(these are my responses to a blog first published on LiveScience by Robert Roy Britt about a year ago, and that I have “rediscovered” today. RRB clumsily tried to put all global warming skeptics together with the Apollo-is-a-hoax people: sort of the lowest of the low in scientific circles. I have put out a series of challenges at the time, all of them still unmet.)
How about this for logical fallacy: the Apollo mission are historical events, global warming is a forecast (i.e.: it is about the future).
Shame to the scientific mind that is not skeptical of the future!
I am also aghast at your sudden penchant to follow “governments”. From a scientific point of view, who cares what governments have to say about astronomy or particle physics or biology or chemistry or or or?
One wonders what you had to say about Kansas politics deciding the scientific merits of Evolution and intelligent design
So unless you are going to rename this website “LivePolitics”, please do try again at making an intelligent point on climate change
I am satistied to see that nobody has picked up the challenge of explaining why, if the evidence of climate change is so unquestionable, we had to get 113 governments approve the first IPCC report after 4 days behind closed doors.
Too bad we have to wait now several months to get to see such “evidence”. One of the few things we have for certain is that, whilst a large number of hurricane experts signed a statement saying there is no definite link between climate change and hurricanes, the IPCC did not think that worthwhile of consideration
Also, nobody has explicitly defended the absurd comparison of climate change skeptics to Moon hoaxers.
What would IPCC supporters say about the lack of difference between Intelligent Design (”there is a God as there are things we cannot explain in biology”) with Anthropogenic Climate Change (”there is human-induced climate change as we cannot explain our data with known mechanisms”)?
Here’s a more serious challenge: find a weather pattern that has changed IN_THE_RECENT_PAST anywhere in the world due to climate change. Rain bands, prevailing winds, weather fronts’ paths, anything would do really.
Now, that would finally give climate change some historical evidence…
Just to report that when the evidence did come out (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Working Group 2 (AR4-WG2), Chapter 1), we’ve learnt that 96% of the reported changes concern just the continent of Europe.
Actually, there are twice as many European changes incompatible with warming, than worldwide changes compatible with it.
Europe, by the way, occupies just 2% of the Earth’s surface.
The “whole picture” on global warming is unbelievably far from complete. Why don’t the IPCC and climate and environmental scientists push for a truly planet-wide assessment?
ps no, the results of a model cannot be used as “evidence”.