Dick Hobby
To Daniel Miller:
1 Your first article is is just a list of whom Reuters considers top climate scientists. Reuters already believes in human caused global warming so this list is not actual evidence supporting the AGW (anthropo global warming) hypothesis. This is just one organization promoting what it already believes.
2 More of the same from Reuters
3 The next is just a list from the Governor's office in California: "The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:" Just listing people and organizations on your side is not evidence.
4 The next article is from NASA and makes the claim that it is using the scientific method and has arrived at the conclusion that "it is likely" that humans are causing global warming. I have read many articles like this. But other scientists using the scientific method have arrived at the opposite conclusion. In order to find out who is right it is essential that one read hundreds of articles from top scientists on both sides. I have done this. How many articles by scientists challenging the AGW hypothesis have you read?
No one denies that the CO2 levels have gone from roughly 300 ppm to roughly 400 ppm. That fact is not proof that humans are causing global warming.
5 Next you give a video in Business Insider claiming they are "debunking 13 of the biggest climate change myths". I have read and watched many similar articles/videos. But those who debunk are not speaking ex cathedra. Why do you trust them?
6 You use the term "denier". Pro-AGW people use this term but it is contemptuous and dismissive as if to say: we don't have to bother with those fools over there. I would suggest you refrain from using this term and its cousin "denialist" as it gives the impression that you think that by smearing people you don't have to engage with those people or their ideas and evidence.
7 You claim Alex Epstein in Forbes has egg on his face for simply pointing out that the methodology for the study that claims that 97% of scientists agree with AGW was severely flawed and that the conclusion is therefore wrong. I have never seen a credible rebuttal to Epstein's challenge. So I see no egg.
Also again you call Epstein a denier. Doing this just makes you look weak and petty and a little nasty. I would encourage you do stop doing this.
8 The next article is a UN report. You present it as if it is the truth----case closed, no need to look further. The UN is a political body and the IPCC is organized and run by the UN. Why should we trust it? Of course it is possible that the UN could nevertheless somehow create a completely independent committee where only rigorous science is carried out. But if that is so why have quite a number of scientists resigned in protest when the papers they presented were changed to fit the AGW narrative.
9 You then give me a link to Real Climate. Fine. I understand what they are saying. You present this as if it is definitive and the end of the story and anyone who says otherwise is a denier. There are plenty of sites saying the opposite.
10 And finally you say: "As for your "35 years of in depth study," I can assure you that it was time and effort wasted. You need to actually read the studies that have been done and understand the basis for their results. From your statements, it is obvious that Mr. Pope's observations on learning apply in spades"
Why do you resort to insult? It only makes you look small.
So in summary:
1 Using smear and insult undermines your credibility. By the way, I find that those who believe in AGW do this a lot while those skeptical of AGW rarely do.
2 Nothing you have presented is at all convincing.
3 I get the sense that you have read almost nothing by scientists who challenge AGW. How many articles have you read in depth by people such as Lindzen.
4 Having read hundreds of articles on BOTH sides I can say with great certainty that CO2 is a harmless trace gas and the AGW hypothesis is false.
Dick Hobby
|