A Swiss scientist by the name of Urs Neu has compiled a short (32 pages) easy to understand rebuttal of the more common recent denier talking points. Unlike the common denialist, each point in Urs Neu’s paper references the primary literature. What a novel idea.

You can find the paper here.

It seems denialists have trouble with probabilities, except of course when some Denialist Commander-in-Chief puts together an attack on a scientist using questionable statistical analysis, then they all know exactly how it all works. They are bloody good at building straw man arguments though, so to them any severe weather event is an example of the ‘warmists’ (thats me) claiming a single event as proof of global warming.

To find out how Dr. Neu answers that you’re going to have to download and read the paper.

While you have it open on your desktop, you might as well read the whole thing.

(Hat tip to Eli Rabbit)


Well now,

I’ve been arguing with creationists about evolution for several years and have become quite familiar with not just the arguments put forward (insubstantial as they are) but with the tactics used. There seems to be a standard set of logical fallacies and false premises shared by all creationists.

To my surprise, when I started looking into Global Warming/Climate Change I started to see similar tactics used by the anti-AGW crowd. I originally had expected their arguments to be more solidly based on scientific data but quickly found them to be mostly devoid of science and heavy on polemics and rhetoric. It seems their strongest arguments are appeals to emotion, personal incredulity, and a worship of ‘common sense’ even if their version* of it is full of logical and practical errors.

There is a lot of misapprehension of intent, fact and conclusion in their arguments that are, for the most part, quite easily addressed. Although I have spoken at length with Chemists, Physicists, Mathematicians and even Philosophers and have read reports from the NOAA, NASA and the IPCC I am nothing more than a layman when it comes to Climatology. I still feel that the majority of arguments put forward by the anti_AGW crowd are simple enough for a layman such as myself to effectively debunk.

In the coming months I hope I am proven correct.


*Sorry folks, but common sense is nothing more than the result of our evolutionary development; sometimes it is correct, sometimes, given our current context, it is off the mark.