How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

Quote:
Reveals greggerypeccary as mundane.

Of course, there's always the award-winning Skeptical Science.

Skeptical Science got an award from UNSW Climate Research. Those same people who featured in "Trapped in the Antarctic Ice", when they didn't return to the ship as quickly as possible, due to the Captains concern about changing conditions.

Is that Award an exemplar?

Kiddy fiddlers of the world unite and take more 

# wrote on Jan 16^th, 2014 at 12:39pm:


Sponsored by the NSW Government. Same award

lee wrote on Jan 16^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:
So list the awards won by denialist sites.

Excerpts from an article in Nature -

'Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.'

'But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. '

'“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.” '

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

No estimate of when it will "snap out of it". 100 years, 1,000 years.

lee wrote on Jan 17^th, 2014 at 11:40am:


So natural variation is true, after decades denying its existence.

muso wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:33pm:
Indeed. Unfortunately, the web site says what is says. I've been pondering the misuse of the term sceptic (and variants) for some time.

Scepticism is a rational philosophy, yet those who embrace the term in relation to Global Warming are anything but rational. Take greggerypeccary, for instance.

A while back, he was pushing his "insufficient evidence" line. When challenged, greggerypeccary couldn't show any rational basis for his belief. After repeated failures, he finally stopped referring to himself as a sceptic (to me, at least). To this day, however, he clings to that irrational belief. Denialists, it seems, believe what they believe for reasons other than rational.

muso wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 8:33pm:
Theirs is a very peculiar psychology.