Articles such as this can be used by Climate Change deniers

[adam2]

And the "man in street" need not concern themselves with detailed analysis of complex data and differing interpretations thereof, simple observations of publicly available data will suffice.

New records for heat and drought are set regularly, new records for cold are rare.
Snow cover on most mountains has decreased drastically over the last 50 years. No complex data is needed, simply look at decades old photographs and compare with recent ones.
Glaciers are generally retreating, again no complex study or detailed investigation is needed, simply compare old and new photographs.

Many other examples exist.

[emordnilap]

This is a peach of an article.

How to get from this, a true representation of decadal temperature rises in the USA:



to this - a denier's dream - in one easy lesson:

[fuzzy]

Not really. At least the 'bad boy' grapher managed to put units on the scales, while the foaming mouth expert didn't.

[Potemkin Villager]

Not really. At least the 'bad boy' grapher managed to put units on the scales, while the foaming mouth expert didn't.

Pedant! The units are fairly obvious. It is unlikely the vertical axis refers to degrees centigrade or kelvin. I like the stuff Ugo Bardi does and good for him bringing this article to the attention of more folk.

[woodburner]

Articles such as this can be jumped upon by Climate Change deniers to reinforce their denial of the science of Climate Change and so are very dangerous and should be questioned.

That is not a scientific approach to take. The label “climate change denier� is often not accurate since many who would be labeled thus accept that climate does change, and that it is in a constant state of flux. They may question the proposed causes and the rate of change. If in fact you meant exactly “denial of the science of climate change� then there is every reason to question the hypothesis, since questioning hypotheses is scientific. Galileo had a hard time convincing the establishment of the time of his views, as did Newton, as did (and for me still does) Einstein. The consensa (what’s the plural anybody?) of their times was opposed to their views, were they wrong. It would be good to have a discussion about this instead of religeous dogma just because of those you mix with have the same view.

I don’t know which is right, but because I question things, I get the “denier� label. Can you tell me how this helps?

Something to ponder

[kenneal - lagger]

Galileo etc. had a hard time convincing fellow scientists. That others, the church, questioned his findings did not matter as they had no knowledge base from which to question him.

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that anthropomorphic climate change in a real and present problem. We take no notice of what you say, Woodburner, because you are the equivalent of the ancient church saying that the sun revolves around the earth.

Your knowledge base is inadequate to question the combined knowledge of climate science; you are no Galileo who presented his own carefully thought out and weighed new science to question the science of the day. You present us with the evidence of a weatherman in the face of climate science. As you have obviously watched the video could you please go to the Skeptical Science website that I have previously, on more than one occasion, referred you to, look up his points and read the real science behind his claims.

[kenneal - lagger]

Wood burner, your "evidence" comes from a journalist and TV presenter. He's not even a meteorologist.

From Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cole ... orologist) - please cut and paste the whole url including the (meteorologist) to take you to his page.

Coleman started his career in 1953 at WCIA in Champaign, Illinois, doing the early evening weather forecast and a local bandstand show called At The Hop while he was a student at University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.[2] After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois.[3] Coleman was also a weather anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and WLS-TV in Chicago.[2][5]

[woodburner]

Better look at this too then Something that KL will poo-poo.

I might say, and with just as much justification as you use to dismiss my points, that you are the equivalent of the ancient church in dismissing anything you disagree with. A point to bear in mind is concensus is not necessarily science. Oh, I forgot, you mix with people you agree with, and so you must be right. You had better watch the video linked, then you will be able to explain in detail why every point that is made is wrong.

We take no notice of what you say, Woodburner, because you are the equivalent of the ancient church saying that the sun revolves around the earth.

Is that the “We� as in all climate scientists? Or do you dismiss anyone who has a different view from you as not being a climate scientist?

PS anyone who uses wikipee for a reference into subjects that might contain an element of controversy is treading on very thin ice. Wikipee is NOT an independant accurate information reference.

[kenneal - lagger]

Woodburner, I used Skeptical Science as a reference for the scientific case which is run by acknowledged experts in Climate Science and I used Wikipedia for the qualifications of the weather presenter that you used as a reference. If you can point me to any references that show that your weather presenter has any actual qualifications in meteorology let along climate science I would be only too pleased to look at them.

I do not use and quote weather presenters for my case I use people qualified in the science and currently working in it so to compare my case with yours is a bit disingenuous. I take it that you still haven't looked at the Skeptical Science website for an answer to your questions. Is that because you are frightened of finding that your scepticism is misplaced or is it just because you enjoy being the "oddball" or contrarian of this site and don't want reality to get in the way?

[kenneal - lagger]

Woodburner, you criticise me for quoting Wikipedia and then you send me off to look at a Youtube video from a American speaker, Steve Goreham who is often invited to speak to the Heartland Institute which is financed by the Koch Brothers, coal magnates and financiers of attacks on anything that might help the environment, among others.

As Goreham doesn't even have a Wiki Page I can't even check what his qualifications are to tell where he gets all his rubbish from. That he starts his twaddle with an ad hominem attack and mockery doesn't give me any confidence in his ability to formulate an accurate case on anything.

[kenneal - lagger]

PS anyone who uses wikipee for a reference into subjects that might contain an element of controversy is treading on very thin ice. Wikipee is NOT an independant accurate information reference.

Woodburner is using here the same tactics that science sceptics use in all sorts of subjects. He is using my use of a reference from a knowledge site that is not a true scientific site for information that is non critical, the identity and qualifications of a reporter and TV weather presenter, to infer that all the information that I use is from such sources.

Yes, I used Wikipedia to identify his source of information but I used a respected scientific site , Skeptical Science, to provide the answers to his scientific questions.

Thus do sceptics seek to mislead you.

[kenneal - lagger]

Found some info on Steve Goreham from the Google Books website.

Steve Goreham is executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, a speaker and author on environmental issues, a former engineer and business executive, and a father of three. The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism is his second book. He holds an MS in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois and an MBA from the University of Chicago.

So not a Climate Scientist then.

The first thing that they say about the book - "The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism is the first book on climate change that is fun to read"

From the same site is a review of the book

Skimming the book I noted several misrepresentations of climate science and associated data, such as the claim on page 84 about water vapor and clouds being more likely to cause global warming than the burning of fossil fuels. Facts about the role of water vapor in climate change are explained clearly on the Real Climate web site (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... r-forcing/). Given time and energy, it seems likely that any student in an environmental science program could find other credible sources to more accurately and truthfully explain the science than what Mr. Goreham does.
The book lacks a list of references of where it came up with the numbers and charts it presents. It does list some cryptic footnotes like one on page 84 (Schmidt et al. 2010) but there is no bibliographic information to track down the actual source. It also lacks an index so, for a student or teacher looking to find the author's take on specific topics like sea-floor methane deposits or atmospheric water vapor effects on global warming, this book doesn't work well. It doesn't look or read like a scientific text, so I assume it was not written for an audience of educators or students. I'm glad to know that it exists in case people I meet while working in forestry ask me about some of it's claims. I can probably point them in the direction of more credible literature that should help to support or debunk Mr. Goreham's claims, most of which I assume are probably false.

Note that this review quotes another accepted expert site on climate science run by scientists - http://www.realclimate.org.

[woodburner]

Woodburner is using here the same tactics that science sceptics use in all sorts of subjects. He is using my use of a reference from a knowledge site that is not a true scientific site for information that is non critical, the identity and qualifications of a reporter and TV weather presenter, to infer that all the information that I use is from such sources.

KL is misrepresenting that I cautioned against using wikipee, by stating that I have indicated he uses only wikipee. I did not, and the word that should have been used was “imply� not “infer�. so being accurate would be helpful.

Suggestiing that I use Skepticalscience is slightly biased in that it openly admits to being pro-man made global warming, and refers to climate change deniers. That unfortunately does not indicate an open minded or independant position.

I will just put in a reminder that KL was significant in Biff leaving the forum by using a beligerant attitude.

[kenneal - lagger]

So now you are trying to infer that I am unreasonable and belligerent while you are the fount of all that is good!!

I have referred you to scientific websites which support one argument, the consensus argument, of scientists who are involved in serious research on the subject while you have referred me to Youtube videos by a TV presenter and a former electrical engineer who is now paid by owners of a major part of the coal industry in the US to advance their interests. And you expect me to take you seriously and treat you with respect on this issue?

If you can find me a website run by climate scientists who are currently working in the field that gives a balanced view of the subject then I will gladly go to it. What I do not consider to be worth looking at are anything run by the Heartland Institute or any of their coal industry funded off shoots.

The BBC has stopped trying to give a "balanced" view on Climate Change because they couldn't find any scientists who were qualified in climate science to give an opposing view. Yes, there are plenty of unqualified crackpots like Nigel Lawson who will sound off about the subject but they do so with no academic or practical knowledge so what they say is just an unresearched personal opinion which is biased by their desire to keep the capitalist money making system going full pelt no matter what the outcome.

You seem to just enjoy being a contrarian because it gives you a buzz. I'm not sure who is worse you or Lawson et al. Lawson is probably worse because he is in a position of influence.

You still haven't given any scientific evidence to support your case.

[adam2]

I can see the effects of climate change with my own eyes, without relying on data or research by other people.

When I was a child, snow lying on the ground for some days was the norm each winter in Greater London. It is now rare.

When I was a child, remote villages in the north of the UK were routinely snowed in, again this is rare now.

Observation of tourist photographs from before the war and comparison to similar views today shows much reduced snow cover on most mountains, and the general retreat of most glaciers.

Aerial photographs show much reduced ice cover in the arctic.