There is Absolutely Nothing Wrong With the Atmosphere
A Few Things Illconsidered's "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" provides some interesting information on the state of climate change science.
I have examined the ones that applied to me, specifically "The Models Are Unproven", "The Medieval Warm Period was Just as Warm as Today", and "The Hockey Stick is Broken". I have my doubts on the methodologies used to model climate, but clearly many strides have been made in the last few years. Enough that, at least for certain models, one can be convinced to put some faith in their conclusions. The NOAA's conclusions on the Medieval Warm Period are especially enlightening, as it dispels one of my main objections to some of the older models. The 'Hockey Stick' may or may not be a crock, but, "To my knowledge, the worst indictment from the climate science community came from a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded [McIntyre and McKitrick, the original objectors to the 'Hockey Stick', were] right about a particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not in fact change the study results." Either way, the NOAA concluded, "Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
I still object to the "trust us" stance taken by people on both sides of this issue. As I have said on many occasions, clearly something is going on with the atmosphere. I worry that we'll bankrupt ourselves for no benefit unless we're reasonably sure about what that something is. Even more important is the question of what, if anything, we can meaningfully do about it.
In the meantime, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, people still starve to death and sleep out-of-doors, nations are bankrupt, and there's a war on, don't you know.
I have examined the ones that applied to me, specifically "The Models Are Unproven", "The Medieval Warm Period was Just as Warm as Today", and "The Hockey Stick is Broken". I have my doubts on the methodologies used to model climate, but clearly many strides have been made in the last few years. Enough that, at least for certain models, one can be convinced to put some faith in their conclusions. The NOAA's conclusions on the Medieval Warm Period are especially enlightening, as it dispels one of my main objections to some of the older models. The 'Hockey Stick' may or may not be a crock, but, "To my knowledge, the worst indictment from the climate science community came from a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded [McIntyre and McKitrick, the original objectors to the 'Hockey Stick', were] right about a particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not in fact change the study results." Either way, the NOAA concluded, "Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
I still object to the "trust us" stance taken by people on both sides of this issue. As I have said on many occasions, clearly something is going on with the atmosphere. I worry that we'll bankrupt ourselves for no benefit unless we're reasonably sure about what that something is. Even more important is the question of what, if anything, we can meaningfully do about it.
In the meantime, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, people still starve to death and sleep out-of-doors, nations are bankrupt, and there's a war on, don't you know.