I am a climate skeptic who believes in global warming

April 25, 2015

Not all people who believe global warming is a genuine phenomenon are cultists or watermelons. Bjorn Lomborg is one, and Mr. Petschauer apparently is another. Recommended reading.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Richard J. Petschauer

A skeptic that believes in global warming? How can that be? We have been told that climate skeptics, sometime incorrectly called “deniers”, still believe the earth is flat and disagree with 97% of scientists. Well, first of all, most of us have seen a globe and know what it represents. Second, do you know on what these scientists agree? If not, don’t feel bad. Those making these claims, mostly politicians, probably don’t know either. Actually, a rather poor survey was done looking at a summary of many technical papers. If any one of many climate related points were made, they were put in the 97% camp. This article would probably have qualified too.

But the real question, not covered in the survey: How fast will the earth warm if we do nothing to curtail the growth of man made carbon dioxide emissions? And how…

View original post 1,588 more words

Why the Left’s global warming agenda is flat out wrong

July 10, 2011

Here’s a neat video that summarizes the problems with the Left’s argument in favor of the existence of dangerous Man-caused global warming. (1) It’s narrated by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and AGW-skeptic. I think it frames the issues nicely.

Produced by Encounter Books and Declaration Entertainment, a bit over nine minutes long.

Dr. Spencer has also written a few books you may find of interest. (2)

(1) Also known as “The problem for which there is darned little evidence and which probably doesn’t exist.”
(2) Thank you, California, for sparing me the shame of earning any of that filthy lucre through those links.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The global-warming skeptic’s position in brief

October 20, 2010

It’s a busy-busy day today, but I wanted to direct your attention to an article at Forbes by Warren Meyer of Climate Skeptic, which provides an excellent summation of the reasons behind the dissenters’ argument against anthropogenic global warming:

In last week’s column, I lamented the devolution of the climate debate into dueling ad hominem attacks, which has led in almost a straight line to the incredible totalitarian vision of the 10:10 climate group’s recent film showing school kids getting blown up for not adhering to the global warming alarmists’ position.

In writing that column, it struck me that it was not surprising that many average folks may be unfamiliar with the science behind the climate skeptic’s position, since it almost never appears anywhere in the press. This week I want to give a necessarily brief summary of the skeptic’s case. There is not space here to include all the charts and numbers; for those interested, this video and slide presentation provides much of the analytical backup.

It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth. Further, few skeptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels, though remember we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.

What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man’s incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptic’s position requires understanding something about the alarmists’ case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.

Emphasis added.

Do read the whole thing; I don’t think you’ll find a better introduction.

And maybe pass it along to any alarmists you know, just to bug them.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The Goracle is displeased

August 13, 2010

Question not. The science is settled. Amen.

Alas! Al Gore, the High Priest of Gaea, Primate of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Sex Poodle in Chief, has been foiled in his sacred mission to ruin the economy and control our lives save the Earth. He lashed out at those who defied him in an audience with his acolytes a conference call with his supporters:

Speaking about the likelihood of climate bill being passed by Congress in 2010, Al Gore told a conference call of supporters tonight that, “this battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year.” Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “The federal government has failed us.” Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that “the government as a whole has failed us… although the House did its job. [emphasis added]”

Ever notice that, whenever a Lefty doesn’t get his way, it’s proof that “government is broken?” It’s never, “Gee, maybe I was wrong and they were right.”

Gore urged his listeners to take the “realistic view that they had failed badly.” Gore said that “Comprehensive legislation is not likely to be debated” and that a “lame duck debate” is a “very slim possibility indeed.” (N.B. We thought, because Gore told us, that “the debate” was over.)

Gore said “the government was not working “as our founders intended it to” and laid more blame at the feet of fossil fuel interests who conducted a “cynical coordinated campaign” with “unprecedented funding” and “who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars just on lobbying.” He criticized “polluters” for “dumping global warming pollution into the atmosphere like it was an open sewer.”

And it’s always a conspiracy or a collusion by the demons that haunt their dreams: big corporations. Conveniently forgetting, of course, that big, bad companies like BP had hopped onto the global warming/carbon trading gravy train hoping to make millions off it.

Gore blamed the skeptics for “attacking science and scientists.” “They [the skeptics] did damage and cast doubt,” Gore said.

Funny, I thought doubt, skepticism, and the testing of hypotheses against empirical data were crucial elements of the scientific method, not heresies against the True Faith. And while skeptics like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts were doing just that, the vicious attacks were coming from the advocates of AGW, who would go so far as to characterize skeptics as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and betrayers of the planet.

Asked why the alarmists were ineffective in addressing Climategate, Gore bitterly blamed a “biased right-wing media… bolstered by professional deniers.” Gore claimed the Wall Street Journal published 30 editorial and news articles about Climategate and “not a single one presented [his] side of the science.”

Ah, yes. That vaunted right-wing media conspiracy. What’s a little paranoia among friends, eh, Al?

This just begs for one of those Downfall bunker videos.

But, as befits his exalted station, the Goracle was at least temperate in language, if not in thought. Not so his buddy at the National Wildlife Federation, Larry Schweiger, who publicly referred to skeptics as “bastards.”

Love to you, too, Larry.

LINKS: More from James Delingpole and Anthony Watts.

What China really thinks of anthropogenic global warming

August 13, 2010

It looks like the forthcoming world superpower has a much more realistic view of climate change than the EU or the Obama Administration.

I wonder if this will cause Tom Friedman a crisis of faith?

Nah. He’s too much of a true believer.

Seven eminent physicists skeptical of man-made global warming

July 25, 2010

Heretics! Don’t they realize there’s a consensus? That the IPCC has a computer model? How dare these men, two of whom have won Nobel Prizes, defy the Goracle?

Question not. The science is settled. Amen.

Joking aside, these scientists, living and dead, deserve our respect for refusing to go along with a farcical consensus and for reasserting that real science requires skepticism and empirical testing, not just computer models that spit back programmed results.

You can read all about them at Watt’s Up With That?

More cracks in the climate “consensus”

June 2, 2010

Great Britain’s Royal Society has for several years been one of the bulwarks supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and their strong endorsement has been used both as a shield and a club by alarmists in their arguments with skeptics.

That time may just have come to an end:

Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism

Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.

The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” This contradicts a comment by the society’s previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: “The debate on climate change is over.”

The admission that the society needs to conduct the review is a blow to attempts by the UN to reach a global deal on cutting emissions. The Royal Society is viewed as one of the leading authorities on the topic and it nominated the panel that investigated and endorsed the climate science of the University of East Anglia.

The Royal Society made a serious mistake by taking sides in the first place, instead of remaining a neutral forum for debate and research. Any change away from their pro-alarmist stance is to be welcomed, and we can hope that this encourages more skeptical researchers to “come out of the closet” and engage before the Green Statists in and out of government do terrible harm to Western economies and liberties.

(via Baseball Crank)

Europe coming to its senses?

May 25, 2010

Skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming is growing by leaps and bounds in both Britain and Germany, two countries previously largely accepting of this fraud:

Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?

Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.

A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

And London’s Science Museum recently announced that a permanent exhibit scheduled to open later this year would be called the Climate Science Gallery — not the Climate Change Gallery as had previously been planned.

The growing doubts in Germany probably weren’t relieved by this article, also in Der Spiegel.

(via Watt’s Up With That?)

You are charged with High Crimes against the climate!

April 13, 2010

First, skeptics of the anthropogenic theory of global warming were compared to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. There were calls to have their professional licenses revoked, or to have them put on trial. They were even deemed traitors to the planet.

So, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised when a lawyer in Britain calls for “ecocide” to be declared a crime against humanity, putting it on par with genocide:

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

Maybe I should start looking for a good lawyer….

(via Watt’s Up With That?)

Good question

June 3, 2009

Given my severe skepticism regarding global warming, I’d be interested to know the answer myself:

“At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers — Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?