Can you guess what happened next?
(Jo Nova) David Siegel has written six books, four of which were international bestsellers. He’s a Democrat voter, and he wants to preserve the environment. He wants that so badly he actually cares about the data, the graphs, and the arguments. (He cares about the outcome, not just about whether he looks like an environmentalist.) When challenged to find evidence, he looked, and was surprised, then he looked more and was shocked. “As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems.â€Which is a similar path to mine eight years ago. I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming. (And I was a vegetarian).
Having studied both sides, he’s written up a very sharp page, condensing what he discovered, and with a personal narrative, plus great graphs and provocative questions. Siegel wants skeptics to reach a newer crowd, to push the boundaries by sending them links to his page. (Hey, it’s a good marketing strategy for his site right? True, but he does make a real point.) He’s written one page hoping to win over people who are more liberal minded, and it just might open some eyes. It’s very readable.
I did a similar thing. As a former Green, my instinct was to compress the whole debate to four points and put it in The Skeptics Handbook. (My first post). The second Skeptics Handbook expanded into issues that show up on the left leaning radar — more about people, intimidation, vested interests, and money.
There’s a whole bunch of links in the excerpt, I’ll let you check them at Jo Nova’s sute, as well as recommend reading the entire thing. I know most Warmists won’t, as they are too invested in their cultish political agenda.
I must say, this is similar to what happened with me. I was exposed to other data and facts, for one thing. I noticed that those who pushed this the hardest were total hypocrites. And, this all involves something that makes me angry: Warmists undercutting real environmentalism with their insanity, making real environmental issues secondary, very secondary, to Hotcoldwetdry.
Excellent piece from Siegel. However there will be two believers on this site who will use Fenton’s strategy: it’s not about the message, it’s about the messenger. Use brand names to promote the cause and attack skeptics with name calling, law suits, and character assassination.
Cue little j and ‘tarded j.
Good for him. Guess he found that all their “data” is simply scary! stories that will (we promise you) happen in the future.
[…] Hat tip to The Pirate’s Cove […]
I read Siegel’s piece. No new ground broken there, just another slick Denier essay. Siegel regurgitated old Denier themes.
Does anyone here wish to discuss his “data”? I didn’t think so.
BTW: “Democrat” is a noun.
Want to start with:
1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. ?
How about:
2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming†is natural. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
1. Irrelevant. Does not address or impact if greenhouse gases are causing the current warming.
2. He doesn’t describe what natural processes are causing the Earth to warm. He makes proclamations unsupported by evidence.
Did you notice how he (or someone) plotted the mean surface temperature on a 0-20C scale, yet on another graph plotted the Sun’s natural output over a narrow range to try to show that the Sun is causing warming? Did you notice that the change in the Sun’s output varied between 1358-1362 W/m2? What’s that, a change of 0.3%? So a tiny change in TSI leads to warming but a 40% increase in greenhouse gases can’t? How would that tiny TSI change look if he plotted it on a 0-1400 W/m2 scale? Pretty flat? Yeah, it works like that. That’s not science, that’s propaganda.
Do you intend to copy and paste without comment his entire article?
1. Not relevant to his thesis. Does not address if greenhouse gases are causing the current warming.
2. He doesn’t describe what natural processes are causing the Earth to warm. He later blames miniscule changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI).
Did you notice how he (or someone) plotted the mean surface temperature on a 0-20C scale yet on another graph plotted the Sun’s natural output over a narrow range to try to show that the Sun is causing warming. Did you notice that the change in the Sun’s TSI was 1358-1362 W/m2? That’s much less than 1%. Why didn’t he plot THAT on a scale of 0-1400?
Do you intend to copy and paste without comment his entire article?
“What natural processes…..” The same natural processes that have warmed and cooled the earth for 4billion years. The alarmist’s job is to prove why this warming, which has stopped, isn’t natural.
Off topic, but OK. Asteroids smashing into the Earth?No. Increased insolation? No. Decreased volcanic activity? No. Continental drift? No. Changing ocean currents? No. Decreased albedo? Somewhat. Arctic sea ice is melting, but why? (Are you ready to admit that there is less Arctic ice and that’s a driver of warming?)
You repeat the new lie that warming has stopped. A while back Deniers discovered the RSS satellite computer calculated “temperature” estimates of the troposphere because it showed no warming.
So, at long last, can you name just one natural process that is causing warming? Climate scientists would appreciate your input.
[…] It is simple, critical thinking, and having an open mind can lead to rejection of Leftist ideology […]
Since little ‘jeffy’s first two responses were inadequate, let’s try:
-There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
-New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
baby suckingpuppies continues to copy and paste from Siegel’s tired essay.
If you have a point or an argument to make why don’t you make it?
Siegel didn’t make a single original point. Deniers have been saying these things for years now.
Well then on with the debate:
-CO2 has very little to do with it(warming). All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much,
-There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.†Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas.CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
Refute those statements.
That’s a declaration unsupported by any evidence. We know for a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, in fact, humans would exist on the planet without it.
Another declaration with little basis in fact. Since CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere is causing warming, by reducing CO2 emissions, we can slow warming, which may not help you or I much but will help our grandchildren and theirs.
This is beginning a set of irrelevant semantic “arguments”.
True. But not relevant. Feces is coming out of his ass but that doesn’t mean it’s not pollution.
Not so fast. TOO MUCH CO2 IS lethal, but that’s not the point. The CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm.
So? Not in the past 800,000 years. The entire history of human development and civilization has occurred during the last 10,000 years of so, under conditions of a relatively stable climate.
Thanks for the alarmist talking points, so to continue:
-Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
-The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
And so…
dp,
With cons, it’s always projection. Siegel did not nothing but recite a collection of Denier talking points.
Of course sea level is rising as the Earth warms. Water expands as it warms and the ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland has to go somewhere. Obviously some of the added water exists as water vapor in the atmosphere, as warmer air holds more water vapor. At least Siegel (and you) chose a topic relevant to global warming.
Polar bears: Just another Siegel (and Denier) distraction. Arctic species are and will continue to be affected by global warming, but this has no bearing on whether greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm.
Your turn. Why is the Earth warming?