,t being a geologist..

As for your first suggestion on point 10, those words are Carter's and we can't edit them. We'll need to  finde a better way of demarcating his words than just using colour, which not everybody sees the same way.