re: Here's a nice "f*ck you" to the Climate Change apostles (caution: sciency shite)

quote:

---

Care to dispute the scientist?

---

You mean the link in the OP? It's pretty basic stuff.

Their rebuttal to NCA claim 1 (the GHG physics) is to harp on one incredibly minor aspect of it, the prediction of a mid-tropospheric "hot spot," which hasn't been measured. From this, they go to "Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST [surface temps] must be rejected."

This is an uncommonly silly argument. CO2's behavior as a greenhouse gas has been established since Tyndall in the 19th century. This is a bit like saying we have to throw out everything about our understanding of proteins because we can't explain why some enzymes have faster-than-diffusion kinetics. To borrow Kuhn's terminology, it's seeing a paradigm shift in every blink of normal science. There are plenty of explanations within the GHG paradigm that are still being tested (higher-than-expected tropospheric circulation, for instance, would explain the lack of a localized hot spot but not affect the underlying GHG physics). Hell, Bengtsson thought they were still within the error bounds, and he's nobody's idea of an alarmist.

Their rebuttals to NCA claims 2 and 3 aren't nearly as interesting. They rebut a claim about "global surface temperatures over the last several decades" by herping and derping with some CONUS graphs and six cherry-picked Arctic stations as though the existence of a global average trend does not admit the existence of short-term, regional exceptions. They rebut a claim about the model simulations of the last century by basically restating their point from claim 1 (as the graph is referring to the mid-troposphere and is notably missing error bars).

Their rebuttal to NCA claim 4 is ~the pause~, which will last longer, according to (a) the same climatologists they spent rebuttals 1-3 shitting on (b) the stepwise jump they MSPainted onto the UAH record? This is a very hand-wavey response to a very specific claim and I wonder if they switched their responses to 2 and 4.

NCA claim 5 is dumb and I agree with their rebuttal, but then again their rebuttal is the IPCC, so hooray science?