Fabian Pattberg

Hi Fabian, have a read: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/a-primer-…

Maybe that “Epoch Fail” isn't quite such the failure?

“Climate change” is always happening. It's just not necessarily happening the way you think it is or for the reasons you propose. There is absolutely ZERO categorical, observable, scientific evidence that CO2 has caused any real warming. Sure, the planet has warmed about 0.7C in the past decade or so, but that's nowhere near the alarmist numbers given by the IPCC and Al Gore.

Given the questionable nature of the way publicity about global warming is done, it's no wonder so many of us remain skeptical. Of course, since you prefer to call us “deniers,” you're obviously not interested in actual science either, just ad hominem.

For example, when a perfectly sound question about CO2's link to global warming is given by Joanne Nova in her Skeptic's Handbook (joannenova.com.au), the only response, months later, from a climate scientist is badly-written, full of holes, and ignores her basic premise altogether. Other “discredits” of her work base themselves mainly on her supposed ties to “Big Oil.” The preferred rebuttal tactic of many global warming proponents.

Of course, denying AGW is not the same as denying that we have serious environmental concerns. Personally, I think all of the time, energy, money, and resources going into AGW is a complete waste and has done nothing but distract from real environmental problems that need fixing.

Our dependence on oil hasn't changed, neither has our over-use of resources across the board. Dumping still happens in every shape imaginable, and barely a fraction of the money spent on CO2 research is spent on known emissions problems like NOx and mercury.

It's my opinion that the so-called environmental movement has been hijacked by politicians and politically-motivated money interests.

The reason not much attention was paid to dubunking the statements of Joanne Nova is simply the fact that if climate scientists debunked every ill-informed and poorly researched sceptical argument then there would be little time to do any actual research.

If you want to properly understand climate change then start with the large volume of properly researched literature. If on the other hand you want to base your position on the conspiracist ramblings of a bunch of right wing pseudo scientists then please do continue living with you head in the sand.