Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy - SkepticalScience.com

1000frolly's project is taking longer than expected.  I'm approaching it slightly differently, but it's too long, and too depressing, and in the end it'll just be more information to ignore.  That's why I decided to take a break and post something simple and constructive and that I've been wanting to do for a while.

A summary of near 200 linkable global warming and climate change myths followed by clear explanations of why said myth is misleading.  It's a great resource for becoming acquainted with all the information that climate science contrarians hide from their public and themselves.  It was put together by those hard working dedicated volunteers at SkepticalScience.com.  

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

• It's not happening

  • Temp record is unreliable
    • Hockey stick is broken
      • Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
      • Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
    • Dropped stations introduce warming bias
    • It's Urban Heat Island effect
    • 1934 - hottest year on record
    • It's microsite influences
    • Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures
  • It's cooling

Considering Poptech's defense of funding (#3 in comment series)

This is the third Poptech comment, actually two sent minutes apart, it hardly needs introduction except that I hope it will help enlighten some to the tactics and base attitudes of your Republican/libertarian contrarian type.  

Andrew Poptech's comments are in comic sans font, where he quotes me I changed the type to back verdana and my commentary is mostly blue verdana.
Link to see the first comment, second comment.

________________________________________________________

Andrew at 6:44 PM, January 26, 2016

has left a new comment on your post "Poptech's boilerplate response": 

Poptech: 

The first link I actually provided was - Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

Yes and what kind of refutation is that post supposed to be?

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

     "direct" nice touch

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?  

CC: Besides, we all know (the evidence is pretty clear cut and copious) this is sort of a class war thing.  With the crisp clean-cut right-wing military-industrial-complex types, pissed at the environmental types and long haired scientists with their increasingly strident messaging that humanity was exceeding its limits for a comfortable sustainable life style - and that we needed to think about what we were doing and perhaps trying to change some of our unsustainable habits.

With the Reagan White House at their backs, they created a PR machine that made "sustainability" - "environmentalism" - "stewardship towards our biosphere" - "slowing down our ravenous consumption" into bad words and demonized notions.

Considering Poptech's standards of excellence (#1 in comment series)

Here's is a comment I received from Andrew Poptech, since it's an excellent case study into 'limiting one's sphere of awareness' I'm featuring it along with a look at one of his vaunted papers.

When you read Poptech's posts and words carefully, you'll see that his bellicose bluster is all about proving that "climate science skepticism/contrarianism happens".  So what, lordie do we know climate science contrarianism has old roots*.  

The thing to notice is that Poptech's list has little to do with actually learning about what serious climate science has to tell us about our planet. To quote Poptech his list: "supports a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism,"  it's intended to be a resource for other contrarians to cut and paste.   

And I'm thinking, why does Poptech leave out the serious science and learning?

Poptech doesn't seem to understand the difference. 

Now we'll look at one of Poptech's vaunted papers.  This one is 16 years old and lays out ten reasons for questing the considered consensus opinion among experts.  If nothing else here we see an example of Poptech's standards in action.

*Please note, in the good old days there were many seemingly valid skeptical arguments, but with time and observations those have one by one been relegated to history - well except for the zombies that the Republican/libertarian PR machine keeps propping up.

_____________________________________________

Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Debating Malicious Ignorance - Poptech, a few ques...": 

January 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM

Now you are making libelous claims that I attempt to "overwhelm with self-serving rhetoric"? 

{I have responded to these cries of libel in the comments.}

PICK ANY ARGUMENT FROM THE SIX LINKS YOU SPAMMED AND DEMONSTRATE THAT MY REBUTTAL TO IT IS "SELF-SERVING RHETORIC".

{Don't have the time, those articles speak for themselves, your busy objections notwithstanding.  Instead I'll look at one of your LIST, a paper you hold up as some sort of evidence that we should distrust the larger community of bona fide climate experts.}

Everyone who attacks my work is so certain the links they copy and paste have to contain at least a single valid argument, surely you can find one?

{Now, now, watch the double-stand, you're a master at cut and paste yourself.  I hope to offer plenty of valid arguments, I look forward to seeing what you make of them.}