The argument is over and the alarmists lost.
I’ve not collected my bets yet but it’s over.
Whether variations in the sun explain it or the researchers have shaded the truth to gain additional funding and so there is no data to support anthropological warming, it’s over.
Let’s worry about the real problems
You are absolutely correct. People like Heidi Cullen on the Weather Channel should lose their accreditation for continuing to push the Man Made Global Warming fraud.
The argument is over and the alarmists lost.
I’ll celebrate with you later.
The President of the United States, most leaders of the “free” world and most of the United States Congress still believe in it.
I was recently asked to give a presentation relating to climate change. I've never disputed that the climate is changing -- climate, by definition, is dynamic, and the planet has (thankfully) been warming ever since the end of the Little Ice Age. However, most of the arguments for public consumption that I've heard from the anthropogenic global warming alarmists have been patently fallacious. Many of their advocates have been talking the talk but not walking the walk. Multiple key scientific contributions to alarmist theory have been generated fraudulently. So-called alarmist climate scientists have attempted to stifle scientific debate in journals and meetings, and policy advocates appear to fear any open debate of the subject. The alarmists never point out the benefits that could be realized from global warming. And, proposed policy solutions are not tailored to solving any problem, but rather are tailored to grow a government that is already too big to succeed. With all this nonsense it was easy for me to dismiss the alarmists.
My recent review of the literature and discussions with local climate scientists have led me to modify my opinion. I'm still not an alarmist in any way, but I realize I fell prey, to some extent, to the fallacist's fallacy -- i.e., I dismissed many or most of the alarmists' arguments because so often they were presented fallaciously. However, just because someone presents a fallacious argument, one in which the reasoning is unsound because it is logically invalid, doesn't mean the fallacious argument's conclusions are not true.
There's little doubt that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have steadily increased since the onset of the Industrial Age, and that man's output of carbon dioxide has increased over this time. While increasing temperatures can release more carbon dioxide from the oceans, thus, contributing to the increases in carbon dioxide that are being seen in the atmosphere, increased anthropogenic emissions can also increase the levels, and those increased levels can contribute to an increase in the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Where I stand now is acknowledging that at least some anthropogenic enrichment of atmospheric carbon dioxide is occurring, and that enrichment of a greenhouse gas has the potential of increasing global temperatures. How much of an increase, and whether the increase is significant or not, however, are still matters for debate in my mind. Also, the spokesmen for anthropogenic global warming need to be scrapped -- they have no credibility. A credible climate scientist who is apolitical and has some decent communications skills should be sought for that role.