What might be the next line of attack from climate change skeptics?
I think the ClimateGate ‘climate scientists are falsifying data’ argument will last for a while. Once cap and trade passes in the US, an international agreement on emissions reductions is reached, and 2009/2010 are among the hottest years on record, I think deniers will begin to switch over to the “warmer is better” and “let the free market regulate carbon emissions” arguments. One of their favorite arguments has been ‘global warming stopped’, which was convenient for the past year due to the relatively cool 2008. But it doesn’t really work when you’re in the middle of one of the hottest years on record, so I think fewer and fewer will make that argument. I think we’ll see more direct opposition to carbon regulation measures, since that’s the motivation for AGW denial to begin with. Thus they’ll argue the free market should be allowed to reduce carbon emissions, and they’ll argue that warmer is better so carbon regulation isn’t necessary anyway.
You are no climate scientist, you simply another Dana clone. There is no line of attack. It is alarmists that have changed their strategy. When warming stopped, they moved to call it climate change. As a actual scientist and not a fake one on YA, the idea of “climate change” as a new phenomena is an offense to science. You and your ilk trying to perpetuate a fraud is an affront to science and truth. Get this straight. Climates change. They always have. Those who pretend they don’t so they can try to blame humans are a menace to decency and truth. Those who are skeptical or hostile to their fraud are compared to holocaust deniers. Note: Pegminer, as is typical, provides zero science. That is the typical sum total of science you get from alarmists. He had made some other claims about working on geology projects but having corrected him on basic geology in the past, I certainly know he isn’t a geologist, at least not a knowledgeable one. He cannot refute me on facts because he doesn’t hav
Well, their favorite always seems to be personal attacks. At least two of the answers have attacked Trevor’s credentials as a climate scientist, including one which said “You are no climate scientist, you simply another Dana clone….As a actual scientist and not a fake one on YA” The funny thing is the guy that said this has made his name public before on YA, so I searched a couple of databases for articles or papers by this guy and could find nothing. The databases which I searched were Georef, which indexes 3500 journals in geology, seismology, marine geology, geophysics, geological maps, etc from 1785+ for North America & from 1933+ for outside North America–so you’d think you might find a real geologist/scientist in there, but I got nothing. A similar search of Web of Science, which indexes even more journals, also failed to find anything by this guy. As a disclaimer, he may well be publishing under another name, but I find no evidence that this guy is a scientist. Personally, I
Oooh, I’m going to say . . . the IPCC directly contravening their own founding guidelines by referring to studies that were not proper scientific peer-reviewed articles and as a consequence getting the facts magnificently wrong. Quote: “The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic, J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.” “When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.” LOL – i love that. The man heading the IPCC is asked about getting the facts so dramatically wrong that “the world’s leading glaciologists” call it a “catalogue of errors” and he has “nothing to add”. Class.
