Can you add to this list of misleading arguments from AGW disbelievers or denialists?

Question

http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4085

Answer 1

Yeah that was a useful link for debunking myths.  In fact, it covered many of the same myths as my myth debunking wiki!

Answer 2

A short look through realclimate should get quite a few.

Answer 3

That's a really nice booklet and I think it covers most of the illogical scientific arguments that the denialists use.  It ignores the stupid political arguments though: Al Gore uses too much electricity in his house; it's just an excuse to implement socialism; it's all about the scientists conspiring with the government to make money! and so on.

It would be hard to refute someone's paranoid delusions by having them read a booklet, though.

Answer 4

Thanks Richard, you scored on two counts in my book.  You found a link and interesting source that I didn't have on my list, and you irked Randall so much that he posted an imitation question not once, but twice!

It will be added to my list, because it pulled a whole lot together and wrapped it up very nicely.

Answer 5

Good list, that covers most of it.

Answer 6

What's misleading is the reference to the Medieval Warm Period as "regional" - yeah, EVERY region from which we have evidence was warmer.

The MWP was NOT "limited to northern Europe" -

a few examples:

Tree lines were higher in the Sierra Nevadas and the Alps.    The Anasazi had to migrate because of the massive droughts.   Lake Naivasha in Kenya dried up for 200 years.   Despite irrigation usage that didn't occur in the 11th century, Lake Naivasha has not dried up during the recent warming.

EDIT - actually Amy it's two separate questions, dealing with two separate misleading claims made by AGW proponents.

Answer 7

They were wrong before.  The Royal Society supported the fake science behind eugenics.  You can't breed superior beings--they tried and it failed.

http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collect...

Amy, the n**i borrowed these methods to try to breed perfect beings.  They handed out metals in the US (and I assume England) to families that supposedly displayed "superior breeding."  Testing for diseases has nothing to do with the kind of eugenics that Galton proposed--which was practiced between families members of the elite and which was practiced amongst and illegally forced upon low-income members of society  in the US with government approval.

Edit: Amy--you might want to read more on this because the Royal Society gave this "scientist" many medals.  His and the ideas of others he worked with would definitely be considered unscientific and racist today.

"Eugenics: A Journal of Race Betterment (vol II:8), title page including Francis Galton's definition of eugenics and Fitter Families medal (#1724)"

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/...

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/...

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/euge...

"From the early 1900s to the 1970s, some 65,000 men and women were sterilized in this country, many without their knowledge, as part of a government eugenics program to keep so-called undesirables from reproducing."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?i...

Answer 8

are you really expecting them to read?  really?

get over it.

keep in mind,  SCIENCE IS ALWAYS WRONG.

science said the earth was flat.

science said the earth was the center of the universe.

science said heavy things fall faster than light things.

i mean, science is really stupid.

(why does cambodia come to mind?)

the monorail mind can only go in one direction.

if it does otherwise, it falls off the track.

it's a fragile existence some live.

don't rock their boat.

they're not good swimmers.

Answer 9

#1.   The earth warms and cools through natural cycles.  If this warming is unnatural, then explain what caused the past natural warmings, and why it is not a factor today.

#2:  This small amount can only cause catastrophic warming through strong positive feedbacks.  There are many studies that do not support the theory of high positive feedbacks.

#3:  few skeptics dispute this fact

#4;  Satellite data has been corrected and does not support this fact:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headline...

#5:  As of yet they have not made any reliable predictions.  Why should I believe them for what they say in the future.

#6:  There are many studies that have shown a link between   the climate cycle and temperatures.  Sun activity has been the strongest during this century, than any other time during the past 9000 years.

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming."  The earth's climate system is very chaotic.  Saying that we understand it perfectly to make good predictions is nothing but pure propaganda.