I'd like to thank all the blog-echos for faithfully repeating the deniers mantra, carefully following the playbook laid down by the tobacco companies in their rear-guard defense:
1) It's not true.
2) Less than 100% of the scientists who study it agree completely, so it's still just as reasonable to deny it as deal with it.
3) We're not causing it.
4) It's not so bad, anyway!
But here's the problem: The science is sound. There is a clear consensus among the scientists who actually understand the science (a group which does not include any CC posters) that the model is basically correct, and the data supports it.
That's why the deniers have to resort to the kind of tactics Barrons reposts so faithfully: misrepresenting the actual content and conclusions of studies which actually support the climate change consensus, lying about which scientists actually question the theory, and crowing over localized, short-term phenomena which don't actually refute the overall change.
By the way - how many of you bothered to follow FF's link and see that the author of the article he cited affirms global warming theory?
Quote:
|
A slowdown of the Gulf Stream and ocean circulation in the future, induced by freshening of the waters caused by anthropogenic climate change ... would thus introduce a modest cooling tendency....the cooling tendency would probably be overwhelmed by the direct radiatively-driven warming by rising greenhouse gases.
|
It's actually kind of sad. Outside the mutually-affirming group of crackpots, nobody who has actually been paying attention is questioning the fact of anthropogenic climate change anymore. Even the oil companies are dealing with reality these days. The deniers are really limited to an odd group of sad, strange, mostly older men seeking glory by making brave and defiant pronouncements for which they have no scientific support. It's really down to the flat-earthers now.