What does this mean in the Global Warming Frenzy?

Question

www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

Answer 1

A collection of misleading and incomplete information, half-truths, and putting words in the mouths of climatologists that are not theirs. It means nothing. A few points:

1. As of today, considering evidence on both sides, the US Supreme Court says CO2 is a pollutant.

2. The "hockey stick" paper had some minor statistical issues. The National Academy of Sciences however found it to be essentially correct, at least for the past several hundred years. Others have duplicated it since.

3. The graph he uses is very incomplete. Here's a graph which considers all the factors, not just fossil fuel use. The correlation is excellent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

4. The consensus is clear. The skeptical scientists are few.

5. A "strawman" argument. The assertion that fictional movie The Day After Tomorrow represents climatologists thinking is well beyond absurd.

6. Perhaps his most egregious misstatement. The impacts to South Sea Islands are well documented.

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-reuters.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/368892.stm

and many more.

7. The Wikipedia graph above, shows the models to be pretty good. So does Page 11 of this report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

8. Once again, attributing things to climatologists that are not their core position, although some believe this is very possible.

9. It all depends on how we do it, and development of the technology. It will cost vastly less than dealing with the consequences of global warming.

Answer 2

In all honesty it means that the author is deliberately telling lies for whatever reason. You don't have to agree with global warming to know that a lot of what's published there is complete nonsense.

I happen to agree with global warming, it doesn't mean that I dismiss the arguments used in the case against global warming. As a scientist I look at every possible angle, if someone comes to me with a theory or evidence that could change our understanding of global warming or climate change then I take it seriously, regardless as to whether it fits with what I believe.

If that report landed on my desk it would go straight into the shredder - it has no substance or foundation to it whatsoever. I could write a similar report citing evidence that the world was flat or that next year year the sky will trun green.

Answer 3

Edit: Having read the newly fixed link, I have to say my position hasn't changed much. The arguments in the paper are over twenty years old, and have been refuted countless times.

Take a quick peek at some of the articles on RealClimate.org if you'd like to see for yourself.

Answer 4

It means there is hope for the human race. It means that there are intelligent, well-informed people that recognize Al Gore's doomsday scenario for the politically motivated, junk science that it really is.

Answer 5

It doesn't mean anything. Those that agree will agree, those that don't won't. It sums up the standard arguments, but uses very little science. Thus, it won't sway any fence sitters.