politics

Most Debunked X in Y.

77 Comments

Judy, I am sure that by now you know you are on Joe Romm’s most debunked list. In fact, he wrote,

Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, taken the crown as the most debunked person on the science blogosphere.

It strikes me that Romm likes to use the word “debunked” a lot. When he uses it, it sometimes seems to mean nothing more than “people who agree with me wrote a blog post criticizing them, and I agreed with their criticism”. At other times, it seems to mean, “I, Joe Romm, criticized them in the past, and I’m going to provide you a link to my previous posts where I criticized them.” Maybe sometimes it means something else.

Anyway, I thought I would check to verify my impression that Romm often uses “Most debunked X in Y”. I google searched his blog and tried to avoid mentions in comments only:

Roger Pielke Jr. is the most debunked person in the science blogosphere. Oct 2009.

Roger Pielke, Jr. is the single most disputed and debunked person in the entire realm of people who publish regularly on disasters and climate change.

Ambinder doesn’t know that Lindzen is one of the most debunked climate scientists in the world.

This is all by way of introduction to one Keith Kloor, a blogger who week in and week out trashes climate science bloggers, including me, often parrotting the disinformation of Roger Pielke, Jr., “the most debunked person in the science blogosphere.” Since his blog is obscure, I have ignored him until now, and plan to do so again in the future.

[ BTW: Keiths’ blog is no longer obscure. I read it regularly. You can to. Click here.]

Lomborg is, after all, one of the most debunked writers on climate in the world.

Lomborg and Pielke are probably the two most debunked non-deniers in the world — though in fact Lomborg is a denier-equivalent and Pielke is a delayer-equivalent, as I’ll discuss below

All other “most debunks” were in comments by visitors.

So maybe I was wrong. Maybe there are only 4 “most debunked” personalities: Judy, Roger, Richard and Bjorn. Joe does seem to decree he has debunked people or ideas fairly regularly. (See google search. )

77 thoughts on “Most Debunked X in Y.”

  1. Apart the word most , there is another very common word .
    Its faster . Where ever is a heatwave , that place is warming faster than anywhere else . Or another one .
    Its worse than we thought . He he .
    Lucia will you run satelite competition how cold 2011 will be ?
    I have the winning number already . The sooner the better .

  6. But I think Roger wins with the following:

    So let’s set the record straight. Roger Pielke Jr. is the most debunked person in the science blogosphere, possibly the entire Web

    This with the support of both comedy show hosts “Tim Lambert” and “Eli Rabett”. I think Judith just isn’t trying hard enough. Though, being most debunked person in the entire web is certainly a high standard to meet …

    I also note that given the picture Joe chose of Judith for his blog the photographer seems to have either poor personal hygiene or perhaps brought a dead mouse to the interview. Maybe it was just Joe himself and this is a normal reaction to him ?

  9. It is probably not too hard to find lots of ways to debunk Joe himself… but no need, he is plenty funny already. Humor is a nice break from discussions of AM(10).

  10. Lucia:
    “I don’t know. Lindzen is one of the most debunked in the world. Which is bigger, the web or the world?”

    Hmmm, the web spans farther, since it is regularly accessed via satellite, but “the world” contains a lot of people without access to the web. Perhaps they are their own separate realms… inside The Matrix, Judith is the most debunked, but outside Lindzen still holds the title.

  11. A while ago, I sent a recommended blog list (with brief descriptions) to a colleague. Being sure to include different points of view, expertise, and technical content, Climate Progress made the list.

    My brief description of Joe’s blog: “incestuous” (because he basically cites himself).

    So, the people he submits as most debunked MAY BE because he has (declared) they were debunked over and over again. Kind of like looking at yourself looking in a mirror.

    I don’t visit that blog very often anymore simply because he mainly refers to his own previous opinions. Nothing new.

    Btw – My comment regarding The Blackboard listing …… “includes an occasional Haiku.”

  13. I bunk at night and debunk in the morning… so does that mean that a person who has not been debunked is some lazy drug addict who never gets out of bed?

  14. A badly overworked word at the moment. Most people seem to use it exclusively when they could perhaps try “rebutted” or even “refuted”.

    Another nit to pick is that it is impossible to debunk a person (except in the literal sense). One can debunk someone’s argument, or a particular paper, but debunking a person makes no sense. Does the person cease to exist after the debunking, or something? Are we supposed to no longer believe in them?

  20. Roger Pielke Jr.

    I will fight back against any efforts by Judy to take my title!! 😉

    Well watch! Would any cartoonists like to commemorate this epic battle between Judy and Roger?

  21. I am outraged. How did Lord Monckton not make the list? Anyway, I am very happy that there are some ultra smart people here like Roger because I have a good question.

    Roger, I live in Pennsylvania and several companies want to begin major natural gas extraction operations. Being simple, I thought this was going to be well received and face litte to no opposition. After all, natural gas is safer to extract and burns much cleaner than oil. Well ho ho ho, I was dead wrong. There a bunch of clowns that write into one of the local newspapers about “fracking water”. The outgoing idiot governor, Ed Rendell put up some sort of ban on drilling. So my question is, is this fracking water a legitimate concern or is it a bunch of hooey like I think?

  22. I forgot to mention one small thing also. The reason Rendell put this ban up is because he is furious that the state senate would not impose a big tax on the extraction. What in the hell is anyone supposed to do? Everything is bad and dangerous to these people, there is no compromising whatsoever.

  23. Pingback: Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> In Praise of Anderson Cooper

  24. Suggestion: Find out how often he uses the word “discredited”, too.

    hunter (Comment#60681)-Ah yes, but Torquemada never was considered a serious enough pundit to work in the Clinton administration, you see. 😉

  25. Just relating an observation:

    The tactic of labeling anything and everything that is critical of one’s pet theory, “debunked” or “refuted”, has been used on Evolution sites for as long as I can remember.

    Coincidence that some Global Warming advocates do the same thing?

    Food for thought.

    Andrew

  26. Andrew_KY,

    Some claims really are refuted by physical evidence. Please, the last thing any climate thread needs is a diversion into theology.

  27. SteveF,

    I understand. I didn’t necessarily want to get into a discussion of theology. My point was about examining methods employed to try and “win” arguments, and who uses these methods.

    Andrew

  28. “most debunked”

    Wow, Lucia, well-noted and commented.

    Indeed, when I finally decided to dip my toes into the climate change issue more than a year ago, I too noticed how the word “debunk” regularly cropped up at pro-CAGW blogs, especially in the comments sections. It was one of those small things that you find curious but then forget about it until someone else brings it up.

    Incidentally, the word ‘debunk’ is much loved and used in Marxist/leftist literature and debates. It is only ‘natural’ that it found its way into the CAGW debate.

  30. Typed AGW debunked into google. Many, many pages. Many. From both sides. I particularly like the debunked debunkings. The point is that none are innocent. None… are innocent. Except the innocent. Still since so much of what is said on both sides is bunk it is only proper to de it, don’t you think?

  32. So, the people he submits as most debunked MAY BE because he has (declared) they were debunked over and over again. Kind of like looking at yourself looking in a mirror.
    .
    Actually, that might be more an artifact of Lucia’s presentation than a fair assessment of Romm’s behaviour.
    .
    If you click on the links in Lucia’s post above, you see that pretty much every “debunk” statement is supported by a link that points to statements by others than Romm. These links were lost in the copy-pasting.
    .
    Of course that doesn’t mean the “debunking” is warranted – but at least it doesn’t seem quite so self-referrential as the post would suggest.
    .
    And no, this is not an attempt at “debunking” Lucia’s post (or yours)! 🙂
    .
    This with the support of both comedy show hosts “Tim Lambert”
    .
    I do find Lambert quite entertaining, but to be honest I believe it’s mostly due to the sheer comic quality of his source material.

  34. Toto–
    I described options:

    1)Cases where debunking means people who romm agrees with criticized X. So, for example a person who romm generally agrees with (e.g. Tim Lambert) criticized Roger, and Romm agrees with Tim. If you click the links to Lamberts posts linked by Romm as proof of “debunking”, those articles don’t “debunk” Roger. They just present Lamberts gripes about Roger.

    2) Cases where debunking means Romm criticized someone in the past. The Lindzen example supports the claim of previous debunking by clicking to a previous Romm article criticizing Lindsen. That’s this: Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is “seriously in error”

    So, yes. Romm decrees people ‘debunked’ when he or people who he agrees with criticized them. He complains that others somehow don’t “know” these “debunked” people have been debunked. Well… others have read these criticisms and often think the so-called debunkings are themselves, bunk!

  35. “Most debunked” status is easily obtainable with Infinite Rommcursion. All he needs to do is cite his own opinions within his opinions…

  36. Clearly consistent with an unprecedented number of debunkees, which is quite alarming, and of course, as already pointed out, worse than we thought.

  37. Lucia,
    “Well watch! Would any cartoonists like to commemorate this epic battle between Judy and Roger?”

    A snowbball fight would be perfect……. JOOOOOOSH

  39. There is a new name on the list of the favorite most debunked people in the Universe. I’m not really sure. It sounds something like Luthor or Lucid, might even be Luthia. Lex Luthia?

    What a shame that Douglas Adams is dead. Longe live Douglas Adams. Long live global warming comedy.

  40. Dear Lucia, following your first link labelled “Roger Pielke Jr” took me to a Romm post where he described this post of mine as a “debunking of RPJ”. Apparently you disagree, writing “those articles don’t “debunk” Roger.” “Debunk” means “to expose the sham or falseness of”, so it seems your thesis is that my post did not show that Pielke Jr wrote something untrue. To be specific, when Pielke Jr wrote that the NYT was “completely botching a discussion of the science of climate change” because the NYT had stated that in the updated Arbor Day plant hardiness map “few spots are two zones warmer”. Pielke Jr

    “Because the zones span 10 degrees (or 5 degrees in the case of the 1990 USDA map) and the largest change shown on the difference map is 2 degrees, then clearly no location has jumped 2 zones! This is just an error.”

    My response (which according to you fails to debunk Pielke Jr) was:

    “Indeed it is, but the error is Pielke Jr’s. The difference map shows not the change in temperature, but the change in zones (Hint: the legend says “Zone Change”). The largest change is not 2 degrees as Pielke Jr thinks but 2 zones.”

    I think that linking to the map and drawing attention to the legend shows that Pielke Jr is wrong in his claim that “the largest change shown on the difference map is 2 degrees”, but it seems that you are not persuaded by this. Help me out here — what would it take to convince you?

  41. The Lindzen example supports the claim of previous debunking by clicking to a previous Romm article criticizing Lindsen.

    …or more precisely, to a previous post about another study, made by other people, that criticizes Lindzen.

    He complains that others somehow don’t “know” these “debunked” people have been debunked. Well… others have read these criticisms and often think the so-called debunkings are themselves, bunk!

    That’s fine. All I’m saying is, Romm doesn’t say “they’re wrong because I say so”; he says “they’re wrong for this and that reason, as shown by these other folks”. I think that’s what gcapologist was talking about.

  43. Tim–
    You are correct. I don’t think you “debunked” Roger. People do occasionally make small errors, and other’s criticize them. The correction of a small errors does not amount to “debunking” a person who made a small error.

  44. You are right, Lucia. If someone is criticized, it does not mean their entire work is useless.

    Surprising for someone like Romm,and he is not alone in this – the Climategate emails show only small errors and transgressions which “do not question the larger picture on man-made global change” (when it actually does to a good extent) – he seems to instinctively understand and frame the whole episode as such, but

    everyone he even touches upon, is completely annihilated by his devastating debunking.

  45. I’m disappointed that no one has taken up my suggestion in Andrew_FL (Comment#60694)

    I’m going to have to do it myself, aren’t I? Sigh…

  46. Re: toto ,

    That’s fine. All I’m saying is, Romm doesn’t say “they’re wrong because I say so”; he says “they’re wrong for this and that reason, as shown by these other folks”. I think that’s what gcapologist was talking about.

    You think that’s what gcapologist was talking about when he called Romm incestuous in commment in: Re: gcapologist),

    My brief description of Joe’s blog: “incestuous” (because he basically cites himself).

    So, the people he submits as most debunked MAY BE because he has (declared) they were debunked over and over again. Kind of like looking at yourself looking in a mirror.

    I suspect gcapologist was agreeing with me. If it turns out gcapologists was agreeing with me, will your thoughts be “debunked”? Or merely mistaken?

    As for the rest: My post already mentions the “other folks” aspect of Romm’s use as you can tell by reading the post. So saying I overlooked that is incorrect.

    My point is that words have nuances. If a screed writing author (like Romm) fond of demagoguery (like Romm) wants to use the word “debunked” to mean “a person I disagree with has shown, by me, or those I tend to agree with to have made a minor, fairly insignificant error and wrote a screed about that”, I guess they may continue to use the word debunked. Eventually, the word “debunked” will lose its current emphatic quality.

    But it corrently does have a certain emphatic quality, and I can point out that, when the screed writer uses this rather dramatic word, all they mean is “A person I disagree with was found to have made a minor, insignificant error”.

    Readers who understand words have nuances will recognize what is funny with Romm’s use of “debunking” and snicker at the screed writer’s word choice.

    Those who approve of the silly screeds and want others to take it seriously may well defending the use of the word “debunking”. When attempting to do so, they may try to convince others that, for some reason, English language speakers should forget that words do indeed have certain nuances.

    Mind you, this does cut both ways. Mark , correctly observed:

    Typed AGW debunked into google. Many, many pages. Many. From both sides.

    It struck me that the widely read Romm uses it with particularly zeal. He used it recently. I commented on this.

  47. Lucia:

    You are correct. I don’t think you “debunked” Roger. People do occasionally make small errors, and other’s criticize them. The correction of a small errors does not amount to “debunking” a person who made a small error.

    Looks like Tim and Joe share one thing in common…some difficulty with nuances of words in their native language.

  48. Well I watched half the debate yesterday so far, that lady Dr. Meehl is awful. All she does is use emotional arguments and she tries to mislead people. Lindzen said that absent any feedbacks, a doubling of co2 would increase global temperature by a degree. That idiot Meehl then says that it is 8 degrees, without mentioning that this calculation is based on strong positive feedbacks. Furthermore, if I was at the hearing (politician or scientist) I would ask Dr. Meehl “Do you actuallly believe this number? You actually think the next time co2 doubles the average temperature will rise 8 degrees?” What a rotten quack that woman is.

  49. Search for ‘abrupt climate change’ in the IPCC report working group III, and see which sole scientist the organization depended on, to formulate its ‘assessment’.

    🙂

    “The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out (Meehl et al., 2007). Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (See Meehl et al., 2007), if it occurred, could raise sea level by 4-6 metres over several centuries. A shutdown of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (See Meehl et al., 2007) could have far-reaching, adverse ecological and agricultural consequences (See IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 17), although some studies raise the possibility that the isolated, economic costs of this event might not be as high as assumed (See Meehl et al., 2007). Increases in the frequency of droughts (Salinger, 2005) or a higher intensity of tropical cyclones (See Meehl et al., 2007) could occur. Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans (See Meehl et al., 2007), which would add to the mitigation required.”

  50. Shub, don’t have time to search it now, if its that clown Dr. Meehl then its pretty obvious they are simply trying to cheat and this issue has turned into full blown fraud.

  52. “The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out (Meehl et al., 2007). Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (See Meehl et al., 2007), if it occurred, could raise sea level by 4-6 metres over several centuries. A shutdown of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (See Meehl et al., 2007) could have far-reaching, adverse ecological and agricultural consequences (See IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 17), although some studies raise the possibility that the isolated, economic costs of this event might not be as high as assumed (See Meehl et al., 2007). Increases in the frequency of droughts (Salinger, 2005) or a higher intensity of tropical cyclones (See Meehl et al., 2007) could occur. Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans (See Meehl et al., 2007), which would add to the mitigation required.”

    An example The Politics of Fear, Keenly Identified by our President. 😉

    Not that he specifically identified this particular POF, but he did say that a certain group of people (voters) had succumbed to it (fear), generally.

    Good thing we have such a observant mind on *our* side!

    Andrew

  53. If you look up “debunked” in the dictionary, you will see a picture of Mann’s hockey stick. Or that insipid picture of him posing with tree rings. THAT’S debunked. These other assertions….nah.

  54. Lucia, so your assertion that my posts were mere “gripes” was wrong. You new line of argument is that a correction a “small” error doesn’t count. But the post you claimed was just “gripes” didn’t correct just a small error. Pielke Jr made multiple errors. The point of Pielke Jr’s post was that a story in the NYT was “completely botching a discussion of the science of climate change” But the errors that Pielke Jr alleged that the NYT made were, in fact, errors made by Pielke Jr. He then added to his rain of errors in comments by offering various incorrect arguments why the Arbor Day plant hardiness map was wrong.

    Perhaps you have your own personal definition of the word “debunk”?

  56. Dr. Shooshmon, phd. (Comment#60861)-I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, when I hear such numbers, that they think it makes the most sense to communicate to American politicians in degrees Fahrenheit. But even then that figure translates into the very high end of the range of models, about 4.5 Celsius. A good question to ask indeed:does anyone actually believe that number? I seem to recall a lot of “warmers” favoring lower figures than that, and thinking that those extreme values damage their credibility and have no scientific validity.

  57. Tim

    Lucia, so your assertion that my posts were mere “gripes” was wrong.

    Your gripe is that Roger is sometimes wrong. Yes, you think you corrected a bunch of important errors and for some reason, Romm thinks “debunking” is the correct word for this. Others might disagree that you corrected anything momentous or that the word “debunking” is appropriate. I think debunking Roger is a wild exaggeration for what happened in that post.

    Yes, I think the word “debunk” is a gross exaggeration of what you accomplished in that post, which is to show that he misintepreted a graph and so made a mistake. If I were to decree this “debunking”, I would decree Gavin “debunked” for having made a few mistakes in TAV thread on Makarieva, or for dropping by here in comments a long time ago saying something mistaken about the magnitude of a temporal autocorrelation in a particular computation. Everyone makes mistakes and gets corrected. This does not mean those people have been “debunked”.

    Of, if you want to use it that way, go ahead. But then people know that’s all you mean by “debunked”.

  58. Tim–
    BTW: I similarly do not think it appropriate to say the full IPCC report has been “debunked” owing to the mistakes in certain portions. But if we use the word your way, then the word “debunked” ought to be applied to the IPCC AR4.

  59. Well,

    Since GHCN makes several errors in locating stations ( at least 230 land stations are located in the ocean) and since GISS uses GHCN inventories,

    I have debunked Hansen at least 230 times. ( hint I dont say these errors matter.. so now debunking will be changed to mean… substantive error)

    I think I may also be able to show over 7000 debunkings of H2010.

    Now these errors dont make the planet cooler. Maybe not even substantive, but if pointing out errors = debunkings, then Hansen will be the most debunked

  61. Your right Shub, it was Heidi Cullen. I submit she intentionally had the wrong name card placed in front of her so she could avoid emails that make fun of her for being stupid. I just sent her an email asking her to either retract her statement of temperatures rising by 8 degrees with a doubling of co2 if she herself does not believe this. I expect no response because she knows I am right and is a coward.

  62. What difference does it make if Joe Romm claims to debunk someone.

    An interesting post at scientific American. In a recent Scientific American Poll, 30% of the respondents clicked thru from WUWT, 16% came from smalldeadanimals and 2.9% came from ‘Climate Progress’.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=do-80-percent-of-scientific-america-2010-11-17

    If Joe Romm can’t get his readers to vote in an internet poll, he surely isn’t motivating them to participate in the only polls that mean anything, elections.

  63. Tim Lambert “grossly exaggerates” all the time on his blog and he allows certain favoured people to do likewise. If people seriously question what is going on on his blog they are banned.

    Tim Lambert is obviously a champion of ‘new age’ free speech.

  64. Tim Lambert, my fellow Sydneysider and UNSW pal, has one of the most obnoxious blogs and set of commenters in the entire blogosphere. Declaring someone an idiot is considered more than enough evidence for thorough debunking, although declaring someone a fraud is better ‘evidence’.

    I am proud to confess that his was the only blog that I ever visited for purposes of sheer trolling. It felt great.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#comment-2102934

  65. I liked the way they swicthed between F and C and the congress guys could not keep up.

    I liked Santer. A lot. And the guy from NCAR, a lot. cicerone.. not so much.
    Cullen? waste of skin. Pat Michaels? no match for Santer. Lindzen.. Hmm
    overconfident in his doubt. Ally? good for high school kids.

  66. Mosh,
    When Cicerone (I think it was) explained IR absorption as a consequence of the tri-atomic structure of CO2 I thought.. “This is a famous scientist?” I thought Lindzen would hurt his neck because his head snapped around so fast when he heard that comment. I agree with you about about Cullen… pure fluff; anybody past the third grade gets dumber just listening to her. Judith had a great statement, but she came off as very nervous, which took away from her message.

  67. Oh good, an argument about the word “debunk” I contend it means a well-mannered frog. Prove me wrong, debunks.

  70. Hey Tim Lambert,on a recent post on your blog you say:
    ” And while Mann’s “short centring” method does tend to produce a hockey-stick McIntyre greatly exaggerated the extent that it does so.”

    So what does “tend” and what does “exaggerate” mean (once and for all) when you knuckleheads are arguing FRACTIONS of one degree (and maybe even lesser still if you acknowledge the MWP) on that graph?

    And what do you think the “hardiness map” looked like for the east coast just a blink of an eye ago in the geologic record called The Little Ice Age, when this country was fighting for independence; and the very recent past in the geologic record; the last ice age, when snow and ice covered the land 3 miles high? LOL
    I’d like to see the hardiness map for California updated. My plants keep getting frozen!

  71. steven mosher (Comment#60975)-“Pat Michaels? no match for Santer.”

    Forgive my irreverence, Master Inquisitor, but what on earth makes you say that??

  72. Lucia, you seem to have misunderstood my previous comment. Nowhere have I said that correcting a minor error is a debunking.

    Pielke Jr’s argument in his post was that the NYT was “completely botching a discussion of the science of climate change”. I showed that this was completely wrong — the errors that Pielke Jr claimed the NYT made were, in fact, errors made by Pielke Jr. This is not a small error but one fundamental to his post. I think that could reasonably be described as debunking that Pielke Jr post. You have disagreed, claiming that it was not debunking, but just “gripes”. So far you have not offered any argument in support of your assertion other than the irrelevant observation that correcting a small error is not a debunking.

  73. Tim Lambert (Comment#61140)-Do you approve of Romm’s insinuation that your criticism of that post debunks other, totally unrelated things that Roger has said? There is a difference between debunking one thing a person has said, and “debunking” the person in general. The latter seems to me what Romm was trying to imply.

  74. Lambert, “So far you have not offered any argument in support of your assertion”
    That’s like throwing poop back in the dirty diaper. Go back to your sh#t hole, you’re stinking the place up.

  75. The percentage of scientific theories that have later been shown to be bunk is probably 99.99+. Put 10 experts in a room and you will have 20 opinions.

    I’ve seen a lot of graphs showing global atmospheric CO2 versus global average temperature, trying to prove the pro and con side of AGW.

    Why do we not see graphs of human produced CO2 (ACO2) versus temperature? What I talking about here is total human produced CO2 annually, say going back to 1870, not just the amount remaining in the atmosphere.

    The reason I ask is that if AGW is correlated with ACO2, then we should see a stronger correlation between total human produced CO2 as compared to total atmospheric CO2.

    This would be strong evidence that AGW from ACO2 is correct. However, is the correlation is weaker, then it would tend to show AGW from ACO2 is not correct.

    This seems to be a very simply test. Why not post it? This is my challenge to the pro and con AGW groups. Show that ACO2 is more/less strongly correlated with AGW than total atmospheric CO2.

  76. Why do we not see graphs of human produced CO2 (ACO2) versus temperature? What I talking about here is total human produced CO2 annually, say going back to 1870, not just the amount remaining in the atmosphere.

    Because it is more complex than that, it is not a simple linear relationship. The scientists publish graphs, such as the ones in AR4, to demonstrate the temperature change with all the known forcings.

  77. Yes Lucia, I was basically agreeing with you.

    Romm claims debunked, links to another post of Romm claiming debunked and so on. It’s exasperating. I no longer have patience for this because he is hardly direct about the basis for his claims. Very rarely will this sort of “direct debunking”: “they’re wrong for this and that reason, as shown by these other folks” occur.

Comments are closed.