Both sides continue to claim victory as the Climate Change Deniers take on the Extremists in the match of the century

There’s everything to play for in the climate change arena as both sides continue to claim victory in a contest that looks set to drag on even longer than the Holland v. Spain world cup final.

The latest drama started back in 2009, when the captain of the Deniers, Lord Christopher Monckton (Nobel Peace Prize winner and unicorn), pulled off a convincing early shot with a flamboyant speech, which supporters maintain landed over the goal line. Although far from decisive, such forceful attacks by the Denier’s veteran leader boosted his side’s confidence and they continued to have the upper hand, leaving their opponents, the Climate Change Extremists, scrambling in disarray.

Yet despite this, the Deniers’ energetic, well-organised offensive failed to find the back of the net again, and again, and again.

The Extremist counterattack was slow but impactful, led by the relatively unknown super-sub, John Abraham. Studiously working his way up the pitch, Abraham tackled the cumbersome Monckton and exposed the weakness of the Denier’s defence. Storming towards an open goal and supported by the Extremist’s pugnacious striker, George Monbiot, it looked like victory was within easy reach. A clumsy attempted tackle by Monckton within the penalty area was easily shrugged off by Abraham and the ball sailed into the back of the net…

But the clear win desperately sought by the Extremists looked uncertain as Monckton angrily appealed to the referee, accusing Abraham of committing a foul. The crowd is left bewildered by Monckton’s 466-point argument, while Monbiot protests that the old Lord is merely time wasting.

Extra time looks a given at this point, which will surely favour the Deniers. Both sides are increasingly hungry for that decisive goal, but with the Deniers repeatedly moving the goalposts and the Extremists mostly getting on with doing important science stuff, the only outcome that looks near certain is the gradual destruction of our environment.

This just in: earlier this evening, it looked as though Denier fullback James Delingpole, whose previous contribution to the game largely consisted of hacking ineffectually at the opposing players and getting a yellow card for excessive stupidity, may have scored an own goal. This was overlooked, however, as nobody could tell whether or not he was playing the same game as everyone else.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Both sides continue to claim victory as the Climate Change Deniers take on the Extremists in the match of the century

  1. Sorry I have been through all this with skeptical science.
    Although their arguments are well written, in the final analysis their arguments rely on observations, correlations with climate models (which assume the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming Hypothesis” and therefore prove nothing in the way of causiality.

    This is why so many eminent scientists in the world express their criticism with the IPCC publications and other supporting publications.

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    Most of our discussion at Skeptical Science was not published, presumably because they could not answer my base assertions.
    If you want to read more of it, most of it is published on my site at http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39-2/what-does-past-climate-change-tell-us-about-global-warming/
    Unfortunately some of my answers were spammed before I could copy them to my site so the record is regretably incomplete.
    However you can see that they take some pains to avoid discussing causiality.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Cheers

    Roger

    1. Hi Roger,

      After reading through the “conversation” you had with the guys at Skeptical Science, I can totally see that you are not willing to listen. However, I will try and respond to your point.

      Bizarrely, you appeared to agree with all their claims (or, at least, left them unchallenged) and yet steadfastly refused to alter your position. Or even change your line of argument.

      I don’t think you entirely understand your own point.

      You say with regards to experimentation (quite rightly) that:

      “If a patient is ill and you give him some of your new drug, and the patient gets well:- Did he get well because of the drug, or did he get well anyway?”

      And then you refer to double-blind tests, mentioning placebos. Presumably, your intention is to cease any scientific debate because performing the equivalent of a double-blind test on the Earth would likely be impossible.

      Regardless, your approach to testing is all very sensible but, I believe, even a double blind test wouldn’t necessarily directly show cause and effect. That would merely show a correlation.

      For a cause and effect to be understood, there needs to be a proper scientific study that illustrates the biological or physical mechanisms that make such a result plausible. This would obviously usually occur at the start of the testing (the hypothesis) but can work in reverse.

      For example, we notice that rabbits eating a particular type of grass are less likely to contract a certain disease than rabbits eating other types of grass. We would examine the biological reasons for why this could be. What is it in that type of grass which causes this effect?

      In terms of global warming, the cause and effect hypothesis of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was first put to paper in the late 19th century. As you yourself has agreed, the physics of this isn’t contested. Thus was born the theory that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would warm up the Earth.

      Throughout the 20th century, global temperature records and atmospheric measurements of CO2 have both been shown to have increased. This supports the original hypothesis.

      As the guys at Skeptical Science explained, and again you didn’t contest, further atmospheric measurements have shown the greenhouse effect at work – further proving the fact that increased CO2 results in more heat being directed back at the Earth.

      Let’s look at it step by step:

      1. Mankind’s impact on agriculture and industry has resulted in more CO2 in the atmosphere – UNCONTESTED.

      2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to the “greenhouse effect”, causing the world to heat up – UNCONTESTED.

      3. Over the last century global temperatures have been rapidly increasing in correlation with levels of atmospheric CO2 – UNCONTESTED.

      If you still disagree with this, what are your alternative hypotheses? And please do a google search to to make sure you’re not suggesting something that was debunked years ago.

    1. Sorry Roger,

      Your comment is now up. WordPress somehow mislabelled it as Spam – possibly because of all the links. Because of this, I didn’t receive any notification and it wasn’t immediately published.

      I don’t moderate comments on this blog (you’re welcome to test it – though try not to sound spammy), so there’s no way I could deliberately hide your responses. Nor would I want to.

      Cheers

  2. Crunkfish.

    You have fallen into the propaganda trap.

    Let me look at your points one by one.

    “1. Mankind’s impact on agriculture and industry has resulted in more CO2 in the atmosphere – UNCONTESTED. ”

    Agreed.

    “2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to the “greenhouse effect”, causing the world to heat up – UNCONTESTED. ”

    Cannot agree, this is an empirically unproven statement. The “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” has never been proven empirically. Furthermore there are a number of other hypothesis that fit the evidence that are currently not disprovable empirically and also a number of factors that actually disprove the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis

    “3. Over the last century global temperatures have been rapidly increasing in correlation with levels of atmospheric CO2 – UNCONTESTED”

    Disagree entirely. A freshman in statistics knows full well that correlation is not proof of anything.
    In fact there is not even correlation, because there are ample observations which show that warming precedes the CO2 increase. One of those disproving factors I mentioned above.

    To agree with your assertions I would need to have some sort of faith that the IPCC is correct, but even they never say that the hypothesis is proven. Check out a few of their papers and see for yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s