Rolling Stone has published a major feature on global warming. Steve Milloy was mentioned as one the chief anti-science guys in the debate, so he has a column in Fox news trotting out all the usual tired old discredited arguments:
“the sort of crystal ball climate modeling that the IPCC report relies on has never been validated against historical temperatures” Not true.
“Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism” See here.
“[Dr. Cicerone] managed leave the impression of a substantial 20th-century human-caused warming [while] ignoring the cooling between 1940 and 1975 that has always created problems for advocates of anthropogenic global warming.” No it doesn’t.
Milloy even resorted to an argument that has not only been discredited, but shown to be an outright lie:
But Dr. Hansen’s predictions of global temperature increases have also been famously wrong. While Dr. Hansen predicted a 0.34 degrees Centigrade rise in average global temperatures during the 1990s, actual surface temperatures rose by only one-third as much (0.11 degrees Centigrade)
In his paper Hansen showed the results of three possible scenarios, but in his testimony before congress Hansen only showed the results of the most likely one, scenario B. As the graph on the right shows, scenario B turned out to be a very good prediction. However, in 1998 Pat Michaels published a blatant lie about Hansen, erasing B and C and claiming that scenario A was his prediction. Since then, folks like Michael Crichton and Steve Milloy have been repeating the lie.
Unfortunately, even something this blatant doesn’t bother Michaels apologist Leigh Cartwright, who offers this:
He’s not lying; he’s only talking about one scenario brought forward.