So if the models are so hopelessly riddled with errors and uncertainty that an anthropogenic radiative forcing signal cannot be distinguished from noise, or if the total magnitude of the warming attributed to humans is one-tenth to one-hundredth of the error or uncertainty ranges, why are those who dare question the degree to which humans affect the Earth’s climate branded as “deniers” of science?

Kenneth Richard,

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Looking ahead

Here are some things I have been looking at.

a) Schools Low Carbon Day: Apparently well-intentioned initiative, but of course based on smoke and mirrors.
b) Genie: An overblown scare site based on notion that CO2 is a genie buried in the earth, one which we are releasing to our imminent danger and disadvantage. Complete with trailer for DVD designed to keep the kids from sleeping either in the classroom, or at night.
c) Zilla: I am not sure how current this site is. It is spooky, of unclear origin, and may be a money-making scam taking advantage of the CO2 scam to take money from alarmed people. I have heard that such sites appear after major disasters are in the news. Well, the IPCC is certainly one of those.
d) and thanks to 'the world as we know it' site ( ) I have found another long list of counter-alarmist links at:

Tomorrow I hope to complete a gentle Fisking of the Carbon Day's foundation arguments from their site. They are basically trusters in the IPCC, a point of view which has been widely exposed as naive, duped by the PR, and of course just plain wrong in many specifics. Thus Fisking them brings phrases like 'sitting ducks' and 'fish in a barrel' to mind, and turns into an exercise in manners and restraint more than anything. However, I hope it will be my first shot at a kind of rebuttal-template which will be widely applicable.

I did a Google on 'climate lessons' just now. It found around 14,100,000 hits.