Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed

[Theophylact]

New Scientist rounds up 26 of the myths about global climate change that are used by "skeptics" to muddy the waters. With links, here they are:

Quote:

• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• We can't do anything about climate change
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It’s all down to cosmic rays
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• The oceans are cooling
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• Mars and Pluto are warming too
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Polar bear numbers are increasing

Hat tip to Slashdot.

[BBA]

Just read two of them, the cooling predictions of the 70's by NASA and the cosmic radiation.

They present no evidence either is wrong or right, except the mention of a radiation induced cloud experiment that did not work (so what?)

Basically, it's a pro-propaganda site for global warming, what would you expect them to say?

[Theophylact]

You obviously don't understand the significance of negative experiments. The Michelson-Morley Experiment, which failed to find evidence of an "aether wind", was one of the most significant experiments in scientific history.

[Toadman]

And how many bills were pulled from my wallet to investigate a non-result? I have no problem with private funding in environmental research.

[samwichse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toadman

And how many bills were pulled from my wallet to investigate a non-result? I have no problem with private funding in environmental research.

*sigh*

It's getting harder and harder to be a scientist.

[tony_j15]

Quote:

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.

they say that about the weather, but if the topic was evolution...

I've read the first eight so far. good reading.

[Beemer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony_j15

they say that about the weather, but if the topic was evolution...

The things you have been told to say.