What a terrible collection of junk...
McKintyre and McKittrick have been publicly proven wrong by several independent researchers. They have been unable to retreive their analysis - and the "Hockey Stick" has been confirmed several times over.
Soon and Ballunias' work has been discredited.
Fred Singer is simply not credible: he's taken too much oil and coal money.
Lomborg has been publically censured by the Danish Academy of Sciences for his poor methodology and misleading/deceptive use of science.
Refuse to believe it if you like but the science is only going one direction on this issue, despite the well-paid tools of the carbon industry. Anyone interested in the *real* science should visit RealClimate.org for the answers.
The Earth IS warming. It's not as bad as the anti-car birkenstock bike fascists claim, but its still worse than your list of dubious sources would cause one to believe.
What is your response to the following:
__________________________________________
Update: Lomborg Vindicated
Since we first commented at length about the controversy over Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist in the 7th edition of this report (2002), there have been several dramatic developments.
The most consequential was the finding early last year from something called the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) that Lomborg's book constituted "scientific dishonesty." As this bizarrely-named committee was an official body of the Danish government, the critical finding received wide publicity and was cited by environmentalists as proof that Lomborg's perspective was discredited.
A GROUP OF 300 EUROPEAN SCIENTISTS SIGNED A PETITION
CONDEMNING THE DCSD'S CENSURE OF LOMBORG.
However, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty gave no evidence nor a single example of "dishonesty" on Lomborg's part, leading The Economist to call the panel's ruling "incompetent and shameful."25
A group of 300 European scientists signed a petition condemning the DCSD's censure of Lomborg. Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation decided to review the matter, and in December issued its own ruling that rebuked the DCSD for its shoddiness and overturned the DCSD's finding against Lomborg.
Most of the media outlets that had jumped all over the initial story a year ago ignored the reversal.
The Washington Post's environmental writer Eric Pianin, who wrote about the initial DCSD report, did not file a story about the DCSD's reversal. About the only exception was the New York Times science and environmental writer Andrew Revkin, whose original story about the DCSD in January 2003 fairly noted the weaknesses of the case against Lomborg.
Source: http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/04_enviroindex/03_review.html
The well-known logical fallacy, question motives. We know John Lott says more guns makes for fewer crimes, but his study was funded by the Olin Foundatation, which is related to the ammunition manufacturers, Olin Corporation. Ergo, his conclusions aren't credible. The facts he draws upon to reach his conclusions are therefore irrelevent.
LOL, even most pro-global warming scientist have given up on defending the hockey stick theory.
The Earth IS warming. It's not as bad as the anti-car birkenstock bike fascists claim, but its still worse than your list of dubious sources would cause one to believe.
Yes the earth has warmed o.6 degrees over the past century with a couple of dips in the 30-40's and the 70's. The earth will not warm as rapidly as the models indicate, you can take that to the bank. I would bet $1 million that the earth will not even warm even close to the minimum 2.5 degrees that global warmers say. And I am serious about that.
< crickets chirping >