So a while back I was debating a climate change denier friend of a friend on Facebook. Now, when I say “debating”, it was only a hole in the ground covered by a piece of twig, but it was a debate to her. As evidence that AGW isn’t real, she provided the following:
- A quote from Christopher not-even-a-scientist Monckton.
- A link to a conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute
- A link to some guy’s blog with his thoughts about the hacked CRU emails.
- A claim that the word “trick” is nefarious
- A link to an unpublished paper by professional curmudgeon Richard Lindzen, in which he whines for 30 pages about how much better science was in the olden days, but no actual science.
- Two links to blogs claiming the IPCC had admitted exaggerating effects. (Yep, the 2035 Himalayan glaciers mistake and the not-actually-wrong-after-all 40% Amazon sensitivity.)
- A link to a lawyer’s blog entry about the same two things above.
- A link to a conservative physicist’s blog entry quote-mining John Houghton.
- A link to Monckton being shredded in a debate with an actual atmospheric scientist. (that was funny)
- A link to the standard quote-mine claiming Phil Jones says there has been no global warming since 1995, by yet another person who doesn’t understand the meaning of statistical significance.
- A quote from Phil Jones in which he accuses McIntyre and McKitrick of getting stuff wrong. As this was later proved to be true, it’s another funny one.
- A claim that it was not up to her to provide actual scientific publications refuting AGW.
- A link to another article about the two one errors in the thousand-page IPCC 4.
- A claim that she had supplied “plenty of info”.
- A claim that the retraction of Siddall et al (2009) actually supports her side
- A link to a blog entry by a materials physicist claiming to falsify Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), but not actually published anywhere. And nothing about Pfeffer (2008), which supports Vermeer and Rahmstorf, or the fact that the retraction of Siddall et al was because their sea level rise values were too small.
- A link to a blog discussing the Zorita letter, in which Zorita explicitly says he thinks AGW is real.
- A list of non-climate-scientists who think the APS is too strong in its policy statement on AGW.
- A claim that anything that can be found on realclimate.org is automatically wrong.
- An assertion that I am a wanna-be engineer, and thus not to be believed.
- A second claim that it was not up to her to provide actual scientific publications refuting AGW.
- An assertion that the truth must be in the middle.
- An assertion that I am an alarmist engineer, and thus not to be believed.
- An assertion that I have no science training, and thus am not to be believed.
- An assertion that I am a non-science person, and thus not to be believed.
- A request to Run along now and play with your circuit board. Leave science to scientists.
And, finally, the first link to actual peer-reviewed literature!!
- A list of 500 papers refuting AGW.
I was not impressed by the start, and didn’t have time to look at it much, but here I am trying to stay up late so I can sleep on the plane on my way back to my pitiful miserable little engineering life. So let’s just see how far through that list I can get.