I have decided it’s past time to stop humouring climate skepticism and denial by allowing their “debate” on my posts. Why? Because tolerating it only helps to perpetuate the myth that climate scientists are divided and there’s a lot of doubt about the cause of global warming. It feeds the trolls.
The AGW menu and submenu lists items related to global warming that are archived here, so I don’t have to keep repeating the same arguments to sceptics who keep repeating the same old arguments. I just updated the AGW tag with the following.
You may have read or heard that the shrinkage of the Arctic sea ice recently smashed the previous 2007 record low. You may not have heard of a new study that says we might, just, still have a chance of keeping global warming below 2°C. You may or may not have heard that some prominent climate scientists, including James Hansen, think 2°C is too high, and we need to keep warming below 1.5°C or even 1°C.
All this means we might still have a chance of avoiding “dangerous” global warming, but the chance is already small, and diminishing very rapidly. It also means we are not doing nearly enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even though there is a great deal more we can do at quite modest cost to our economies.
In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science? I’m going to take a slightly different angle and consider how people are able to reject climate science in the face of strong evidence.
Two good recent discussions of views on climate change are reproduced under the new AGW tab, above.
The main tab preserves the recent post “The productive way to address global warming”. The tab will allow me to avoid the post discussions becoming cluttered with sceptic distractions. Distraction and confusion are, of course, the primary weapons of the professional deniers (those who work for fossil fuel industries).
Here is a graph I’ve wanted for a long time. It shows how you can get the answer you want out of the global temperature data series. Just pick the right start and finish point and, presto, the temperature is rising, or falling, or flat.
It’s why denialists keep insisting that global warming stopped in 1998.
Recently climate sceptics Anthony Cox and David Stockwell published an opinion piece on the ABC’s The Drum claiming climate scientist James Hansen had “admitted” climate models have been wrong, and that human-caused global warming was therefore in doubt. The article contains basic misrepresentations of Hansen and of the substance and implications of a draft paper by Hansen.
The Hansen paper does not weaken the case that humans are the main cause of global warming. On the contrary, it suggests we have unwittingly and temporarily shielded ourselves from the full effects of our activities.
A brief update on global warming. As expect 2010 came in high – the equal-hottest year ever, tying with 2005, according to both NOAA and NASA. This is despite a strong La-Niña condition developing in the second half of 2010, and low solar irradiance, both of which tend to cool the planet.
As the national election campaign approaches its climax, with global warming all but ignored by the major parties, the Australian Academy of Sciences has issued a report summarising the current state of climate change science. Its conclusions are clear and concerning. Global warming continues to occur, and the evidence is now strong that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause. The evidence supporting supporting climate sceptics is melting like the Arctic snow.
[Updated 21 July 10.] One of the most frequently and loudly repeated claims of climate sceptics is that the Earth has cooled since 1998. What the data have actually been showing is a pause similar to pauses in the 1980s and 1990s. The likely cause of the recent pause has been the El-Niño-La-Niña cycle. So far 2010 has been the hottest year on record, so the pause is over. Let’s see if false claims of global cooling also cease.