Home > AGW, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Data, Global Warming, IPCC, Omniclimate, Policy, Science, Skepticism > The Big Lie Of Anthropogenic Global Warming (And Why It Is So Worrying…)

The Big Lie Of Anthropogenic Global Warming (And Why It Is So Worrying…)

There may be a very good reason for some Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) proponents’ censorial, bullying attitude focused on belittling and silencing all sorts of skeptical (and non-skeptical) voices, with disingenuous remarks about the debate being “over”.

It is the same reason that forces some teenage idiots to push younger children around. Simply put, it’s a matter of insecurity.

To this day, AGWers have nothing to show. One doesn’t need to be financed by Exxon or a hardened neocon: just a good dose of honesty with oneself is enough to understand that, in the words of Andrew C. Revkin of The New York Times, “the dangerous aspects of human-forced climate disruption [are not] soon, salient [or] certain“.

The fabled IPCC reports thread tentatively on the matter of present evidence of global warming, with the AR4 dedicating to it just a single chapter, mostly focused on listing changes that are “compatible” with global warming. The temperature readings are still in ranges that can be easily reverted by relatively modest volcanic eruptions, and everybody admits that even decadal trends do depend on what reference values are used.

There is no modeller predicting disasters at the current level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (385ppmv), as shown by the fact  that negotiations aim to fix an upper limit of 450ppmv (17% higher) with the underlying aim to avoid 550pmv (43% higher).

Climate Change / Global Warming Attribution (attribution of changes and/or warming to human activities, that is) is still up in the air (there is a whole session “Detection and Attribution: State of Play in 2009“, at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Science in Copenhagen, March 10-12 2009) . Even RealClimate cannot fail to express doubts on much-publicized recent attribution papers.


Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change per se are _not_ self-evident facts of the moment. Whoever claims otherwise, they are perpetuating the Big Lie of AGW.

Theirs is not Science, but a falsification of it.


The debate that should be going on at the moment, and the point around which decisions should be made, is on the possibility that for some reason, we today are seeding the seeds of AGW in the future.

But that issue is very much cloudied by hysterical, anti-scientific reports and claims about present-day AGW. And that risks to impede the discovery and implementation of proper responses to the AGW threat, rather than patched-up farces such as the Kyoto Protocol.

Tough love indeed some environmentalists have for the environment. A few more cries purportedly to defend it, and they may as well kill it themselves altogether.

  1. John Tapscott
    2009/12/14 at 22:25

    It all looks like “global warming” is supported by the same sort of non-science as “supports” the theory of evolution.

  2. Philo
    2009/09/23 at 17:45

    It is amazing how offended believers are if you so much as question AGW. I have noticed a few things about all these people, they do not seem to understand basic science, they have not read any scientific books on climatic history, they can’t seem to remember certain basic school classes such as Desertification and they would not for one minute question the possiblility that governments LIE!(not a left-wing government, anyway) If you want to understand climatic facts read up on climatic history through meteorolgical books…not political newspapers!!! 30,000 scientists worldwide have signed a petition against AGW. Take a look out the window! 2007-8 record cold winters on all continents!!! The media is silent when temps are low!!! In the 70s we were told that we would soon be in peril because Anthropogenic Global COOLING…then the early 90s the hole in the Ozone layer, remember that one?
    I am sure there will be the same close minded responses to this statement as are to all people who can think outside the box! Why are these people so afraid to question what the government and media are relentlessly trying to shove down our throats?

  3. Bruce Wayne
    2009/09/16 at 23:22

    Apologies, Maurizio, I meant to give you a link and attributes earlier.

    The quote above is from Greenfyre. It can be found in the comments section for this page at Digg.com

    • 2009/09/16 at 23:34

      Thank you for the clarification Bruce. I happen to think that Greenfyre is a good guy, only excessively fired up 😎 on his greenie quest. He doesn’t strike me like a lost cause of the likes of Monbiot or Schmidt, rather a person I could have lunch with, like for example William Connolley. That said, I am still expecting the day somebody (anybody) will say something concrete about detection and attribution.

      The comparison to the tobacco lobby doesn’t work. In that case, as I have examined in a very old blog, the case for attribution was and still is as strong as it gets. In the case of AGW, there still is nothing detected, nothing attributable. Nothing to show.

  4. Bruce Wayne
    2009/09/16 at 15:50

    Just passing this one along…

    FTA “To this day, AGWers have nothing to show.”

    Here is a list of the 2726 most frequently cited authors of climate research with links to their work (10s of thousands of papers)
    or is the author unaware of this? Lying or incompetent? which?

    This is a typical Denier Red Herring that they learned from the tobacco industry:

    Tobacco: “Ignore the obvious scientific evidence linking smoking and a whole range of diseases, PROVE this particular cancer case was caused by smoking”

    Climate Deniers: “Ignore the obvious scientific evidence linking climate change and a whole range of disasters, PROVE this particular disaster was caused by climate change”

    but since many of the Deniers used to work for the tobacco industry
    that’s not areal surprise, is it?

    • 2009/09/16 at 15:58

      And so another censorial, bullying AGW believer shows up. Thank you Bruce.

      Would you please come back with news on detection and attribution. Thank you.

  5. 2009/01/11 at 09:50

    Regarding claims about present-day AGW, last month I had a look at Scientific American’s slideshow by Stephan Faris entitled “Top 10 Places Already Affected by Climate Change”, which has the sub-heading: “Catastrophic effects of global warming are being felt from the deserts of Darfur to the island nation of Kiribati”.

    Further down, it warns: “We don’t have to guess at what it will be like to live in a warming world. As the following examples show, the future of our planet can be found now, on the frontiers of climate change.”

    Out of the 10, there is just one example (Slide 1, Darfur) which might, I think, fulfil the criteria of 1) catastrophe, 2) happening now and 3) could possibly be linked to man-made global warming (accepting for argument’s sake that this is happening, of course.)

    But there are 9 that emphatically do not show present-day “catastrophic effects of global warming” at all. Slide 2 features the American Gulf Coast, where Faris cunningly sidesteps the argument of how much climate change might be causing bigger and more frequent hurricanes (because IMO that argument has been shown not to hold water), and talks about insurance claims instead (not quite the same thing at all.) Slide 3 is about an outbreak of a similar disease to dengue fever, brought home from India by an Italian tourist and causing 135 people to be ill (possibly contributing to one death but hardly “catastrophic”.) Slide 4 is about the booming European wine industry and about the prospects of grapes ripening a little too quickly (“catastrophic”?) Slide 5 is about islands such as Kiribati sinking, and as such is about a projected and controversial future disaster rather than one unfolding right this minute. Slide 7 cites the Red Cross as saying that “environmental disasters displace more people than war”, and then fails to provide a single present-day example, Faris preferring to fast-forward to 2050, when climate change “will have driven 250 million people from their homes…”, etc., etc. Slide 8 is about the brief re-opening of the Northwest Passage during the summer (“catastrophic”?) Slide 9 is about the threat to the Alpine winter sports industry (I suppose the author hasn’t visited this region very recently.) Slide 10 (Uganda) is pure farce – says nothing about the climate, but tells us that local farmers in Uganda are more interested in cultivating the land and feeding their families than in planting trees to assuage Europeans’ eco-guilt (how very unreasonable of them!)

    Although the slideshow promises to show us catastrophe today, what it shows us (typical for that sort of article, and typical of the pro-AGW debate) is not much catastrophe today but plenty of catastrophe tomorrow. It’s all a bit like those jokey signs in bars, which keep promising us “Free Beer Tomorrow.” :o)

    • 2009/01/11 at 10:29

      Totally agree Alex. There should be a few comments of mine below that slideshow, that I posted when it came out. Stay tuned for a diagnosis of the AGW illness, later tonight 8)

  1. 2012/03/21 at 01:41
  2. 2010/09/07 at 11:26
  3. 2010/01/20 at 14:54
  4. 2010/01/20 at 14:54

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: