Not even wrong: climate sceptics “don’t get science”

Some perceptive words in The Age Editorial today:

In the past week, The Age has examined at length the premises of the local debate. These reports have shone a light on fallacies about scientific opinion and uncertainty, economic impacts and global action on emissions.

A key problem in drawing on complex science is that scientists are versed in assessing degrees of uncertainty. The public is not; any unresolved issue is taken as suggesting serious doubt about even a broadly accepted scientific conclusion. And if laypeople are prepared to dismiss the weight of scientific opinion what is left of informed debate?

The existence of dissenting voices is a mark of democracy, but this does not mean that balance in reporting scientific and policy debates is achieved by giving opposing sides equal weight when that ”balance” does not remotely resemble the weight of scientific support for human-caused climate change.

I agree – we should never “silence” or censor the sceptics.

However at some point you have to stop treating what are patently ridiculous arguments as serious.

Creationists, anti-vaxxers and flat earthers – for good reason – are not treated as serious equals in scientific debates.

It is for the same reason “climate sceptics” are not treated seriously by the scientific community.

It is not because they have some powerful arguments and are being “muzzled”.

They are simply wrong.

Indeed, they are not even wrong:

An argument that appears to be scientific is said to be not even wrong if it cannot be falsified (i.e., tested) by experiment or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. The phrase was coined by theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.

The whole “climate science is a scam” is not even wrong because you cannot falsify the argument.

Every piece of evidence for climate science is simply proof of a greater conspiracy.

As I read the comments by sceptics coming to this blog, all I can think is “Not even wrong mate…”

39 thoughts on “Not even wrong: climate sceptics “don’t get science”

  1. Geoff Brown says:

    However at some point you have to stop treating what are patently ridiculous arguments as serious.

    “Creationists, anti-vaxxers and flat earthers – for good reason – are not treated as serious equals in scientific debates.”

    As are the flat-earthers in the climate debate. The people who still cling to the idea that CO2 is causing the warming when, in fact, the warming causes the rise in atmospheric CO2.

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/03/every-few-weeks-i-get-e-mail-notifying.html

    I very rarely come to this deniers blog, every so often Mike sends another post. As I read the comments by the ad hom, rude warmists on this blog, all I can think is “Not even wrong mate…”

  2. JeffT says:

    The Age as a source ?
    Get real –
    And I see Herald-Sun, Andrew Bolt get knocked here.

    Then the Age is quoted.
    Get real –

    Amongst the bloglist, I noticed ‘Stoat’ Taking science by the throat – (and ripping the guts out of it ), by one Mr William M. Connelley who was an author and re-author of climate change subjects on Wikipedia.
    Resulting in Wikipedia’s loss of credibility.
    Get real –
    J.

    • ianash says:

      Um, ‘get real’ you say…like the tin foil hat reality you and the rest of the denialist nutters inhabit?

      • JeffT says:

        ianinane,

        Fairfax media – The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, Rural Press
        As I said – Get real !
        Rural Press, that delayed any information about Robert Oakeshott until they were placed in a difficult position by other media out reporting them. Many, many more instances of editorial bias.

        The Sydney Morning Herald, noted for not reporting anything that may be against the mainstream on climate.

        I’m not an avid follower of The Age.

        Tin foil hat keeps the Sun of your bald spot. Maybe you should wear yours, to reduce being affected by too much sun –

        JT

  3. Tim says:

    A classic example here that I’ve run into is JeffT..

    “However at some point you have to stop treating what are patently ridiculous arguments as serious.”

    Indeed that’s what I’ve done and had to do on my own blog. Eventually, when they’re no longer getting attention they move on. You could waste your life on their merry-go-round of stupidity or you can spend your time on positive discussions and meaningful debates.

    What annoys me is their continually insistence as “sceptics”. They’re simply too clueless on the subject to hold objective scepticism of the subject. They elevate they’re beliefs unjustly and expect to be taken seriously. None of the “sceptics” I’ve run into on the blogosphere have even a science degree (Elsa claims to have one from Cambridge, but only other versions of herself can back that up).

    • ianash says:

      Dont sweat it. Geoff just spews forth anything the IPA stooges trot out and JeffT lives in his own special bubble. Noone takes them seriously. They are worthy of nothing more than your scorn and derision.

      • I don’t think JeffT even deserves that.. Simply demonstrate that he’s wrong and leave it at that. Sure, he will retort, they simply can’t help but justify the crap they spew out in blind devotion of business-as-usual; nothing more than a dying ideology, but you can’t waste your life pandering to their faith.

      • JeffT says:

        ianinane,
        Oh jeez, now I’m hurt.

        And I’m only a successful electronic designer, manufacturer and consultant, with in excess of 35 years of using the sciences as a tools of trade.

        I suppose that doesn’t count against some pratt that has done 3 years or less of Climate Science from some new age university.
        JT

      • john byatt says:

        Even a flamin blacksmith uses science as a tool of trade,

    • john byatt says:

      Tim i agree with you to some extent , people like jefft though are a good source for the latest drivel that is being proclaimed as the final nail in the coffin, he generally follows and puts up stuff that he has just read on WUWT and is of course immediately an expert on whatever subject is being tortured there.

      I cannot visit WUWT etc without putting my head in a vice so its good that jefft comes here to let us look at what these ********** (insert anything except sceptics } are chanting, that they can go from, its cooling to its warming in 24 hours without any thoughts of contradiction, truly amazing

      The bloke that runs TCS Geoff {above} has “science industry” down on his profile,

      running for the senate he had bean counter ,taxi driver and dog breeder

      . I have no background in science but was employed as a ###### for the ##### for many years , i could tell you but then i would have to kill you ,

      • lol
        it’s one thing to have worked in the industry and quite another to have attained scientific qualifications. Not that I’m arguing against the right to ask questions or disagree, just against the self-righteous assertions of being critically sceptical. That said, many of these people called Monckton an expert once upon a time….

      • JeffT says:

        Yes Johnny Byatt,
        You’re correct to a point, but as usual you use a generality.
        A blacksmith would have a general knowledge of metallurgy, mostly handed down from an elder to the apprentice.

        I had to study physics, orientated to electronics, and update as necessary through thermionics, semiconductor, solid state, microelectronic techniques, microprocessor and imbedded microprocessors.
        Then there is assembly techniques, board layout and design.
        Use of simulators (Oh No not a bluudy computer model )
        ( I could tell you but then i would have to kill you , )

        Back to the forge.
        JT

      • john byatt says:

        Jefft i know someone that would leave you for dead in electronics innovation and world patents to boot

        he knows SFA about climate change as well

    • JeffT says:

      Tim,
      You wrote:-
      A classic example here that I’ve run into is JeffT..

      “However at some point you have to stop treating what are patently ridiculous arguments as serious.”
      Hmmm.
      I have posted at least 2x peer reviewed papers here on WtD –
      So I don’t consider that is “what are patently ridiculous arguments as serious.”
      Response from Johnny Byatt, – a couple of cut and paste style warmista responses negating the documents.
      The last one I posted yesterday was a 9 page document that is not even in print yet, but released as an on-line version.
      I feel this is just a knee-jerk reaction to anything that shakes the climate change paradigm.
      And yet I’ve seen here on WtD an acceptance that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is “substantially correct”. (complete with the snatch of images from ‘The Day after Tomorrow’)
      Another Hmmm !
      JT

      • “I have posted at least 2x peer reviewed papers here on WtD”

        OMG! You’re a superstar!
        If a bonehead can claim to hold 850+ papers claiming to justify “scepticism” of AGW and AGW alarm, why at all would I be surprised if you have referenced 2?

        Working as a researcher, I have uni access to most peer-reviewed journals and I promise not only have I read much more, but as you’ve demonstrated previously, I certainly understand more than you – not only what the study means but where it stands as part of our understanding.

        This is why I referred to you as vacuous (I suggest you look up what it means). You certainly don’t have much understanding of science.

        You can spot and idiot. I suggest we make a comparison to Godwin’s Law for the twits that constantly demonize Gore (simply because they fail to come close to the actual science).

        As usual JT, get a life.

  4. john byatt says:

    SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH

    WIND TURBINE SYNDROME CURED

    Money is a highly effective antidote. Those most exposed to wind turbines include those who have them on their land. Yet miraculously, there are no known cases of such people making claims about being adversely affected by turbines. Strangely, it is always those who see the turbines on the land of their neighbours. Money, it seems, is an astonishingly effective preventive agent in warding off Wind Turbine Syndrome.

    AT UNLEASHED ABC .

    ,

    • JeffT says:

      Johnny Byatt @ jefft linky
      SO -didn’t anyone tell you the Antarctic does shed ice on a regular basis, namely to do with seasonal changes.
      But-
      Notice this year the Wilkins Ice shelf IS STILL THERE.
      And Larsen A & B are still there.
      As is the Weddell Sea, being is still covered with sea ice.
      and by today’s AMRS-E looks like the Antarctic sea ice is recovering.
      The Weddell Sea was part open this time last year
      History:-
      In 1915, the ship Endurance and the Ernst Shackleton expedition were trapped in the sea ice near shore of the Weddell Sea Jan 24 1915- (meaning the sea ice was navigable not covered with sea ice)
      The Endurance was crushed by the sea ice, and was held up until the thaw.
      The crew where saved, but the ship was lost by November 1915.

      But that doesn’t line up with the climatism rhetoric, does it ?
      JT

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      The NSW government did a large report into so called “wind turbine syndrome”.

      The idea is based on the work of a crank MD in the US…

      http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/9077860/wind-sickness-doctor-fronts-senate-inquiry/

      She has all the hallmarks of the Andrew Wakefield, the guy who mislead the public on the safety of vaccines (MMR).

      Unsupported claims.

      The support of cranks.

      Reports dismiss it…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Safety

      “…A 2009 expert panel review, described as being the most comprehensive to date, delved into the possible adverse health effects of those living close to wind turbines. Their report findings concluded that wind turbines do not directly make people ill.[79][86]

      The 85-page study was sponsored by the Canadian Wind Energy Association and American Wind Energy Association. The academic and medical experts who conducted the study stated that they reached their conclusions independent of their sponsors. “We were not told to find anything,” said panel expert David Colby, a public health officer in Chatham-Kent and a Professor of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario. “It was completely open ended.”[79]

      The study did allow that some people could be stressed out by the swishing sounds wind turbines produce. “A small minority of those exposed report annoyance and stress associated with noise perception…” [however] “Annoyance is not a disease.” The study group pointed out that similar irritations are produced by local and highway vehicles, as well as from industrial operations and aircraft.[79]

      The wind-industry report found, amongst other things, that:[79]

      * “Wind Turbine Syndrome” symptoms are the same as those seen in the general population due to stresses of daily life. They include headaches, insomnia, anxiety, dizziness, etc…[79]

      * low frequency and very low-frequency “infrasound” produced by wind turbines are the same as those produced by vehicular traffic and home appliances, even by the beating of people’s hearts. Such ‘infrasounds’ are not special and convey no risk factors;[79]

      * Colby stated that evidence of harm was so minuscule that the wind associations were unable to initiate other independent collinear studies by government agencies. It was not surprising that their requests met with complete blanks on the need to examine the issues further;[79]

      * one study member noted: “You can’t control the amount of cars going by and wind turbine noise is generally quieter than highway noise”;[79]
      * the power of suggestion, as conveyed by news media coverage of perceived ‘wind-turbine sickness’, might have triggered “anticipatory fear” in those close to turbine installations.[79]

      The study panel members included: Robert Dobie, a doctor and clinical professor at the University of Texas, Geoff Leventhall, a noise vibration and acoustics expert in the United Kingdom, Bo Sondergaard, with Danish Electronics Light and Acoustics, Michael Seilo, a professor of audiology at Western Washington University, and Robert McCunney, a biological engineering scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. McCunney contested claims that infrasounds from wind turbines could create vibrations causing ill health: “It doesn’t really have much credence, at least based on the literature out there” he stated.[79]”

  5. john byatt says:

    jefft your JCR paper was replied to , where did you find it WUWT?

    Thought so

    Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed analysis: “worldwide …
    28 Mar 2011 … Full paper available online here. WUWT download (faster) here: ….. Not not all papers at JCR are open access, you actually have to pay for …
    wattsupwiththat.com/…/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-… –

    Worldwide temperature increase, ?

    tomorrow he will be posing bombshell ” no warming’

    • JeffT says:

      Yes you caught me out,
      I’m a link thief. I use all available links to chase up data that may be shortened or edited by passing through a third party.
      Watt’s had the link, I used it, as I will links from other sources.

      Unlike mothincinerated, I don’t have a university shell to crawl out from under with those thousands of papers for reference.

      Didn’t you know – ” Worldwide temperature increase, ? ”
      Anthony Watts acknowledges that, also that CO2 levels are rising. He has an eco-friendly home, drives a hybrid.

      But Anthony Watts is a retired meteorologist, who also is a climate realist, who says on his page:
      “While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also.”

      Don’t you believe that a person that has hands on experience with weather, anomalies and prediction should have a knowledge of how it works.
      So the image you project of Watts is wrong, as usual, used by you just to denigrate someone who holds a different view than yours.

      Back to the JCR paper – Authored by:-
      J.R. Houston
      Director Emeritus
      Engineer Research and Develpoment Center
      Corp of Engineers.

      R.G. Dean
      Professor Emeritus
      Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering
      University of Florida

      Now I’ve spotted what’s wrong – These guys don’t have degrees in climatology
      Damn.
      JT

      • john byatt says:

        Watts

        The Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres subsequently accepted for publication a study, citing Watts’ Surfacestations.org, which concludes that “In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.” [21][22] In fact, the analysis of unadjusted data from poorly sited stations did reveal a bias, however, it was not the expected bias. The poorly sited stations measured maximum temperatures on average lower than the well sited stations. The authors note:
        “Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures.”[21]

        TV weather man willard watts

      • john byatt says:

        jefft “Now I’ve spotted what’s wrong – These guys don’t have degrees in climatology

        no but they have form

      • ianash says:

        Emeritus Disease. Just like Plimer.

  6. john byatt says:

    OMG

    posted at Just Morons

    this is thew knowledge of the Bolt readers,

    Reply by John C Fairfax 8 hours ago
    Sea level rise due to ice melting has always seemed preposterous to me because land mass beneath Antarctic ice and ice underwater in the Arctic has apparently not been measured. How could Antarctic peaks and valleys and plains be measured beneath the ice and snow? And ice shrinks when it melts. How could such melted water be measured? So how can there be proof there is enough ice to produce enough water to cause a rise on the whole surface of the whole ocean of this planet?

    ,

  7. john byatt says:

    Jefft the antarctic sea ice always recovers in winter, do you know anything about anything at all ?

    you are just proving to everyone just how thick you are and you think your doing great,

    ,

    • JeffT says:

      @ john byatt (10:23:03)
      “Amber Jenkins is a climate change communicator working at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In previous lives she was an atom smasher, journal editor”
      My opinion – she should have stayed with atom smashing, maybe she could communicate climate change with ianinane at his level.

      @ john byatt (07:59:52)
      “Jefft the antarctic sea ice always recovers in winter, do you know anything about anything at all ?”
      Well you don’t say, I’m illuminated by your brilliance.

      Yes, I have been copy and filing prints of the Antarctic sea ice cover for three years, allows day by day comparisons.
      I also check the sea ice and snow cover at McMurdo/ Ross Sea on webcam, complete with temperature and wind chill factor.
      “Oh No, not the webcam” -( five minutes to update ) that’s what they are there for Johnny.

      “you are just proving to everyone just how thick you are and you think your doing great,”
      And your just trying to prove your superiority, by adding derogatory comment. -and it fails.

      The little bit of history @ JeffT (07:41:00) :
      Was to indicate that your alarming story is nothing spectacular. East Antarctic glacier calving – big bluudy deal. The glacier is fed by snowfall, it moves out to sea, the water undercuts the flow until it calves.

      My reference to the Wilkins Ice shelf calving – March 2008 and April 2009, MSNBC and the Guardian carry the same alarmism and picture, on the same event – Antarctic Ground Hog Day.
      My reference Larsen A and Larsen B, nicely replaced themselves, so that wasn’t the end of the world tipping point either.
      My reference to the Weddell Sea (to the east of the Antarctic Peninsula)

      Today the sea ice is now extending out from the area. It’s now above 65Deg S and rising. And it has to contend with the circumpolar currents above the peninsula.
      Last year it was less and some open water in the Weddell Sea.

      My reference to 1915 Ernst Shackleton expedition – Jan 15 1915 the Weddell Sea was partially open, enough to allow sailing with difficulty.
      The expedition’s vessel Endurance was caught in the ice in the Weddell Sea – Jan 24, 1915, and crushed as the sea ice built up.

      Try hanging AGW of those facts, and make a bluudy fool of yourself.
      Look it up, read the story, or is it too conflicting for you?

      And your little demeaning question:
      “do you know anything about anything at all ?”
      is just more of your brand of Climatism believer’s Bull Snot.
      JT

  8. john byatt says:

    The, we are not racist extremists, hero

    Bolt

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/29/3176728.htm

    ,

  9. klem says:

    “An argument that appears to be scientific is said to be not even wrong if it cannot be falsified (i.e., tested) by experiment or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.”

    That’s exactly what the skeptics are saying about the AGW theory. Predictions of the effects of AGW cover just about every situation that can be imagined now. All angles and situations are covered, from volcanic eruptions to teenage acne all are now claimed to be caused by climate change. As a result every actual climate related event has been predicted and all predictions are therefore found to be correct. So now the theory of ACC is infallible, it cannot be falsified. This is when it ceases being a theory and becomes a faith.

    ACC is dead. Cheers.

    • john byatt says:

      Jim Hansen perceptions of climate change ,

      http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110327_Perceptions.pdf

      Jefft “Try hanging AGW of those facts, and make a bluudy fool of yourself.”

      This is a strawman argument jefft, you are telling us what we are hanging AGW on and then try to dismantle your own ignorant assumption ,

      instead of watching daily videos of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, try reading the literature

      The thinning Arctic ice has now become a feedback that will further reduce the summer ice volume ,

    • J Bowers says:

      Can’t be falsified? Which planet are you talking about, because it ain’t Earth?

      If teperatures fall over the next 20 years, that’s AGW falsified.

      There, get out of that one. In the meantime, here’s some reading….

      Chen, C., J. Harries, H. Brindley, and M. Ringer 2007. “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006.” EUMETSAT Conference and Workshop Proceedings 2007.

      “Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft. Additionally, simulated spectra have been calculated using LBLRTM with inputs from the HadGEM1 coupled model and compared to the observed satellite spectra.”

      Griggs, J.A. and J.E. Harries 2004. “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present.” EUMETSAT Conference and Workshop Proceedings 2004.

      “Measurements of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation allows signatures of many aspects of greenhouse warming to be distinguished without the need to amalgamate information from multiple measurements, allowing direct interpretation of the error characteristics. Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Di®erence spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.

      Griggs, J. A., and J. E. Harries 2007. “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation over the tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS.” Journal of Climate 20, 3982-4001.

      Hanel, R. A., and B. J. Conrath 1970. “Thermal Emission Spectra of Earth and Atmosphere from Nimbus-4 Michelson Interferometer Experiment.” Nature 228, 143-&.

      Harries, J.E., H.E. Brindley, P.J. Sagoo, and R.J. Bantges 2001. “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997.” Letter, Nature, 410, 355-357.

      “…Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

      Philipona, R., B. Du”rr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004. “Radiative Forcing–Measured at Earth’s Surface–Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202

      “…Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) W m-2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) W m-2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) W m-2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) deg C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m-3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) W m-2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.”

      W.F.J. Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate.” 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7

      “…Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth’s surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”

      10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

      NOAA State of the Climate Report: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
      http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

      The human fingerprint in global warming
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

      Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/full/nature01333.html

      Human Fingerprints
      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html

      Falsify the observed data and get back to us. I see the Berkely project has confirmed the temperature data, by the way, and Watts has been found out spreading not-so-truths about it.

    • ianash says:

      Klem = badly darned sock puppet.

  10. […] Not Even Wrong: Climate Sceptics Don’t “Get” Science… […]

  11. Stephen Cox says:

    J Byatt I think you need to find another source when Quoting NASA otherwise warmista clown I will link people to Internal NASA Emails I actually have in my possesion Legitimately showing exactly the oposite of what you profess and the facts that people telling the truth were sacked by OBAMA as it did not fit the Socialist Agenda of World Government.

    The False AGW Air Tax is of course the financial mechanism for funding such treachery.
    Sadly for you people are waking up very fast and we will see that your treachery earns it’s due rewards.

    I can also supply all the relevant information and have posted it elsewhere exposing your Buddy Al Gore because I have followed the Money trail both in America and the UK where Al Gore’s Financial shenanigans have raised the Regulators alert level to caution any investors from having anything to do with his “Phantom Company Listings”,He keeps good company along with various Nigerian Scammers and other Crooks with dodgy listings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: