Headlines

New Scientist

50 reasons why global warming isn’t natural

A British newspaper today published a list of “100 reasons why global warming is natural”.

Here we take a quick look at the first 50 of their claims – and debunk each one.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Apparently the “New Scientist” writers are the ones which know absolutely nothing about the Scientific Method, are mathematically impaired, and have flunked logic.

They can’t even get through their first five points without contradicting both themselves and the rest of the AGW crowd: by then they are making it up as they go:

1. They show complete ignorance of the Scientific Method, and then try to substitute the concept of “overwhelming evidence” for “proof” and “validation”.

2.. They show astounding ignorance by a silly statement which is in flagrant conflict with the facts. In fact, it took only ONE recent volcano, Pinatubo, to spew several orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide and other emissions than man has in his entire existance on this earth.

3. Caught in a lie and trying to explain the “Medevil Warming Period” which they tried to cover up, the “New Scientist” apologists try to invent new theory “on the fly” to explain away the gigantic flaw in their AGW theory. Unfortunately, the poor babies failed to notice that CO2 levels rose about 600 years AFTER the warm peaks…NOT before: therefore, CO2 cannot be causal. Apparently “New Scientist” authors can’t read.

…And the article degenerates from there…

These AGW apologists are just sad little ignorant lemmings rushing toward a cliff….chased by a large chicken (Initials=A.G.) flapping his wings and yelling “THE SKY IS FALLING…THE SKY IS FALLING”.

I hope these people are studying some useful trade. They’ll need it to survive when reality smacks them upside their heads…and they find out that the world is already overstaffed with liars and frauds.

landlines on December 16, 2009 at 12:45 AM

In many of these debunkings they cite themselves as proof…. that doesnt seem right

El_Terrible on December 16, 2009 at 1:29 AM

Oh geez, I’m now watching a show about “Green Sahara” and they are talking about repeatable “Earth Wobble”. A repeatable pattern of variations in the earths orbit that adjust where the monsoons dump their rain. Welcome to climate change, suv’s not included.

Fighton03 on December 16, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Have you followed WUWT much?

Fighton03 on December 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I like the site.

This too:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

To make a long story short, when the IPCC figured out a way to smooth out both the MWP and LIA, I smelled something fishy. Both the sites listed above provide valuable data and perspectives in this debate.

toliver on December 16, 2009 at 1:35 AM

toliver on December 16, 2009 at 1:35 AM

I have learned a lot from both of those sites. Especially from prof Svalgaard’s take on solar influence and the surface stations project by Watt’s. Excellent science.

Fighton03 on December 16, 2009 at 1:42 AM

All of their replies are essentially little more than counter-assertions.

profitsbeard on December 15, 2009 at 11:20 PM

Unfortunately a LOT of net-debunking works like that.

I got as far as #5. #2 is a gem, though. Especially if you follow the link to the bigger “debunking” article.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions

Let’s not actually address the point made, but one we want to make. If you click on the link it takes you to a page where they mix in ppm and gigaton and take a remaining 40% of something or other, but actually tell you human CO2 is 26.4 Gt while plants put out 440 Gt., and the ocean like 330 Gt. leaving human CO2 at ~ 3.6% of output.

But I like this part:

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? … So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels.

Thus you can be sure because they have an explanation.

Axeman on December 16, 2009 at 1:49 AM

Seems like they are having some trouble debunking these “fabrications”. Typical, that they cast dispersions on individuals, rather than addressing their concerns. The typical argument is the same – we agree, we have proved it. Humbug.

csThor on December 16, 2009 at 2:22 AM

In the old Soviet Union, there used to be a saying about their two main newspapers Pravda ( translation: truth) and Izvestia (translation: news).

В Pravda, никакое izvestia, и в Izvestia, никакое pravda.

In Pravda, there is no izvestia, and in Izvestia, there is no pravda.

Much like that then appropriate saying, we must now be willing to accept as a corollary:

В новом научном работнике, никакая наука.

In the New Scientist, there is no science.

LegendHasIt on December 16, 2009 at 2:39 AM

New Reformed Scientist

- The Cat

P.S. Yeah, it’s really like that

MirCat on December 16, 2009 at 3:57 AM

Wow. How did they cram so much bull**** into one article?

LibTired on December 16, 2009 at 4:19 AM

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3 per cent of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037 per cent of the atmosphere.

You can only get close to the 3 per cent figure by counting water vapour, which as we have already said is a feedback not a cause.

So we don’t count it? Is that how science works now? Wow, these jerks are really doubling down after climategate. They’ll never stop.

LibTired on December 16, 2009 at 4:21 AM

The blog is linking to articles on its own website in order to “debunk” The Express.

There’s a couple to realclimate and wikipedia (those other bastions of legitimacy). The rest just direct you to articles on newscientist.com

I think in the climate business this counts as peer-reviewed.

mudskipper on December 16, 2009 at 4:50 AM

These “scientists” are unable to put in historical climate data and replicate real events with their models. Why anyone would believe what they say the temp will be in 5 or 50 years is beyond me….

When they can accurately predict the temp next June on my Birthday, then they might be onto something….but that will never happen.

Youngs98 on December 16, 2009 at 6:59 AM

When they can accurately predict the temp next June on my Birthday, then they might be onto something….but that will never happen.

Youngs98 on December 16, 2009 at 6:59 AM

I don’t think they have to do that but at the very least they have to show that their models can model historic temps which they can not do. I remember when the AGW stuff first started and these guys got busted for showing GW was happening by moving the earth 1 million miles closer to the sun. They have lied and cheated from the start and they will continue to do so because they know they are on really weak ground. I blame Gore because without his fraud of a documentary they would not be where they are today. Then you have the UN which for some unknown reason people trust.

RagTag on December 16, 2009 at 7:29 AM

A British newspaper today published a list of “100 reasons why global warming is natural”.

Here we take a quick look at the first 50 of their claims – and debunk each one.

Gee, I thought the debate was over? Don’t you think all of this needs to be publicly hashed out before we hamstring the entire world’s economy. Since the warmists refuse to do so, please excuse me for believing this has absolutely nothing to do with science.

RadClown on December 16, 2009 at 7:34 AM

Their “debunking” reads like satire from National Lampoon.

albill on December 16, 2009 at 7:39 AM

So by the 1950s, it was starting to become clear that human activity was causing CO2 levels to rise and that this rise would reduce the loss of heat into space. The implication seemed clear: provided all the other factors affecting the climate did not change, the Earth would warm.

And yet the 50s and 60s are when these geniuses were warning us about a new coming ice age. We’re seeing, right here in real time, a clear example of “scientists” bending facts to fit their career agenda.

paul1149 on December 16, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Shorter ‘rebuttal’:

Nuh-uh! Shut up!

Good Lt on December 16, 2009 at 8:18 AM

Reason #51) PG&E is proud to be fully committed to the AGW scam and are anxiously awaiting the financial bounty courtesy of the dumb rubes our loyal customers. (Also if they ever find out, we’re toast.)

davo on December 16, 2009 at 8:42 AM

Want a real funny read…look at the next 50, and the claim of America being undemocratic which somehow ties to global warming…

right2bright on December 16, 2009 at 9:02 AM

12) He is right. All sorts of factors affect climate, even the lead in petrol. However, the recent warming is mostly due to rising greenhouse gases, and if we pump out more CO2 it will get even hotter.

Show me one past example of that occurring.

hawksruleva on December 16, 2009 at 9:20 AM

elgeneralisimo made it as far as #1…

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

As for the first one(in bold), that’s one way of saying it…

Is AGW likely, no.
Is AGW probable, no.
Is AGW possible, theoretically, yes.

The link citing ‘proof’ was self referential but that posting contained an interesting link to Wikipedia(natch)…

However, analyses of stomatal frequency in tree leaves indicate that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration may have reached 320 ppmv during the Medieval Warm Period (800–1300 CE) and 350 ppmv during the early Holocene.[9][10]

# ^ Kouwenberg, Lenny; et al. (2005). “Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles”. Geology 33 (1): 33–36. doi:10.1130/G20941.1.
# ^ Wagner, Friederike; et al. (1999). “Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration”. Science 284 (5422): 1971–1973. doi:10.1126/science.284.5422.1971.

elgeneralisimo on December 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM

I remember someone at NASA saying that global warming has gone from a scientific issue to a political issue. I may not be the most politically savvy person, but I see the global warming issue to be a political power grab. Whoever controls the energy has the power and the money.

vcferlita on December 16, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Saying “No, that’s wrong,” is not refuting.

misterpeasea on December 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Apparently:

“New Sciemtist” = “Old Marxist”

landlines on December 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2