It's almost cheating to play Global Warming Sceptic Bingo on an Inhofe speech. David Roberts takes it apart.
More like this
About a hundred Internet years ago in 1988 I posted this comment on Usenet:
Waste heat does not contribute significantly to global warming. It is all
(if it's really happening - we probably won't be sure until it's too late)
caused by the greenhouse effect. I agree with Brad - burning fossil…
Bruce Wilson has a report at Talk to Action about a speech by Sen (!) James Inhofe of Oklahoma at last weekend's Values Voter Summit. This speech will be enough to make you think that "values" is synonymous with "braindead". His speech said that global warming is a hoax cooked up by the UN. And…
What they clearly lack in substance, they attempt to make up for in style, but global warming denialists certainly aren't winning any points for class. In a September 25th speech in the Senate, Crazy Ol' James Inhofe--who once called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the…
Reading and listening to global warming sceptics can get a little
tedious because they keep trotting out the same discredited arguments.
So I've come up with a little game you can play to make it more
interesting. I call it Global Warming Sceptic Bingo! Just tick the
box when they use the…
Reading the comments following David Roberts article on the Huffingtonpost site once again the view that you can't predict the weather so you can't predict the climate was dragged out and used to discredit the usefulness of the GCM models.
Is there any way we can get across the concept that climate is the weather 'on average' and that the models are useful in udnerstanding how the climate will change?
PS Tim I am having considerable difficulty accessing your old site. Is there problem?
Cheers Doug
Doug: I don't know whether it's going to rain tomorrow, but I'm damn sure December is going to be colder than July.
Doug, along the same line, I like to propose a bet. I offer the skeptic a bet. They predict the temperature of the city (or wherever we happen to be at the time) for tomorrow and I will predict the global temperature for next year. To make things interesting I insist that our predictions are to the nearest 1/10th of a degree.
After I propose this there are all kinds of arguments about why the bet is not reasonable but the interesting thing is that they all tend to point out the difference between weather and climate.
I will note that this tactic argument also works against those like per as you can see if you read back through the Tim Ball threads.
So what's really going on with this 'new ice age' group? I stumbled across the abstracts for their second annual meeting -- all names I associate with the climate skeptics -- and it seems to be an attempt to build the appearance of consensus that an ice age is starting again. But I don't find any discussion of it. What's with this?
I posted a link and an excerpt from their program web page here, yesterday:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/weekly-round-up/#…
Wow, I just wish Americans and especially Republicans like Inhofe could hold their superiors up to 1/1000th the standard they insist out of climate scientists! I mean, just look at the spurious "evidence" these hypocritical clowns provided for rushing headlong into war in Iraq. I don't see McIntyre & McIntrick "auditing" that!
Carl,
that's an argument that comes up occasionally, but not often enough in my view. Please use it more often.
I also use a variation that asks them to audit economist's predictions, but usually the thread gets hijacked or goes silent...not sure why...
Best,
D
I don't understand the following quote from his speech:
"Just last week, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism."
Wasn't the letter to Exxon and not the media or is there another letter?
There was nothing in the letter to Exxon telling anyone to stifle the voices of scientists. The letter was to tell Exxon to stop funding a bunch of climate charlatans.
Ian Forrester
Ian, apparently there was a previously letter sent by the RS to some of the press, but Inhofe is wrong that the letter was last week; RP Jr. refers to the letter and links to the May 2005 response made by the UK Telegraph here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/the_honest_broker….
Thanks TT.
It would be nice to see an actual copy of that letter since Mr. Collins appears to fill up his car at Exxon gas stations and is very biased (to put it mildly) on his writings on AGW.
Ian Forrester