|Deniers are shills of the Left (USA)||Skeptics are shills of the oil industry|
|CO2 is/may be a greenhouse gas||CO2 is a greenhouse gas|
|Humans create CO2—effect unknown||Humans are the main source of CO2|
|Warmists are leftists and socialists||Deniers are right wing free market nuts|
|We need to study possible future direction||We must act NOW and cut CO2 doing whatever it takes|
|Warmists hijacked the media and government||Deniers are trying to hijack the media and government|
|Skeptics care about science||Deniers care about science|
|Warmist claims are exaggerated and wrong||Warmist arguments are the only rational ones|
|Climate scientists have the same degrees as meteorologists, etc||Only climate scientists know about climate science|
|A degree does not endow the holder with special knowledge||A degree and published research are the ONLY measures of valid climate scientists|
|Satellite pictures show Arctic ice is just fine||Satellite pictures show Arctic ice is melting|
|50 years is to short a window for climate calculations||50 years is enough to pronounce the east coast blizzards as increasing|
|Climate and weather are not the same/Weather events taken individually do not prove climate change||Weather isn’t climate but weather can prove climate change (even when very localized)|
|Weather is getting not more extreme||Weather is getting more extreme and we are to blame|
These are some of the claims I have found on various climate websites. It is a partial list. For now, I am not addressing the correctness of any of the claims.
In trying to separate the hype from the fact, one finds very little useful data out there. I have found I if produce names of those who worked in climate science and now do not believe many of the warmist claims, there is always an ulterior motive for their defection rather than the science just did not make sense to them anymore. If I note that Al Gore’s film was actually the catalyst that pushed people into investigating and then rejecting AGW (as one commentor noted), I am told Al Gore is not a scientist. Many times I find the only definition for a climate scientist is one who agrees with AGW. The term “cherry picking” comes to mind, though I also see both sides abuse that term. Much of the AGW argument seems to be based on the argument from authority (the word “appropriate” was inserted at some point to allow people with advanced degrees to become authorities that had to be listened to. I am unable to find at what point, though prior to 1978, when I graduated college, the term was not included.) This is basically endorsement of scientific truth by popular vote. I have a problem with that. It also requires blind faith in your authority, since you have no possibility of understanding the issue.
How does one sort this out? If we believe warmists, the only option is to go along with experts because they know best. Historically, this has not proved to be a certainty. Theories were rejected due to going against the “consensus” at the time, because one lacked the proper degree and sometimes just belief in hoaxes. Once commentor made a very astute observation on another thread: One solution to this is for researchers to keep plugging away at getting papers published and getting one’s idea accepted. It could be a long and painful process, but if skeptics are right, they need to persevere. That is what is happening, but it is a slow process.
What to do? In future posts, I will discuss the precautionary principle, the reality of trying to curb warming by basically wiping out industrialization and pushing it as the ONLY solution, fun with numbers and graphs, and what effect lack of transparency has on science. Also, after I slog through more sites, I will present my own totally unscientific look at conspiracy theories and AGW/skeptics. For entertainment only, of course.