Has he even listened to a skeptic?

I don’t think there’s too many skeptics out there who don’t think the world has warmed for the past century. There is reason to suggest the global temperature record may be unreliable, but not to the extent that this negates the observed warming. Yet, warmist Richard Muller has refuted this non-argument that there has been no warming at all, now claiming that the skeptics have no argument. It is the ultimate strawman.

As we all know, skeptical arguments revolve around the causes of warming, not the simple fact of warming. Muller either does not grasp this concept (begging the question; has he even listened to a skeptic?), or is being deliberately dishonest.

Many warmists have not listened to a skeptic make their case, and are believe the question is as simple as:

  • do you deny carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?
  • do you deny it will warm the planet?
  • do you deny the planet has warmed?

Of course, the real question is: how much warming will carbon dioxide cause? Why does this ignorance exist? Is it the lack of a mainstream platform for skeptics to air their arguments, or the demonisation by alarmists? Probably both.

About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Has he even listened to a skeptic?

  1. Pingback: It’s all about Muller…BEST it is not | pindanpost

  2. Pingback: Climate Fool of the Week #16 | Climate Nonconformist

  3. Drewski says:

    Reading comments from climate sCeptics regarding this latest body blow to their cukoo conspiracy theory is like watching a stage full of epileptic tap dancers — incomprehensible, tragic and funny all at the same time.

    • Climate Nonconformist says:

      What body blow? No skeptic has argued that the last century hasn’t warmed. Did you even read my comments?

    • spartacusisfree says:

      Being as you appear to be a prat, I shan’t be gentle. The IPCC ‘consensus’ is based on 4 bits of incorrect science and in 2004, someone or group in NASA created fake physics to keep high feedback CO2-AGW in AR4. That was fraud. No climate model can predict climate. CO2-AGW is at most a ninth of what the IPCC claims.

      [1. The end of ice ages starts 2000 years before any change in atmospheric CO2.
      2. ‘Back radiation’ is an elementary mistake by people with limited physics, probably Trenberth: in reality, it’s ‘Prevost exchange energy’ which can’t do thermodynamic work.
      3. ‘Coud albedo effect’ cooling supposed to hide [2] is also imaginary. In reality for thicker clouds it’s heating. the mistake was by Carl Sagan,
      4. The IPCC’s claim of 33K present GHGE is at least 3 times’ rtoo high because they have cleverly included lapse rate warming as well.]

  4. hpjunior says:

    Drewski is all over the Internet, and his comments never make sense.

    The warming enthusiasts have, in fact, suffered one body blow after another. They’re punch-drunk by now, as witnessed by the squirming and squealing of the likes of Mooney, Romm, etc. Romm is an especially sad case. Wait, what am I saying? How does one pick the saddest case from that crew?

  5. The strawman argument seems to be the argument of choice for the Left; even the President of the US uses this fallacy as his primary means of countering his opposition. It’s all the Left has at the moment but with the media power and money they have behind this alarmist insanity, it is still difficult to counteract the alarmist meme. I don’t know of anyone in the so-called skeptic community that doesn’t believve some warming has occured. I welcome it. I welcome higher C02. I welcome the flourishing of human civilization. But this view is not popular at the moment with the Leftist religious zealots who have hijacked science in the name of saving a world that doesn’t need their saving.

  6. ronkilmartin says:

    Muller’s job depends on being in agreement the warmers, so prostitution is the solution. He is not the first warmer to follow the world’s oldest profession.

  7. Brian G Valentine says:

    You won’t believe this, but …

    – There are people out there who don’t think the global temperature records (esp. in the Southern Hemisphere) are reliable enough to draw conclusions about “global” warming over “the past century”

    – There are people who don’t believe that a “greenhouse” atmosphere is a physical possibility! No one denies that CO2 etc absorb in the IR (and are thus “greenhouse gases”), but they question the application to an open of a theory of radiant heat transmission that applies to a closed system.

    These are not even “sceptics,” these are “denialists,” a term I like to apply to myself. These global warmers won’t debate, much less listen, to any of this stuff. Miserable arrogance and a closed mind makes it impossible to influence any of them, I gave up trying

  8. ginckgo says:

    Do you mean to say that ‘skeptics’ insisting that the temperature record has been fudged to exaggerate warming isn’t meant to imply that warming has been insignificant? ‘Skeptics’ saying that the 1930s (in the USA) were warmer than today isn’t meant to imply that no real warming has taken place? Watts’ Stface Stations project isn’t intended to show that warming is an artifact?

    So Muller isn’t erecting a strawman there, even though ‘skeptics’ have recently been shifting their goalposts. As for begging the question, I get the impression that it only seems like a faulty premise to someone who refuses to accept decades of scientific research.

    As for a lack of a mainstream platform for skeptics: name one other scientific ‘controversy’ where the 1% of scientists that completely disagree with the consensus of 97% of scientists get as much serious media attention as in the AGW issue (e.g. I know 2 creationist palaeontologists, and yet their disbelief in evolution would never seriously be published in an article about the evolution of dinosaurs; same goes for expanding earthers vs plate tectonics in an article about a major earthquake; same goes for anit-vaccination dimwits; etc).

    • Climate Nonconformist says:

      Most skeptics acknowledge that the 20th century warmed by about 0.7C. That is a pretty insignificant amount. Even warmists now acknowledge that the 1930s were the warmest decade in the US, but they also correctly point out that this doesn’t suggest a global trend. The Surface Stations project suggested that the temperature record was unreliable, not that it showed warming that wasn’t happening. No, skeptics have not shifted the goalposts.

      Muller suggested that his findings completely eliminated the skeptic’s case, whilst acknowledging that he didn’t even look at the cause of warming.

      What do these “decades of scientific research” show? What evidence do they have to show for it?

      Are you aware that the 97% figure you so uncritically throw out is based on the opinions of 77 scientists? And either way, what really counts is real world evidence.


      • Brian G Valentine says:

        I’ll agree about the 0.7 degree – for what has been measured, whether this represents a “global” average, is another matter.

        This rate of “warming,” is consistent with natural variation, but inconsistent with the greenhouse idea, various ideas have been proposed to explain the discrepancy, no one has proposed something consistent.

        The idea of “vaccinating children and causing autism” etc was loudly advertised in the media, it turned out to be wrong, but the idea continues to be touted in the media. Anything that causes people alarm will be touted in the media.

        The idea that “CO2 in the air causes no danger” can’t be true for the media because it doesn’t make people worry

  9. mbabbitt says:

    Far too many people today believe C02 produced in the body is purely a waste product, something totally undesirable; we exhale it, so it must be bad. But this too is just plain wrong. Google “Bohr Effect” and find out just how important CO2 is for our bodies getting the O2 from the blood’s hemoglobin. CO2 is also a vasodilator and a smooth muscle relaxant. Only in vastly high doses is it any danger to us. In fact, a Russian doctor, Buteyko, proposed that many chronic diseases — like asthma — are fueled by a paucity of CO2 in the body. Today, his breathing technique is listed in Britain and Russia as a offficially sponsored complimentary asthma treatment. Of course, the late Dr. Buteyko (who was a space program scientist in the 60’s) was persecuted by the mainstream asthma specialists in Russia at the time — some wanted him to be put away in a psychiatric hospital. Sounds like a common theme, doesn’t it? Disagree with the consensus and get sent to reprogramming. See also: http://www.normalbreathing.com/index-myths.php

  10. Pingback: Robinson’s hatchet job on skeptics | Climate Nonconformist

  11. Pingback: Skepticism a crime against humanity? | Climate Nonconformist

  12. Doug Cotton says:

    There is strong evidence that the steep warming trend we saw late last century was temporary in nature – and caused by nature. Check for yourselves what has been happening since 2002 at NASA’s site: http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    For some reason they have not updated sea surface temperatures since October 3, but temperatures at 14,000, 25,000 and 36,000 feet at the end of October are the coolest (for this time of the year) of any year since 2002, having shown a steep decline in October.

    Now I know this does not technically “prove” the world is cooling, but I suggest the trend over the last 20 to 30 years is certainly not a linear one that can be projected to 2100 in the way the IPCC has done. By far the best fit for the data is, as Trenberth himself plotted, a curved trend which has now passed its maximum and is declining. http://climate-change-theory.com/seasurface.jpg

    Carbon dioxide and methane are not having any effect, and nor has anyone been able to prove either empirically or in a sound scientific argument that they should have any effect.

    Climate is following short and long term natural cycles which appear to be correlated with planetary orbits and we just need to discover the exact reason for the connection. This plot, based on astronomical data, shows 934-year and 59.6 year cycles, the latter coinciding with the Jupiter/Saturn resonance cycle. Why is it so? http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg

  13. Pingback: Age responds to skeptic | Climate Nonconformist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s