Global Climate Change Science News

[Seth]

Debunking the debunkers who protect flawed climate models:

Left Panics over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat to Global Warming Alarmism

AP Photo/Seth Wenig

by William M. Briggs

23 Feb 20150

You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled–settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.

Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.

Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean–it is inescapable–that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What?

There are many guesses. One is that something called “climate sensitivity,” a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins.

The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s title is “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.”

The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts.

After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates’s employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates’s emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down.

The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon’s employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging.

They turned over all of Soon’s emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters.

Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to Science Bulletin a conflict of interest, and because he didn’t (none of us did), then he should retract the paper.

Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said.

But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion—anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken–hence their cozying up to “science reporters.”

These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the “alleged conflict.” I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn’t want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this.

I posted a running log of these emails at my site, and they make for fascinating reading of how narrow-minded and willfully ignorant the mainstream press can be.

Justin Gillis of the New York Times was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an “ethical breach.” He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon’s employer “may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against” him.

I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations.

Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter.

Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient.

[Animavore]

Nope, that's just a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy, a favorite of Marxist propagandists. Just because he received money from someone doesn't speak to the accuracy of his claims. You'd need to rebut the actual data and conclusions, which nobody has done.

I'm not a Marxist, and it's a lie that nobody has rebutted it.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01 ... aggerated/

The above cite has nothing to do with solar variations.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6 ... edit?pli=1

The above cite doesn't mention solar variation and is solely the opinion of one individual.

http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.no ... riggs.html

The above cite does not refute the insolation theory, it merely accuses the author of cribbing formulas from prior research without proper attribution.

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress. ... r-climate/

The above cite criticizes the research as inappropriately applying an equation on feedback in electronic circuits to climate feedback, but shows no proofs that the equation is not applicable, the author merely dismisses the theory out of hand.

http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?r ... Id=4952341

The above cite provides no information at all, merely links to some of the citations examined above.

In other words, there is no critically robust scientific evidence presented that the theory that changes in insolation can be responsible for temperature variations is wrong.

And I didn't say you were a Marxist, I said that the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is a favorite of Marxist propagandists, which it is.

Lol. The above links trash the paper by Soon et al. Keep living in denial.

[Seth]

The Silence of the Scientists
0
NOAA's GOES-East satellite / NASA.gov
NOAA's GOES-East satellite / NASA.gov

by William M. Briggs, Robert M. Carter, & David R. Legates23 Feb 20150
Informed commentators are noticing that human-caused global warming is not the danger that it has been said to be, yet many inconsistently still call for “smart solutions” to address what is likely a non-issue.

Bjorn Lomborg, for example, argues that the overwrought pronouncements of climate doom that pervade the media are preventing the world from sinking ever more money into “green energy.”

For starters, we do not know with any confidence that dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions actually exists, and extra green energy cannot fix what is not broken.

It’s also confusing to conflate energy and environmental policy. Energy policy is concerned with diversity, security, and cheapness of supply; environmental policy with nurturing Earth’s natural environment.

If carbon emissions rise faster than anyone predicted, but the rise in global air temperatures is about 90 percent less than expected, and if we are told that we should be seeing more droughts whereas there is actually a decrease, then so-called “scientific’” forecasts about carbon dioxide emissions are woefully wrong.

How can we possibly trust them to make policy decisions?

Cautious scepticism is clearly appropriate when contemplating the myriad problems involved in estimating global air temperature by all of the main governmental agencies (NASA, NOAA, and the UK Meteorological Office).

And while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from about 360 to 400 parts per million over the last 18 years (i.e. by 10 percent, which in turn represents more than 30 percent of all human emissions since 1850), the global air temperature, more accurately measured by satellite sensors, shows no increase and certainly no sign of accelerating.

It remains true that carbon dioxide emissions provide the environmentally vital services of greening the planet and assuring our food supply.

What causes both the widespread alarmism and the public ignorance of the beneficial effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Scientists remaining silent.

Have you noticed that when a political figure makes an exaggerated statement about global warming, a commonplace occurrence, no government scientific agency or leading university scientist ever corrects them? Why not?

And then, discussing global warming as a “carbon” problem, as lobby groups and politicians do, represents scientific illiteracy because it fails to distinguish the element carbon from the molecule carbon dioxide. It also deliberately encourages the public to confuse a colourless, odourless, beneficial gas with soot.

The saddest part of today’s sorry state of climate research is that so many scientists choose to remain mute about these widespread abuses of scientific nomenclature and method. They fear intimidation.

For vicious despoilation of the reputation of non-conformist scientists has long been the leaf out of the Alinsky rule book enforced against any scientist who questions the global warming-carbon dioxide mantra.

Take the new paper, “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” by Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David R. Legates, and William M. Briggs, a study which highlighted the reasons for the unrealistic predictions of global warming models. The science of this paper has so far been ignored, but there immediately arose a call for the firing of one of the authors, the distinguished Dr Willie Soon.

All four of the authors of this paper have declared no conflict of interest; having neither sought nor received funding for conducting their research. Nonetheless, last weekend the New York Times, Guardian, and other progressive papers and blogs unleashed a fury of false accusations of conflict of interest against Dr. Soon — revealing thereby that they have no competence to judge the science involved, expert though they manifestly are at pillorying the man.

It is particularly notable that the editor of the Science Bulletin, the journal in which the Monckton et al. paper was published, has commented that the paper passed “our rigorous peer-review process.”

The three authors of this opinion article have also suffered repeatedly from similar attacks in the past. Like Dr. Soon, we have found the criticisms hard to rebut because of the overwhelming public influence, Megaphone media support, and political reach of the major environmental lobby groups.

In what has truly become an Age of Disenlightenment, a nexus of bloggers, environmental activists, politicians, journalists, and (most sadly of all) scientists have modified the famous phrase that Evelyn Hall used to summarise Voltaire’s attitude towards freedom of speech. The recast aphorism now reads: “I disapprove of what you say, and will pursue to the death every way of preventing you from expressing it.”

Such attacks on independent researchers, and the exaggeration or misrepresentation of climate research results that has become commonplace, are in fact an evil every bit as pernicious as direct scientific fraud.

Whatever their personal views, and whatever intimidation they may face, all independent scientists should feel beholden to find ways of publicly supporting the freedom of enquiry and discussion that is epitomized by the research of Dr. Willie Soon and other expert scientists who remain sceptical of environmental scares such as dangerous global warming.

Simply put, a technologically advanced, civilized society cannot survive unless public policies are formulated based not on spin, deceit, and untruthfulness but rather on the unemotional, logical, and balanced principles of intellectual enquiry developed during the Enlightenment.

[Animavore]

So Seth, medical climate researchers in the past who received a lot of money from the tobacco industry, IPCC and various government agencies worldwide and published material which attempted to minimise maximize the harm done by smoking carbon emissions were entirely innocent, and their research is just as objective and useful as any other scientists?

Get real...

This idea suffers the exact same problem as any other conspiracy theory; far too many people involved. Do you honestly expect us to believe thousands of scientists from a multitude of fields are all in on some big scheme together without a whistle-blower in sight?

There are plenty of whistle blowers out there, but they get attacked with circumstantial ad hominem fallacies when they blow their whistles, and yes, if you follow the money it's perfectly plausible that an AGW religious cult has come into being among climate scientists, who know upon which side of the bread is the butter. After all, some of the top climate scientists have been caught in lies and have been shown to have been manipulating results to amplify the effects of the alleged AGW. Now NOAA appears to be involved in tweaking historical temperature records to change the slope of the line to support the AGW theory, even as, 17 years later, the "warming" has stopped.

The observable facts seem to be denying the predictions of the various climate models, which makes the climate models faulty, not the climate. Now it may be that the religious fervor of the AGW cult has caused scientists to do sloppy work full of confirmation bias driven by a desire to not be pilloried and marginalized by the climate research AGW cult, but the actual evidence that's been coming in doesn't seem to match what the models predicted, which suggests that the models are faulty and therefore any reliance on them or their root assumptions may also be faulty.

That's as absurd as believing 9/11 was a massive conspiracy and for the same reason.
But believing in one or two scientists being paid by vested interests to sow manufactured doubt against the established science; far more plausible.

Now all you have to do is prove it.

It has been. Numerous times.

[Seth]

Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Peers Fire Back Against Global Warming Witch Hunt
0

by Breitbart News23 Feb 20150

Editor’s Note: As reported by Breitbart News, the New York Times over the weekend ran a hit piece on astrophysicist Willie Soon, pressuring his superiors, Charles R. Alcock of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center and W. John Kress of the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, to punish him after the publication of a peer-reviewed paper debunking climate models that predict carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic global warming.

Two of Soon’s peers, Bob Carter and Lord Christopher Monckton, have each written letters to Dr. Alcock and other colleagues of Soon’s, defending his professional integrity against the misleading charges brought by NYT authors Justin Gillis and John Schwartz. We reprint these letters here with the permission of their authors.

Dear Dr Alcock,

I was horrified to read yesterday the defamatory articles about Willie Soon written by reporters for the New York Times and the Guardian, and now spilling on to various web publications and blogs.

From the outside it is very clear that the attack on Willie is being co-ordinated, probably by the same persons who have sought to muddy his name in the past – Greenpeace being a prime suspect in this regard.

The accusations that Willie’s funding sources dictate what he writes in his research papers are of course untrue; as they would also be untrue if alleged against the many other distinguished scientists that you employ whose funding is derived from external sources.

​Despite the transparency of the attack as a co-ordinated attempt at character assassination, I realise that as the senior executive involved you will probably have no choice but to instigate a review of the matter, consulting closely with Willie to make sure that his side of the issue receives due weight and consideration.

​In such circumstances, would you please furnish the Chairperson of any Committee with the following assessment of Willie, which is extracted from a recent reference that I wrote for him:

The respect accorded to Willie Soon’s public contributions to the climate change debate stems from the rigorous professional and personal standards that he sets in his presentations and writing. Having read many of his written articles, and attended several of his plenary lectures, I can attest that Willie is scrupulous in attending to the basic scientific veracity of everything that he presents in public about scientific matters. He is careful not only in that regard, but also in the attention he pays to drawing reasonable and balanced conclusions, and in rigorously eschewing the unfortunate ad hominem arguments that too often characterize public “debate” about human-caused climate change.

In essence, Willie Soon is a highly original, laterally thinking and communicative solar physicist who epitomizes the balanced theoretical-empirical, agnostic approach that all scientists should apply to scientific issues that relate to societal matters. Seen from overseas, he forms part of a quartet with Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer – as an equal member of the four U.S. climate scientists who are most respected by their international peers for the unfailing intelligence, insightfulness and independence of their cogent views on the difficult climate change issue.

If one wanted to sum up Willie Soon in a single sentence, it would be that he radiates scientific expertise, obeisance to empirical data, enthusiasm, commitment to communication, concern for both scientific and personal integrity and good humour in roughly equal measure.​

I stand fully by those words, and note that it follows that the current media attack upon Dr Soon is repugnant.

Having reassured itself of the essential facts of the matter, it is surely the duty of the Smithsonian Institute to defend the reputation and honor of a scientist of such outstanding ability, integrity and courage.

The New York Times and other papers that have published the false accusations should be asked to withdraw them.

​Yours sincerely,
​Bob Carter

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter
FAIMM, Hon. Fellow RSNZ​
Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne

Lord Monckton’s letter begins here.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am the lead author of the paper Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, published last month in the Science Bulletin, the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was one of my three distinguished co-authors. I understand that Dr Alcock has written to all of you to say that he proposes to investigate allegations that Dr Soon failed to disclose a supposed “conflict of interest” in that he had in the past received but had not disclosed grants from fossil-fuel interests to further his studies into the influence of solar variability on terrestrial climate.

Let me contribute to Dr Alcock’s enquiry by providing the following information:

Our paper had nothing to do with any of the specific projects in relation to the Sun-climate connection for which Dr Soon has in the past been grant-funded. Its subject-matter was not the influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate; instead, our paper (available at scibull.com and click the link to “Most-read articles”, where our paper is the all-time no. 1) presented an irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model that allows anyone to select his or her own parameters and to reach a respectable determination of climate sensitivity in minutes on nothing more elaborate than a pocket calculator.

Dr Soon first kindly wrote to me some eight years ago to raise with me some scientific points arising from a popular article on climate sensitivity that I had published in the London Sunday Telegraph. Over the years he has been kind enough to correct many errors in my scientific understanding and to give me instruction in the elements of climatological physics. It is largely thanks to his generous assistance that I acquired enough knowledge to draft our paper for the Science Bulletin. He was, therefore, a worthy co-author who had earned his name on the paper over eight patient years, and without any financial reward at any stage.

Neither Dr Soon nor any of the authors of our paper received a single penny for our months of work preparing the paper and then answering some very detailed and helpful questions from our three anonymous peer-reviewers. I greatly admire Dr Soon for his courage in being ready to follow wherever the science may lead.

It is apparent that the well-funded, highly-organized, concerted campaign of hatred and libelous vilification against Dr Soon has a rankly political motive. Certainly, as you will see from the attached note of the various instaquotes from rent-by-the-hour climate “scientists”, their attempts to attack the science in our paper have been remarkably insubstantial, unmeritorious and too often intellectually dishonest. Once it became apparent to climate campaigners that the science in the paper was uncongenial to their political position and not at all easy to refute, they began what has become an all-out campaign of hate-speech, libel and innuendo against Dr Soon.

I am particularly grateful to Ms Pulliam for her public statement that the Harvard-Smithsonian believes that scientists should enjoy academic freedom to reach their own conclusions, and that one cannot merely assume that a scientist who has received a grant from a corporation or other interest will in any way tailor his findings to please his funders.

Dr Soon is of course deeply hurt by the baseless allegations made against him. I hope that you will all do your best to support him until the police and the courts have dealt firmly with the offenses and libels of his malicious detractors.

–The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

[Animavore]

Debunking the debunkers who protect flawed climate models:

Left Panics over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat to Global Warming Alarmism

AP Photo/Seth Wenig

by William M. Briggs

23 Feb 20150

You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled–settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.

Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.

Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean–it is inescapable–that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What?

There are many guesses. One is that something called “climate sensitivity,” a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins.

The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s title is “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.”

The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts.

After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates’s employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates’s emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down.

The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon’s employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging.

They turned over all of Soon’s emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters.

Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to Science Bulletin a conflict of interest, and because he didn’t (none of us did), then he should retract the paper.

Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said.

But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion—anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken–hence their cozying up to “science reporters.”

These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the “alleged conflict.” I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn’t want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this.

I posted a running log of these emails at my site, and they make for fascinating reading of how narrow-minded and willfully ignorant the mainstream press can be.

Justin Gillis of the New York Times was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an “ethical breach.” He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon’s employer “may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against” him.

I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations.

Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter.

Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient.

Nothing in this answers the objections in the links I provided. Including the laughable assertion that climate has been "designed" to reduce temperature oscillations.
All it is is a pile of butt-hurt that their shitty paper isn't being taken seriously.

[Animavore]

Two of Soon’s peers, Bob Carter and Lord Christopher Monckton, have each written letters to Dr. Alcock and other colleagues of Soon’s, defending his professional integrity against the misleading charges brought by NYT authors Justin Gillis and John Schwartz. We reprint these letters here with the permission of their authors.

Lol! Monckton isn't a "peer" of Soon. He isn't even a scientist

[Animavore]

Soon's other argument that the Sun drives cliamte change is bunkum too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener ... l-warming/

The IPCC “basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun,” says Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming.”

The sun’s output clearly does vary, as you can see above. For instance, scientists have identified an 11 year sunspot cycle, and found that at the maximum point for sunspots in the cycle, total solar irradiance is indeed somewhat greater than at the minimum. This can have regional effects on the Earth’s climate, says Meehl. “There is evidence for a solar effect in some regions,” he says, “but not a strong global signal over the era of reliable satellite measurements.”

It isn’t only the IPCC that concludes this. “No satellite measurements have indicated that solar output and variability have contributed in a significant way to the increase in global mean temperature in the past 50 years,” concluded a recent workshop report from the National Academy of Sciences. The report noted that while the 11-year sunspot cycle can lead to changes in total solar irradiance of as much as .1 percent, that only translates into a “few hundredths of a degree centigrade” temperature response on the Earth.

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming … presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.

[Animavore]

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01 ... aggerated/

The above cite has nothing to do with solar variations.

I just realised. You aren't even talking about the same paper as me. The cite is not supposed to debunk Soon's article on solar variation (the one I posted above does). It debunks his more recent one with Monckton et al.

[Animavore]

Anyway, I think you lost once you invoked Marxism, Seth.

What's the Marxist version of a Godwin?

[Hermit]

Lol! Monckton isn't a "peer" of Soon. He isn't even a scientist

Though he has inherited the title of Viscount he isn't a peer in the sense of being a lord either. The House of Lords has gone out of its way to deny his claim to that title. Linkiepoo

[pErvinalia]

Anyway, I think you lost once you invoked Marxism, Seth.

What's the Marxist version of a Godwin?

A "Seth".

By the way, I was a scientist and I was in on the conspiracy. We used to have special handshakes and this tricky little "touch the side of your nose" thing to identify each other when we were pretending to be pro climate change.



Ah fuck. I just blew the whole thing open!

[Animavore]

Do denialists have their own version of this?
It's a .pdf copy of the IPCC's, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. It is a tome of over 1,500 pages documenting the evidence of man-made climate change in areas like the atmosphere and surface, the oceans, paleoclimate, and the cryosphere.
It's just I've looked everywhere and I can't find a denialist book which collates their evidence in this manner. All I can ever seem to find are denialists flaunting single papers from maverick scientists which are said to crumble the whole edifice of climate science somehow by challenging one single area. Or articles whining about how "Big Science" is somehow suppressing outsider views.
I'm just wondering if anyone knows where I can obtain a body of evidence like this for the other side so I can fairly evaluate both sides?

[Seth]

Do denialists have their own version of this?
It's a .pdf copy of the IPCC's, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. It is a tome of over 1,500 pages documenting the evidence of man-made climate change in areas like the atmosphere and surface, the oceans, paleoclimate, and the cryosphere.
It's just I've looked everywhere and I can't find a denialist book which collates their evidence in this manner. All I can ever seem to find are denialists flaunting single papers from maverick scientists which are said to crumble the whole edifice of climate science somehow by challenging one single area. Or articles whining about how "Big Science" is somehow suppressing outsider views.
I'm just wondering if anyone knows where I can obtain a body of evidence like this for the other side so I can fairly evaluate both sides?

GIGO.

We have the definitive rebuttal: No global warming for the last 17 years.

[piscator]

2/3 of the globe is covered in oceans, Mr Good Faith.