Comments on: The Climate Deniers vs The Consensus

By: George Jost

George Jost — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:15:29 +0000

The term Deniers is a problem, as Paul mentions. The term Climate Alarmists should be used in juxtaposition. However claims and counter claims are not the Truth. This is no different than Climate Alarmists claiming their Religion (AGW) is the only Truth. To me I don’t know how Climate and Weather differ. Why the Medieval warm period is different from the Arctic melting. Neither side has overwhelming evidence, so the safest course is usually wait and see. I remember the Global Cooling of the 70′s. Follow the money – a lot to be made in Carbon Credits. Like in bundled mortgages, and I don’t want to be left holding the bag (as a tax payer) when it comes apart like credit default swaps.

By: Graham Peppercorn

Graham Peppercorn — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:52:47 +0000

Mate, I admire the effort that you have put in and I admire your zeal for what you think is good right and proper. However, you have been conned or what this whole “movement” is and why it has started.The REAL reason that Global Warming was put on the menu was because of starting the worlds biggest Trading Derivatives Market the world has ever seen.
It has nothing to do with the environment.
It is sad but true.
We, the people are being conned as are many of the Scientists. You will eventually realise that what I am saying is true but by the time you realise it, it will be too late.

By: Les

Les — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:38:50 +0000

There is no such thing as “consensus” in science. Something either meets scientific criteria or it does not. We could all agree the Earth is flat, but that does not make it so. We have had 50 ice ages (glacial and interglacial periods) over the last three million years–man had nothing to do with those. Milankovitch cycles are what drive our climate, not SUVs. Nature’s contributions to Earth’s climate overwhelm mankind’s. 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor (clouds).

By: Philip Argy

Philip Argy — Fri, 20 May 2011 11:57:14 +0000

Always worthwhiile to see someone trying to be objective. Heaven knows we need to allow robust debate on the issues around climate change, and this material is excellent.

By: S. Richardson

S. Richardson — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:49:16 +0000

Science does rely on consensus. There might be minority positions, but scientists in the end weigh the amount, quality, and source of funding of data supporting different ideas. The graphic gives the misimpression that the same amount of data support the argument for and against human-caused climate change, when data overwhelmingly support the idea that climate change is happening and that humans are causing climate change.

An interesting article commenting on coverage of the issue by journalists is “Blinded by Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality”, by Chris Mooney in *Columbia Journalism Review*, Nov/Dec 2004.
Here’s a link to the article reprinted on the website of *Discover* magazine:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/01/15/blinded-by-science-how-balanced-coverage-lets-the-scientific-fringe-hijack-reality/

Another comment: if 2,500 scientists put out a report concluding that there is a “90 percent certainty” that climate change is caused by human activity (as in the IPCC report from 2007), maybe we should consider the odds and start making changes.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:39:56 +0000

Splendid effort, well done. I’m over a year late to this party, but would suggest – if you’re actively maintaining your infographic – that climatologist support figures for each side could be added.

I’ve not read all the comments, so apologies if this has already been asked. I’m aware too – from some of the comments I have read, here and elsewhere – that popularity is not the same as being right. But if one side of the argument is being put forward by independent climatologists, and the other by scientists working for the oil companies, it would make very interesting data indeed.

By: Largos

Largos — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:14:55 +0000

Was very interesting! Thankyou…

By: Taha Kass-Hout

Taha Kass-Hout — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:52:33 +0000

You may find the following blog post of interest: Atmospheric CO2 Levels: Green, Orange, Red… I tried to plot 400k+ years of CO2 data and you can really see how atmospheric CO2 levels ranged; in a cyclical motion, from 182-299 ppmv throughout all those years. CO2 levels then started an upward trend after 1604 and rose above the maximum historic threshold of 300 ppmv in 1912 and it continues to be on the rise: http://kasshout.blogspot.com/2009/02/atmospheric-co2-levels-green-orange-red.html

By: Brian Williams

Brian Williams — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:03:59 +0000

If you are going to the primary warmist site, Realclimate, then it behooves you to go to some of the most respected sceptics sites too. Watt’s up with that, and climateaudit should be investigated. Also Jo Nova provides “The sceptic’s handbook” and she is a scientist, by the way. You may want to investigate how the number of temperature monitoring stations have been reduced year by year, being replaced with interpolation points.

Regarding “deniers”, even if you leave out the holocaust connotation, it’s extremely rude, implying ignorance on behalf of the sceptics.

One of the hallmarks of science is not to believe anything until it is proven. Hence Galileo and the Catholic Church. What about Copernicus, who did not believe the “flat earth” consensus?

What we have at the moment is a “consensus” in an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and that is NOT science. There are at present NO weather conditions that can falsify the climate hypothesis, even though many previous predictions about winters, droughts and floods have crashed and burned. They just change the hypothesis! Even the name has gone through Global Warming to Climate Change and Climate Disruption is proposed!

The point is they just don’t know. They say the cost of doing nothing is too much, but cannot say why other than vague predictions of catastrophe. On that basis we should be investing in colonising other planets, because we KNOW the sun isn’t going to last forever.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that when governments are going to make huge amounts of money in “green” taxation, and ALL climate science is primarily funded by governments, there seems to be the teeniest vested interest.

Finally, I should say that computer models cannot ever constitute proof. The UK Met Office has been failing regularly to provide anything other than a short-range forecast and is regularly beaten by an astrophysicist called Piers Corbyn. The reason? The Met Office uses the same model that forecasts warming and Corbyn bases his forecasts on solar activity, magnetic fields and the position of the moon.

By: Orlando Keller

Orlando Keller — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 05:22:23 +0000

Oh, i forgot to say: in a normal warming cycle, the sun heats the earth, the earth gets hotter.

The oceans warm up, releasing huge amounts of CO2. This creates a greenhouse effect that makes warming much, much more intense

Together with some other effects it causes the global warming.