Kristin Pene of Al Gore’s failed Climate Reality Project has a go at the Galileo Movement for “misleading the public”.
Climate change deniers are distracting us and preventing us from having more meaningful and productive conversations. Take the Galileo Movement in Australia, which recently put a page of “scientific facts” on its website. These facts (many of which are sound) look pretty straightforward at first. But actually, they’re used in misleading ways that raise doubts about the reality of climate change.
For example, the website states that “CO2 levels in the air are less than 0.04%”. This naturally gets people thinking: “Well how could less than one percent of anything do much harm!?” This stat is accurate (as I’ll show below), but it doesn’t tell the full story.
How dare they point out a true fact!
The reality is that there are misconceptions in the public about the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are those who think it is up to 50%. No wonder there’s so much hysteria out there. Why does she then condemn the Galileo Movement for pointing out a plain truth such as this? I would say that warmists are being deceptive by not clearing up this false impression, and in doing so, have effectively used it to support their view.
I am not suggesting that because of the minute concentration of CO2, that it can’t possibly pose a problem. No, we shouldn’t blindly dismiss AGW on that basis, we should ask for the evidence.
Pene goes on to say:
In a way then, CO2 and climate deniers have something in common. They’re exerting a powerful influence … even in small concentrations
Actually, skeptics aren’t in small concentrations.
And this from the debate denier.
When I hear or read the phrase “the climate change debate,” I get all worked up. Because in the world of serious science, there’s really no “debate” that pollution from human activities is changing the climate. Discussing the science behind whether carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases cause warming is so19th century .
Debate makes her angry? And it is clear that she has not even listened to the skeptics arguments. While Arrhenius established in the 19th century that carbon dioxide cause warming, he was a bit off on the magnitude. He suggested 5°C for a doubling, when we now know it is closer to 1°C (without taking feedbacks into account). Few skeptics say CO2 won’t cause warming. It is the magnitude which we question. This is the debate that Pene suggests doesn’t exist. Why bother trying to cut emissions if we’re only going to see a degree of warming?