Solomon at least admits that the whole exercise is a parlour game, a work of sophistry.
He reports on page 6 that his interest in climate change denial began because he was trying to impress some visiting Chinese environmentalists with the vigour of the North American environmental debate.
With the Chinese looking on, Solomon challenged a friend to "name three climate-change areas that he felt were settled. ... I told him if he identified the areas of expertise, I would find a credible dissenting scientist in each."
The problem is that Solomon's "deniers" don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about the details.
An article that follows a well-establshed pattern. We know that the Earth has moved in and out of ice ages in the past without any help from human CO2 emissions. Hence, the burden of proof must rest on those claiming that the mild warming of 1970-1998 was caused by CO2 emissions. The "deniers" or "sceptics" don't have to prove anything. Over the years, various eminent people have questioned the zealous alarmism of the AGW lobby. The reaction to their questions is always the same - smear, ridicule and attempts to intimidate. Richard Littlemore simply provides more of the same. My own view of AGW is that the theory is simply inconsistent with the facts: 1. According to NASA records, 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century in the US. 2. Global temperatures have shown a slight fall since 1998 - AGW computer models and IPCC reports did not predict that global warming would take a 10-year (so far) holiday. 3. During the late 20th century warming, the Antarctic got colder. The GHG theory does not explain this. 4. When Bjorn Lomborg accepted the science of AGW then proceeded to demonstrate that it would be far cheaper to adapt to warming than try to prevent it, the AGW lobby responded by ratcheting up the predictions of disaster and catastrophe. This is a clear sign that AGW is a political project, not a scientific theory.
I don't think LG realizes that its just a "game" for both side otherwise this thread wouldn't have been started! And I'm with suricat, why was this posted in the science boards? Surely the Green section is where this point scoring drivel should be posted, or political boards if C4 has them!!
