He said without providing evidence for this claim. There are many independent lines of evidence on the sensitivity of the global temperature to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations. From basic physics, a large number of different period with climatic changes in the deep past and the cooling observed for volcano eruptions. Source: IPCC While others … Continued
“the usual mix of misdirection, falsehoods and tirades against ‘brigades’ who supposedly say this and that but are never clearly identified”.
In his speech, Abbott repeated common climate change contrarian talking points that are either incorrect, fallacious, unsupported, misleading, or cherry-picked. Read below for detailed reactions from scientists.
Climate models have, in fact, successfully projected the rate of global warming, comparing well with observed global temperature in recent years. The idea that models should be faulted for not predicting the “hiatus”—the period in the early 2000s during which temperatures stayed below the long-term trend—reflects a misunderstanding of what a model projection is. An individual model simulation produces natural year-to-year temperature variability, but many different simulations are averaged together to produce a projection. This means that natural variability cancels out, leaving a smoother trend representing the long-term average. Model projections will not predict short-term variability, because short-term variability has been removed from them.
“Recently, a conservative think tank called the Heartland Institute sent an elaborate booklet called “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to schoolteachers all over the country. Some have worried that, since it is a piece of “unscientific propaganda” containing false claims about climate science, it will “mislead tens of thousands of students.” But the scientists at Climate Feedback, a nonpartisan institution that evaluates claims about climate science in the media, had a different perspective. While giving the Heartland Institute’s report an “F” for accuracy, and thoroughly debunking its various claims, they didn’t simply tell teachers to throw the document away and forget it showed up. Instead, they said, “this book provides an opportunity for science teachers to teach their students about fallacious reasoning, as well as common misconceptions about climate science and the deceptive talking points that today floods their social media feeds.””
“This whole post is based on semantics and basically one big strawman fallacy. The author is deliberately confusing air pollution from suspended particulate matter (as discussed in the WHO report) with pollution from carbon dioxide emissions (as discussed in the Reuters link and the Paris Agreement). Even though CO2 does not impact our health through “disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs”, it does change our environment and the Earth’s climate, and in that sense does classify as a pollutant.”
Background Information The full original video and all testimonies can be found here Additional documentation Opening statement by Lamar Smith (text available here) Opening statement by Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) (text available here) Transcript of some noteworthy, scientifically verifiable statements From the opening statements and testimonies Key statements from Eddie Bernice … Continued
Axios Fact-checking Pruitt’s warming comments 8 Feb. 2018 “Go deeper: Climate scientists roundly refuted with very detailed responses an article in May 2016 that said in “many ways global warming will be a good thing.” Snopes Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 ‘Prove’ That Global Warming is a Myth? 25 Oct. 2017 “The first … Continued
“This article makes startlingly inaccurate claims about the earth’s surface and satellite temperature records, as well as attempts to ascertain the earth’s temperatures over the past two millennia through proxy measurements. The author would do well to talk to scientists involved in surface and satellite records and to consult the peer-reviewered scientific literature rather than blogs when writing in the future.”
“This article wins the Olympic gold for cherry-picking data, misleading claims, and a long list of scientifically unsupported assertions.”
