Part 1, Skeptic side of RCRC Climate Debate

Presentation by Warren Meyer, of climate-skeptic.com, at the California Regional Council of Rural Counties at South Lake Tahoe in September, 2008. The presentation is called "Don't Panic -- A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory." Focuses on a number of topics, including the lack of real evidence of anthropogenic climate change as well as the use of positive feedback in models to create catastrophic forecasts. (I would love to post the alarmist presentation by Joe Nation from this debate, but I do not have the rights to it).

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Climate
• global
• warming
• weather
• climate
• change
• co2
• environment
• california
• rural
• counties

[gufpott]

mt78723: "CO2 has increased by 30%, not by 0.01% . That's a howler;"

Warren is absolutely clear that he is talking about atmospheric composition. Recent change is about 100 ppm, although most people don't talk about ppm. So he (correctly) expresses ths as a change of 0.01% and notes it as "an extraordinarily small change IN COMPOSITION".

Either you don't understand Warren's presentation, or you wish to complain that it is not sufficently alarmist for your personal taste.

[tippman2k01]

look up peer reviewed journal chills global warming fears. it says doubling, even tripling co2 levels would not have a substantial impact on temperature. not to mention the IPCC admitted in 2008 that the world is cooling. also GW is the only issue that is not debated in the UN. GW is a political issue. and when there is an even debate (i have seen 2) the "deniers" win

[TheKickerboy99]

The sun drives temps, CO2 is a trace gas that has very little greenhouse effect. Search Henrick Svensmark

[gerjanp]

"For 90% of the cycle, CO2 drive temps."

Prove it.

[meercatdotcom]

What a misleading argument! Scientists don't deny temperatures drives CO2, but that's only during the beginning of the interglacial cycle.. For 90% of the cycle, CO2 drive temps.

[4TIMESAYEAR]

@mt78723 Now we both know which day was hotter, but the warmist, who wants to go by the "average" temp, says that global warming exists because of higher averages, rather than by whether the actual temps are getting hotter. That makes it easy to manipulate the numbers. It's time to stop looking at averages and go by actual temps.

[4TIMESAYEAR]

@mt78723 - perhaps you should focus on the surface station problems; they alone would account for the "warming" - they started using latex paint instead of whitewash; guess what? It raised the temp. Not to mention that data didn't get recorded for half a month at one station. Funny thing about "averages" too: you can have a day hovering in the 70 for 24 hours have a higher average than a day that got hotter (say 80) with a low of 60.

[St37One]

um gufpott, it is not nice to take away an alarmists excuse to ignore counter evidence and arguments.

empty78723 will eventually find another excuse to discredit or ignore the information in this video. Alarmists are very effective at fishing, chery picking, holding double standards, group think, ad-hominems, and arguments from authority, which are benefitial for any other religious community.

Just leave them alone so that they can give thier lives/identities direction, purpose, and meaning.

[mt78723]

Intelligent, but burdened with severe errors, some standard climate change denier errors, some entirely new.

CO2 has increased by 30%, not by 0.01% . That's a howler; I stopped listening at that point. You really ought to spend some time with people with actual expertise.