Global Warming Denial and Football Fan Excuses

I tweeted on twitter last night to someone last night that the arguments given by those who deny global warming are akin to those given by a football fan to justify their continued thoughts that their team still are the best, even after a heavy defeat.

Despite the weight of evidence, the melting of the North Pole, rising temperatures, freak weather patterns, flooding, more extreme hurricanes and cyclones, and a host of other evidence from a vast range of sources from across the globe, there remains this hardcore of mainly right wing groups, more obsessed with dollars that justice, who cling to fragments to justify their opposition to any thoughts that global warming is happening or that it is a bad thing.

The fuss over a few e-mails from one university in the UK (the University of East Anglia in Norwich) are being used to try and taint the evidence from thousands of researchers and scientists around the world. Yet when "The Great Global Warming Scandal" was debunked when a number of those whose contributions were taken out of context complained that the programme did not accurately represent what they said or felt about global warming, the Global Warming deniers don't see that as evidence that it taints "all" their arguments in the same way as some emails from the UEA supposedly does.

Then there are those who seem to think that global warming might be a good thing. Witness Nigel Lawson on Andrew Marr's programme this morning who seemed to be trying to justify his view that most people in this country are not that worried about a small rise in temperatures. Forget that a small rise in the UK means a small rise in Africa, leading to further drought.

For global warming deniers to claim that the emails from the UEA prove that the whole global warming argument is without foundation is like a losing football fan claiming that the 5th goal in a seven nil defeat was actually offside.


Quiet_Man said...

It's not a few emails, it's a massive amount of emails. There's evidence of criminal activity in foi deleting and avoiding. Admissions that the source code is flawed. That they can't account for the last 10 years of cooling. Blackballing and trying to skew peer reviews to only allow warmist views. That's just the emails, the core data shows evidence of a massive skew in data ignoring the medieval warm period, the flaws in only using 12 tree core samples in Russia to prove a theory.

The warmist house of cards is falling down, no-one denies climate change, but at least the deniers aren't guilty of making up the evidence to suit a failed theory.

just want the truth said...

With respect we don't deny climate change. We deny that it's man made. Or at least we would like to see some proper evidence from their data so we can decide.
Ice caps are melting etc but this has gone on for millions of years. Temps go up and down.
The world temp will go up and down with no effort from us ( Roman times were way hotter than now , ice ages before we came along )
Have you read EU Referendum , Wattsup with that blogs etc?
We're being scammed. The data was twisted to suit their theory. FOI's were constantly denied. They are public servants getting massive funding yet deny access to the data. Why ?
There are billions of pounds riding on this issue yet the MSM has had to be dragged screaming and shouting to discuss it properly.

Dan Pangburn said...

The hacked emails of Climategate are not necessary to show that human caused global warming never was.

A simple, science-based EXCEL model has been derived that accurately (sd = 0.064 C) predicts all average global temperatures since 1895. The model did not need any consideration whatsoever of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.

A description of the model and its development along with an eye-opening graph that shows measured and predicted average global temperature are in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true

None of the above said...

I'd be interested to see if our friend above could point to some evidence of global temperatures during the Roman Warm Period being "way hotter than now". If he or she can't, then it would be nice to see a retraction of the claim.

This is oft-repeated along with the same being said of the Mediavel Warm Period. Both are untrue.

Have a look at several studies for yourselves:

Joe Timms BSc said...

Roman warming - the contemporary evidence from (among thousands) Cato and Pliny.

Medieval Temperatures are well know to have been hotter, evidence from historical sources are accepted by most 'real' scientists. Greenland actually was green and highly productive, until the return of the mini ice age (what were they doing to produce that - since it appear no climate change can be natural) when they had to abandon the settlement. (Evidence from archeology and records - read it for heaven's sake and stop making a fool of yourself)

The evidence of the trees now rests on ONE tree out somewhere in Siberia,

The evidence - if Norflok Blogger you actually read it instead of going into a lefty frenzy - indicates that the scientists providing the evidence on which your global warming theory actually depends have been caught out(Like James Hansen from GISS)manipulating data, denying critical peer review, pressuring publication not to print critical reviews or even authentic work that disproved the theory.

This is not science as I knew it , where it was drummed into me that if the facgts do not fit the theory then the theory has to change -this is political anarchy where the theory must survive even if the facts have to be manipulated and falsified to prove it.

And if I am sounding a little testy it is because of people like you who seem to think it is a religion and heretics should be burned at the stake.

You are dangerously wrong and you should admit it.

Brian E. said...

There is no reason to think that the ice at the North Pole is any thinner than it was 22 years ago, in fact there are good reasons to believe it is much thicker.
Suggest that you look at the photo of the three submarines in a lagoon at the pole in 1968, on a number of sites including http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
Of course, climate change fanatics might believe that this US Navy photo is a fake just like the data from the University of East Anglia. After all they are experts in falsifying information!

None of the above said...

As I expected

No evidence that global temperatures were hotter than now during the Roman Warm Period or the Mediaeval Warm Period.

that's because they weren't

see here for the evidence:


Citing it as 'well known' and stating 'archeology' and 'records' as your evidence is pathetic.

here are several of the major climatic reconstructions for the past 2000 years. Whichever one you choose, you're wrong. Any obviously way out of your depth.

Still confused? Go here:

Anonymous said...

An open letter to the UN...