2011-03-13 09:44:16Another WUWT fiasco
Julian Brimelow

Is this something SkS also needs to address, sigh, again?

Another new low....I've geiven up trying to predict when they'll reach rock bottom.

2011-03-13 09:50:56


This was the example I gave in my wikianswers critique!

The answer states:

“…..All man made activities make up less then 3% of all CO2 emissions and 0.28% of all green house gas emissions” (1)

This answer is highly misleading since it compares man’s contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to the large annual turnover of CO2.  It also seems to have been prompted by a deliberately leading question. In fact man contributes virtually all of net increase in CO2 emissions to the atmosphere every year. A business would not be allowed to minimise the appearance of a consistent loss to it’s investors by confusing this figure with its turnover, yet Climate deniers use this sort of deception all the time with climate change!  

To further support this 3% figure, an outrageous paper by E G Beck is referenced. Beck is a schoolteacher without any professional background in climate change. This paper generally claims that CO2 atmospheric concentrations have not been steadily increasing over the last few centuries, contrary to all other studies. However, this view is not only based on faulty data, but its validity would require multiple lines of established evidence to be overturned!

In fact, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from approximately 260-280 ppm around the time of the Industrial revolution to more than 390 ppm, today. Before this time, concentrations had been relatively stable for at least a thousand years, and probably since the last ice age. This provides strong evidence that virtually all this rise (approximately 30% of today's total) is due to anthropogenic activities. This is further confirmed by isotopic evidence in which the type of carbon found in the atmosphere indicates that it originates from fossil fuel based material.

That man contributes virtually all the CO2 increase isn’t even contentious amongst the few remaining climate scientists which are still classed as sceptics! The bottom line is that Beck’s paper, and this answer belong firmly in ‘flat earth’ territory.

2011-03-13 10:48:03too dumb
Dana Nuccitelli

It's probably too dumb to even warrant a response.  We've got the "human CO2 emissions are a tiny percentage of total emissions" rebuttal already.

The only reason it might be worthwhile would be to highlight the stupidity of the posts at WUWT.  Personally I don't have a problem with highlighting WUWT stupidity if somebody wants to write it.

2011-03-13 18:34:38
Glenn Tamblyn


Simple answer - No.

We don't need to go out and respond to every faulty claim posted by 'someone or other'. We should only respond to claims made by those with enough 'market coverage' to justify action. Don't forget, the blogosphere isn't the world. And 99.99% of people in the blogosphere aren't interested in Climate Change. Justin Bieber and the Olsen Twins are far more interesting.

Fundamentally, the urge to 'respond' is wrong. We need to instigate. You win the 'debate' by drowning out your opponents rather than engaging with them. Oxford Debating Society it ain't, but Madison Avenue it surely is.


2011-03-13 18:38:43How to solve the climate debate in one fell swoop
John Cook


How to get people talking about climate change - we need to get Charlie Sheen involved! Finally, we can have climate change on TV every hour of the day!

Problem is, will it motivate people to care about climate change more if he's a skeptic or proAGW.

Hmm, on second thoughts, it will more likely have the effect of the media no longer giving Sheen all this attention. Either way, we win! :-)