13 blog reactions to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/bbc-contrarian-top-10/

UPDATED If anyone is interested in exploring what actual climatologists are saying about global warming, RealClimate is an invaluable resource. You might start with this post, which takes care of the type of unwarranted conclusions and dismissals on display here. See if you can guess what type of scientific fraud it represents. Hint: it rhymes with "dairy picking"

RealClimate  - Jan 26, 2008 The Science is Clear | DeSmogBlog  - Jan 26, 2008 Climate Denial  - Jan 26, 2008 Iraq: The War Card - The Center for Public Integrity  - Jan 26, 2008

the nature of science is key. It is important not to be eco-holier than thou. Actions speak louder than words. Respect is always in order. Scaring the bejesus out of people does not help; showing them what they can do does. For a discussion of climate skeptic arguments from the BBC and others, see RealClimate.org.

Richard Black has written a bit about climate change "scepticism" recently. I think the first article was this one, which described his attempts to get some sense out of the sceptics, and then there was this "top ten" of sceptic arguments. As Gavin (who helped him on that article) says, that top ten was a pretty lame affair. That's not a criticism of Richard Black, but rather an indication of how completely irrelevant the "climate sceptics" are. They simply aren't part of the scientific debate - "is it happening, and is it caused by

Kevin Martin, The Daily Show (The New York Times) Abdicate And Capitulate (The New York Times)Records Under Wraps (The Washington Post) Blogs: All Global Warming Is Local (DeSmog Blog)Barack (Lawrence Lessig) BBC Contrarian Top 10 (RealClimate)Bill O'Reilly - Principle vs. Money? (Mark Cuban) The Cancer From Within (Truth Dig)Centrist Dog Food (Gristmill) Coal: Still not cheap (Gristmill)Dob't Trust Media Research Center (Brendan Nyhan) Journalism As Sadism (Matthew Yglesias)

I expect that many of you will react to my first point -- that the people who claim human activity is rapidly changing the climate may be correct. Fine, but before you go all "Medieval warming period" on me in the comments, read this short post at Real Climate and click through to this summary of leading "skeptic" arguments and the responses thereto. It obviously does not end the debate, but it is a useful place to start on the substantive arguments.

Global dimming and global warming BBC contrarian top 10 Find the error Did we call it or what Is the ocean carbon sink sinking?

http://www.desmogblog.com/anatomy-of-a-dupe-the-john-locke-foundation http://www.desmogblog.com/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-global-warming-hoax http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=45241 As they say at RealClimate, If science has one overriding principle, it is that you should adjust your thinking in the light of new information and discoveries - the contrarians continued use of old, tired and discredited arguments demonstrates their divorce from

Real Climate (bolding mine): There is an interesting, if predictable, piece up on the BBC website devoted to investigating whether there is any ‘consensus’ among the various contrarians on why climate change isn

[link][more]