I am on the fence, but I tend towards skepticism.

lowlevelguy · 1 day

Why would you apply a projection made in 2007 for the next two decades to the last 15 years?

lowlevelguy · 1 day

So you can't provide a single citation?

Do you expect me to just take your word on it?

Water vapour feedback:

Santer et al: "Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere."
Dessler et al: "The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models."

Cloud feedback:

Eastman et al: "In regions of persistent MSC, time series show decreasing MSC amount. This decrease could be due to further spurious variation within the data. However, the decrease combined with observed increases in SST and the negative correlation between marine stratus and sea surface temperature suggests a positive cloud feedback to the warming sea surface."

Ocean acidification:

Doropoulos et al: "Our results suggest OA may reduce coral population recovery by reducing coral settlement rates, disrupting larval settlement behaviour, and reducing the availability of the most desirable coralline algal species for successful coral recruitment."
Dixson et al: Ocean acidification disrupts the innate ability of fish to detect predator olfactory cues
Barros: "The results suggest that the reproductive success and the biological mechanisms for calcification may be prematurely interrupted when exposed to an acidified environment and that influence the viability of C. gigas veliger larvae, compromising the settlement."
Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno: "The impacts of anthropogenic climate change so far include decreased ocean productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced abundance of habitat-forming species, shifting species distributions, and a greater incidence of disease. Although there is considerable uncertainty about the spatial and temporal details, climate change is clearly and fundamentally altering ocean ecosystems. Further change will continue to create enormous challenges and costs for societies worldwide, particularly those in developing countries."

[the precautionary principle] is an excuse to skip risk assessment altogether.

Speaking as an engineer, that's absolutely not true. In any case, a risk assessment for the impacts of climate change has been carried out - see the WG2 and WG3 sections of the IPCC AR4. There's also been a thorough cost/benefit analysis carried out - see the Stern Review.

I don't think claiming that agriculture would benefit from a warmer climate or a longer growing season is a controversial statement to make.

The International Food Policy Research Institute disagrees: "Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security."

Regardless, the burden of proof is on those claiming that a warmer climate will be bad,

Surely the burden of proof that warming will not be bad is on those causing the climate to warm?

because it has happened many times in Earth's history and at those times biodiversity prospered.

How is that applicable to modern agriculture?

Alternative energy sources, such as?

Wind, solar PV, solar thermal, hydro, tidal, wave, biomass, geothermal, nuclear, and probably a few others.

So, by 2050 the world on average needs to have per capita CO2 emissions lower than North Korea. I'd say good luck with that, but luck does not help with the impossible.

You asked for the worst case. That's the worst case. We probably won't reach that target, but just because it's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

What? You're equating climate models that can't hindcast the temperature record properly and that omit first-order forcings to engineering models?

No, I'm equating "a linear model of a nonlinear chaotic system whose input is from a linear model of another nonlinear chaotic system that doesn't even model all of the first-order forcings" to economic models. How much trust do you put into claims that it's worth spending $600 billion on a US national high speed rail network? Engineers don't just deal in bricks and mortar, you know.

lowlevelguy · 2 days

you're entitled to your opinion.

And you're entitled to yours, but if you want to take a skeptical approah to these matters, you need to base your opinions on evidence. Without evidence for a causal link between the AMO and global temps, then simply pointing out the correlation between AMO and global surface temperature is not enough to overturn the conclusion that rising GHGs (which do have a causal link to temperature) are responsible for most of the recent warming.

If you have any studies or other sources suggesting that, I'd be interested in reading them.

Again, as a skeptic, you need to base your opinions on evidence, not some gut feeling that sea life prefers a more neutral PH. The current ecology of the seas has adapted to an alkaline ocean, and any move away from existing conditions is going to have an effect. There is plenty of material out there showing that it is going to negatively effect the shell-forming lifeforms at the bottom of the food chain, which will then have implications for all life further up the chain, including humans. Here's one for starters.

Let's see, for cosmic rays we have Forbush decreases, Preliminary CLOUD results (Nature) and supplementary online material, see especially figure S2. The radiative forcing would come from cosmic ray effect on cloud cover, not the cosmic rays themselves.

None of those show any evidence that the forcing from GCRs would overturn the current scientific consensus. The results of those papers suggest that what forcing there may be is likely to be far smaller than the forcing effect of increased GHGs.

All the measures are geared towards making energy more expensive, more unreliable and less abundant.

That's not true.

CO2 emissions and GDP have traditionally gone hand-in-hand, decrease one and you decrease the other.

That's not true. There are several cases where nations have reduced CO2 emissions while GDP continues to increase.

Ah yes, the precautionary principle, a politician's first refuge.

Also an engineer's. It's called a risk assessment - the first stage of carrying out any cost/benefit analysis.

The thing is, a moderate amount of warming would be beneficial.

[citation needed]

The warming from 1900 to 2000 has seen human prosperity grow, crop yields increase and technological development rise to an entire new level.

I think you'll find that it's the technological development and widespread introduction of new energy sources that's behind the increase in prosperity and crop yields, not increasing temperatures.

This is also why the term CAGW was coined, because a moderate amount of warming no matter the source is definitely not harmful.

Again, [citation needed]

A vast majority of Earth's surface would benefit from a longer growing season.

Wow... major [citation needed].

As for allowing for all possibilities, have you already protected yourself and your house against meteorite impacts, because they happen all the time.

And again... [citation needed]

A warming scenario with adverse and wide-reaching climatic effects only lives in the heart of the computer.

Where else would it live?

So, as technology and understanding improves, the available solutions become more expensive or what?

No, the longer we wait before taking action, the more CO2 is emitted, and the harder it will be to transition to alternative energy sources due to increased dependency and a shorter timeframe.

All "solutions" (and I use the term loosely) currently are expensive and have no measurable effect.

[citation needed]

Assuming the worst happens, we can slow it down from happening by what, a few percent?

No. Current negotiations are based on keeping any anthropogenic warming within a limit of 2 degrees. This will require us to meet a global target of 2.5 tonnes CO2 emissions per person per year by 2050.

There is no rush to do anything, we have plenty of time to gather more data and see where the climate is going.

[citation needed]

Oh, and trusting economic projections based on climate models a hundred years into the future is like trusting a linear model of a nonlinear chaotic system whose input is from a linear model of another nonlinear chaotic system that doesn't even model all of the first-order forcings. I think basing any policy on that is hilarious.

That applies to basically any kind of long-term policy. In your world there would be no railways, no hydroelectric dams, no airports, no sewage systems, no communication networks, etc etc etc. Using this logic you'd be a fool to trust the claims of beneficial effects resulting in building power stations to burn coal.

lowlevelguy · 2 days

This means that for every 1 degree of warming, the models expect another 2-3 degrees from changes in cloud cover.

Where did you get that from? I don't think that's correct.

Since these periods coincide well with the periods of warming/cooling, I believe neglecting cycles as potential contributors to temperature trends is a mistake.

These aren't neglected. The IPCC allows for a small possibility that most of the recent warming is due to natural variability. The reason why the possibility is small is because there is no physical basis to account for how a small oscillation in Arctic temperatures could have such a large influence on global mean surface temperatures.

Ocean acidification becoming a major issue. ... Certainly some species can be affected, but there simply is no reason to assume that the effect will be significant or even noticeable.

What reasoning would there be for thinking that the effect will not be noticable?

The problem is that this area is still undergoing research, like Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis, and as such there is strictly speaking no conclusive evidence of a solar-cloud link.

Not only is there no conclusive evidence, there is no supporting evidence for a link that would explain any significant radiative forcing effect from cosmic rays or UV.

About the only thing I worry wrt climate is the adoptation of ruinous economic policies based on the climate scare instead of using resources for problems that are real.

What evidence do you have that reducing CO2 emissions would be economically "ruinous"?

You admit that CO2 is causing warming, but that you have no idea how much. This does not make it an imaginary problem - it is still a real problem that needs to be addressed. Just with any other 'real' problem, you need to look at the risks associated with a warming climate, and what that would mean for the economy. And if you don't know what the exact amount of warming to expect is, you have to allow for all possibilities, even the highest.

When faced with any problem, it is rational to act on it based on the information and evidence available now, rather than wait and hope that the situation might improve. We have enough information to know that rising CO2 emissions is likely to have negative economic impacts, and that the longer we wait to take action, the more expensive any solution will be.

lowlevelguy · 2 days

What? Pointing out innaccuracies in a cited "favourite" article is a straw man?

lowlevelguy · 2 days

See gish gallop. I have neither the time nor the inclination to refute every single point on that page, so I#'ll just skip to the end.

Summaries

REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE BASICS - The Earth's climate varies in semi-regular to irregular cycles.

Those cycles are well known, and are unable to explain the current warming trend.

Solar output to earth = over 24,000 times our total human output.

I don't even see how this is relevant.

There is a strongly-suspected link between the Sun, cosmic rays, and our climate; but the science is young.

Strongly suspected by who? The evidence for a link between cosmic rays and climate is very weak, making it very unlikely to be a cause of recent warming.

There have been vastly greater quantities of CO2 in the ancient past, with no ill effects.

Ill effects to who? Current CO2 levels are higher than they have been for at least 800,000 years - far longer than human civilization has existed.

The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is already saturated, so even doubling CO2 would have near-zero effect.

Not true.

Ocean currents oscillating over decades have huge effects on measured temperatures; the oceans' thermal inertia is 10,000 times that of the atmosphere.

Ocean current oscillations cannot explain the consistent warming trend observed in the atmosphere and the oceans over the last century.

Oceans hold 49/50 of all free CO2 which outgasses in the tropics and sinks at the poles; the total annual CO2 turnover could be a quarter of the total atmospheric CO2 and around 40 times the human contribution.

Examination of the change in carbon isotopes in the atmosphere shows that the ocean outgassing cannot explain the rise in atmospheric CO2.

It is possible that the CO2 increase is from slow thermohaline currents since the 17th Century "Little Ice Age".

No it isn't. See previous response.

Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas; clouds are the biggest natural cooler and a variable quantity.

The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by temperature - water vapour does not act as a forcing. Clouds are a variable quantity, but they provide both a cooling and a warming effect: cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights.

There appears to be a natural homeostasis mechanism that prevents Earth temperatures going beyond certain limits.

There is no evidence for this.

Plants on land, and sea animals making shells, are the earth's well-tested natural CO2 regulators; plants account for a third to a half of the annual CO2 turnover.

There is no evidence that plants and sea animals regulate atmospheric CO2 in the short term - any CO2 removed as the plant/animal grows will be emitted back into the atmosphere when the plant/animal dies and decomposes.

There are serious problems with bad data, the most critical being the "urban heat island" problem..

There is no evidence that surface temperature records are being distorted in any significant way by the Urban Heat Island effect. All current reconstructions are corrected to account for the UHI influence on surface temperature measurements.

lowlevelguy · 3 days

Here is one of my favorites that explains most of the skeptics' side:

Understanding the Global Warming Debate:

That's a perfect example of the way climate science is misrepresented by media hacks with an agenda.

The author states that the core theory of "catastrophic" man-made global warming justifies immediate and likely expensive government action. This is not part of the scientific consensus on climate change.

He lays out the core theory in a diagram of his own design, which contains the following statements:

Theory: Doubling CO2 directly increases temperatures by 1C

Correct... well, it's actually nearer 1.2C, but close enough.

Theory: Feedbacks multiply this by 3x to 5x or more

The actual figures for equilibrium sensitivity are 2 - 4.5ºC, with a most likely value of 3ºC.

The author suggests that increased plant growth would be a negative feedback; this is incorrect as the carbon absorbed by the plants as they grew would be emitted again as methane when they died and decomposed.

He suggests that increased water vapour would lead to increased clouds which would provide a negative feedback due to the increase in reflected sunlight; this is incorrect as there is little evidence to suggest that increased water vapour leads to more clouds, and clouds can act to trap heat as well as reflect it, so any feedback from clouds is just as likely to be positive as it is to be negative.

There is plenty of observed evidence to support positive feedbacks from increased water vapour, methane emissions from thawing permafrost, and reduced albedo from less summer snow and ice.

Observation: The world has warmed about 0.7ºC in the last century

The author states that temperatures have been flat for the last 10-15 years, and are no longer climbing; this is incorrect as the trend for the last 10-15 years is statistically insignificant and cannot be determined with the neccessary confidence level.

He states that flat temperatures create a problem for the core theory; this is incorrect, since there are many causes of natural variability in the surface temperature record that could explain a short-term cooling trend, as has happened several times before, which in no way invalidate the warming effect of CO2.

Observation: All of this (and more) due to man-made CO2

The IPCC consensus actually states that most of the warming since 1950 is due to human activity.

He suggests alternative explanations for recent warming (the sun, ocean cycles, recovery from the LIA), all of which have been refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. A fourth source of warming - land-use change - is explicitly considered in the IPCC consensus, and in any case is still anthropogenic.

The author states that we should already have seen 1.5C warming from CO2, implying that the warming effect is instantaneous, which is not part of the IPCC consensus.

He states that the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols is an assumption, whereas it is in fact supported by observed evidence.

In summary, he states that skeptics "argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2" and that they are "simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated". But the evidence supporting these positions is incredibly weak, and it's only by denying the vast collection of evidence supporting the consensus that those arguments can be made.

ManBearPigg · 4 days

It has actually not risen since 1999 when you factor in natural climate change...it has risen 0.0C so.. the earth has not been warming in the last 13 years do to green house gases

Which temperature record are you taking these figures from? Because GISTEMP, HADCRUT3 and BEST all show warming since 1999.

And how have you distinguished the proportion of global surface temperature change from natural influences from that of GHGs? 1998 was a very strong El Nino year, so it's no surprise that temperatures for subsequent years were lower. But that doesn't mean that the warming influence of GHGs has gone away. A recent paper that accounts for the known natural influences on temperature (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 shows a clear and consistent warming trend of around 0.17 degrees per decade between 1979 and 2010.

publius_lxxii · 4 days

You don't see how regulating CO2 would affect the bottom line of oil companies, and help encourage alternative methods of transportation energy?

Evidence of how the oil industry has attempted to skew the way climate science is communicated goes back a long time. I'd recommend reading 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomi Oreskes.

The case of Philip Cooney is a particularly blatant example.

Its also because BIG OIL isn't really the target of the CAGW movement. Its goal is to establish taxation, financial instruments (carbon credits) and favored markets (said "green energy") which can be manipulated and profited off of by governments and their favored corporate/banking constituency.

O... K... so are you saying that the scientific consensus is incorrect?

publius_lxxii · 4 days

Then why do y'all keep bitching about the nefarious influence of "big oil"?

Because they're the ones spending more on propaganda? Oh dear - neither of us specified which side we thought was the highest spender... how embarrassing.

Particularly when they were noticeably absent from the Heartland donors list?

Do the Koch brothers mean anything to you?

observed evidence is not going to fly.

The observed evidence that supports AGW:

Conclusive evidence that rising CO2 is anthropogenic in origin comes from a 2003 paper by Ghosh and Brand: Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research.
Conclusive evidence that the rising CO2 is causing the earth's climate to warm comes from two recent papers looking at satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation: Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006; Chen et al, 2007 and Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008; Wang and Liang, 2009.
Conclusive evidence that variation in solar irradiance is not responsible for recent warming comes from a 2007 paper by Lockwood and Frolich: Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature.
These papers support estimates of the earth's energy balance and the radiative forcing due to GHGs.
When it comes to impacts of warming, you've got papers that demonstrate accellerating sea level rise, and physical and biological impacts of climate change.

All of this and more is summarized in a report from the NAS that reviews the likely degree-by-degree impacts of warming.

Here are a few more important papers referenced by the Working Group 1 in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

Climate sensitivity is estimated to be around 3 degrees Celcius for a doubling of CO2. This depends on the existence of positive feedbacks to warming in the climate system. These positive feedbacks are supported by observed evidence:

Climate change theory predicts that warmer temperatures would lead to reduced summer sea ice extent, which would cause a feedback from changes to the earth's albedo. This has been observed.
Climate change theory predicts that warming permafrost would release increasing amounts of methane, which would cause a feedback from increased atmospheric GHGs. This has been observed.
Climate change theory predicts that increasing temperatures would increase the level of atmospheric water vapour, which would cause a feedback due from increased atmospheric GHGs. This has been observed.

publius_lxxii · 5 days

Well I guess if we all kind of already know we don't need evidence and stuff.

one side spending orders of magnitude more than the other in all cases.

Well, obviously.

Most "climate skeptics" I know (or at least pay attention to) are far more interested in understanding the degree of AGW vs. natural causes and in disputing the claims of "catastrophic" AGW, for which there is no observed evidence and thus remains on far shakier ground.

There is no consensus over "catastrophic" AGW. The IPCCs WG1 conclusions, which form the basis for most policies currently enacted or under consideration, is based on sound physical principles and supported by observed evidence.

publius_lxxii · 5 days

Those are all good questions. I'd love to see the answers to them, and hear how they have relevance to the observed evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change.

ManBearPigg · 5 days

You said in your previous comment that the section you quoted was your favourite part of the article, which implies that AGW is "the greatest scam in history".

Since you highlighted this as your favourite, I thought I'd ask you if you shared the belief that AGW was a scam. But you seem unable to answer a simple question, preferring to present a link to an article by a Forbes columnist, without explanation.

I'd still like to know if you agree that AGW is a "scam". But I think it's worth pointing out the flaws in the Warren Meyer article you linked to.

He states that the core theory of "catastrophic" man-made global warming justifies immediate and likely expensive government action. This is not part of the scientific consensus on climate change.

He lays out the core theory in a diagram of his own design, which contains the following statements:

Theory: Doubling CO2 directly increases temperatures by 1C

Well, it's actually nearer 1.2C, but close enough.

Theory: Feedbacks multiply this by 3x to 5x or more

The actual figures for equilibrium sensitivity are 2 - 4.5ºC, with a most likely value of 3ºC.

He suggests that increased plant growth would be a negative feedback; this is incorrect as the carbon absorbed by the plants as they grew would be emitted again as methane when they died and decomposed.

He suggests that increased water vapour would lead to increased clouds which would provide a negative feedback due to the increase in reflected sunlight; this is incorrect as there is little evidence to suggest that increased water vapour leads to more clouds, and clouds can act to trap heat as well as reflect it, so any feedback from clouds is just as likely to be positive as it is to be negative.

There is plenty of observed evidence to support positive feedbacks from increased water vapour, methane emissions from thawing permafrost, and reduced albedo from less summer snow and ice.

Observation: The world has warmed about 0.7ºC in the last century

He states that temperatures have been flat for the last 10-15 years, and are no longer climbing; this is incorrect as the trend for the last 10-15 years is statistically insignificant and cannot be determined with the neccessary confidence level.

He states that flat temperatures create a problem for the core theory; this is incorrect, since there are many causes of natural variability in the surface temperature record that could explain a short-term cooling trend, as has happened several times before, which in no way invalidate the warming effect of CO2.

Observation: All of this (and more) due to man-made CO2

The IPCC consensus actually states that most of the warming since 1950 is due to human activity.

He suggests alternative explanations for recent warming (the sun, ocean cycles, recovery from the LIA), all of which have been refuted in the peer-reviewed literature. A fourth source of warming - land-use change - is explicitly considered in the IPCC consensus, and in any case is still anthropogenic.

He states that we should already have seen 1.5C warming from CO2, implying that the warming effect is instantaneous, which is not part of the IPCC consensus.

He states that the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols is an assumption, whereas it is in fact supported by observed evidence.

In summary, he states that skeptics "argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2" and that they are "simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated". But the evidence supporting these positions is incredibly weak, and it's only by denying the vast collection of evidence supporting the consensus that those arguments can be made.

publius_lxxii · 5 days

That doesn't even start to answer my question. You're comparing a lobbying budget from a single advocacy group on a single issue to various budgets for legitimate multi-departmental research or global environmental campaigning.

Let's try this again. How much have Big Oil spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change? How much have the UN, IPCC, and the US government spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change?

publius_lxxii · 5 days

How? Is that info publicly available?

ManBearPigg · 5 days

So enjoy the moment, warmists, because what this episode really demonstrates to the world is how little money was needed to bring the greatest scam in history to its knees.

You really think anthropogenic climate change a scam? If so, who's behind it? How many people are implicated? What are their motives and ultimate goals?

publius_lxxii · 5 days

OK, lets discus this. How much have Big Oil spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change? How much have the UN, IPCC, and the US government spent on lobbying and policy work vs legitimate scientific research when it comes to climate change?

Comparing the total combined budget for decades of public spending allocated to climate change - which covers funding for satellites, alternative energy research, mitigation and adaptation scenarios, and countless peer-reviewed papers - with a fraction of the budget from a single group for a single year, is such a blatant attempt to spin this incident that its no wonder that you're having trouble getting people to feel sympathetic to your view.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 5 days

Are you saying that the evidence that Big Oil and other carbon-intensive industries have been engaging in a decades-long campaign to protect their profits and limit any future liability that their pollution might cause is all faked?

The Heartland Institute receives money from corporations and extremely wealthy individuals to lobby on their behalf on specific issues. Regulation of CO2 emissions is one of these issues. What do you think the real strategy document for 2012 might look like? Why do you think the HI is funding people like Fred Singer, Craig Idso and Bob Watson? Because it certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with legitimate scientific research.

This leak is just the latest in a long line of evidence showing how the oil industry is influencing policy to protect its interests. Now, you could say that these corporations are entirely justified in protecting themselves against proposed regulations that will affect their profit margin. But the question then becomes - with the massive profits being made by oil corporations, how can we prevent them weilding their considerable power to establish direct links to policymakers in order to create policies that serve corporate interests rather than the public. How can we overcome the protection of the status quo at all costs in the face of a changing climate? How can we ensure that climate and energy policy is driven by clear, informed science rather than misinformation funded and promoted by special interests?

publius_lxxii · 5 days

We are chemists, engineers, programmers, physicists, astronomers, medical professionals, meteorologists, statisticians and even climate scientists. We are not the ones who are uninformed in the debate, we are the ones who are qualified to read the science and where appropriate – disagree.

Nothing wrong with that statement at all, in principle. The problem is that a lot of the disagreement from 'skeptics' over the fundamentals of climate science is undoubtedly inappropriate... demonstrating that they are, in fact, uninformed (or even wilful providers of misinformation) in the debate.

A prime example would be the continued insistence that the US surface temperature record is unreliable, despite several peer-reviewed studies (including one from Professor Watts) showing the opposite.

hocus_pocus · 5 days

Well, that all depends on how the plant is grown, where it got its nutrients from, and what was growing on the land before the decision was made to grow ethanol crops on it.

Corn based ethanol does in fact involve a large amount of non-renewable CO2 emissions, due to the fossil-fuel derived fertilizers and pesticides used to grow the plants.

guysguy · 5 days

Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Not a bitch.

Will_Power · 6 days

Bill Clinton: Climate Denial Makes USA Into A 'Joke'

thoughtso · 7 days

If you properly attributed those quotes to their actual sources, and put those quotes in context, I believe that the vast majority reasonable people would not agree that you've accurately and fairly characterized the situation.

Priceless.

thoughtso · 7 days

"This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out."

...

His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

Can't wait to see the denial machine spin into gear for these two.

JRugman

TROPHY CASE

JRugman

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login