I frequently get little challenges cropping up on Twitter, with Warmists posing what they obviously think are “killer questions”. Frankly, I’ve largely given up responding, because (A) Warmism is a religion based on blind faith, and no amount of rational argument seems to get through; (B) I’m bored with typing the same words and phrases over and over; and (C) you can’t really make a rational argument on Twitter in 140 characters (though I often do my best).
I’ve noticed that recently the climate catastrophists have gone relatively quiet, as well they might, considering there’s been no warming for seventeen years. Clearly their model has some serious flaws, because atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. But then of course President Obama, no less, has made his big speech on the environment, and brought the issue back centre stage.
In parentheses, it’s worth noting that a Democrat President has had to resort to rather undemocratic means to get his way, as he knows full well that he can’t get his plans through Congress. So he’s by-passing Congress and relying on Executive Orders and the EPA. And his policy is likely to be mired in law-suits for years, so don’t expect any serious action in the US any time soon.
Nevertheless, it’s useful to have responses to the questions most often posed by warmists – or by members of the public who may have been spooked by the relentless catastrophist narrative in the media.
In this context, I have to commend the excellent work of Marc Morano and his Climate Depot (I think the Americans pronounce it “Dee-Poh”), a project of CFACT, and its main man Marc Morano (well worth following on Twitter, by the way @climatedepot). They’ve produced some excellent resource and reference material that deals clearly and concisely with the issues that arise in the climate debate.
They cover Arctic Ice, polar bears, extreme weather events, the Hockey Stick graph, and the so-called “scientific consensus” behind anthropogenic global warming.
Marc also has a very good piece on the recent claim that “97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming“. (What is it with this 97% figure? It’s come up over the years in a number of studies purporting to show scientific support for AGW). It turns out that the study – of scientific papers – took a generous, not to say biased, interpretation of what constituted support for the theory, and a number of distinguished scientists have turned out to ridicule the result, including UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Toll.
Yet no doubt that 97% figure will be quoted again and again by Roger Harrabin at the BBC and other media pundits. Fortunately on the other side of the debate, we have, as Christopher Booker has remarked, two things on our side: the truth, and the weather.