Let's stipulate that the planet is warming. It's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, although the last 10 or so years, the warming has decreased to near 0.
In paragraph 1, MW claims "nevermind that all warming predictions have come true." Would you mind citing a couple, because I'd love to hear what this crowd has gotten correct.
But, don't believe me, how about from some of those hacked emails from your pals at East Anglia University's Hadley Climate Research Unit (you know, the most vociferous warming alarmists):
"where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."So, there's one prediction that hasn't come true, and since the prediction was for warming, it's a central one to this debate. I could stop right there, and let your own team declare me the winner, but, I like to really rub it in, so here are some more falsehoods you're passing off as fact.
MW repeats the standard mantra, "glaciers and ice caps are visibly receding, or that extreme weather conditions have increased (as predicted) or that computer models based on different methods all predict warming."
- Computer Models predict warming - see the quote above from the ClimateGate emails. Precisely because the models predicted warming, and it wasn't occurring, we got the quoted consternation. So, that fact is wrong. Besides, even if the "models" predicted warming, what would that prove? That a model predicts warming. A model can be manipulated. What matters is what actually happened, and the models that predicted warming were proved wrong after 1998, when the warming significantly slowed. Most of these models used assumptions that gave the maximum positive feedback to factors that would increase temperatures. Unfortunately for the modelers, most of those predictions have failed to pass. So, bad model = bad assumptions = bad policy = stupid people.
- Glaciers visibly receding. Duh. Even the AGW crowd agrees that we are in a long-term recovery from the Little Ice Age, which ended in the early 1800's. Glaciers have been receding since then.
- Polar ice caps melting. The careful alarmist usually uses the phrase "Arctic" Ice Caps are melting so we can not accuse him of lying. MW is not that careful, thus, we can safely call him a liar. Yes, Arctic ice has melted, but, Antarctic ice is at historically high levels. Of course, we have a problem since our history of measuring the extent of the polar ice is not long. Anything more than 30 years ago, before widespread satellite coverage, is anecdotal. So, we really don't know what normal is. However, for those who care about these things, sea levels won't change too much unless that Antarctic ice really starts melting, since 90% of the ice on land is there, with another 8% in Greenland. Most (nearly all) of the Arctic ice is floating.
- Extreme weather conditions are increasing. Really? For the US, where we have the best weather data over 100 years, we have not seen more drought days during the latter half of the 20th century, when most of the CO2 increase has occurred. The worst droughts were in the '30's and '50's. The number of most dangerous tornados also have not increased. The number of reported tornados has increased, but we can logically attribute this to better detection systems, and heightened awareness. Hurricanes? Again, they get more press these days because of the detection capability, but, violence, is really unchanged in the 100 years we've been actively tracking them. Rain? Again, remarkably steady over the last 100 years.
MW then resorts to the favorite argument of the AGW Alarmist - the "you can't trust him because he's funded by the evil oil industry" argument. My favorite person who stands to gain from a universal adoption of anti-warming policies - Al Gore. How interesting is it that the guy who stands to become a multi-billionaire if countries adopt tricks like cap and trade is also the largest (and I mean that literally) proponent of AGW.
I'm not going to convince anyone who just believes what they are told, has no or little scientific training, and isn't open or able to interpret data themselves. The problem here is these alarmists have hitched their wagons to a theory that CO2 is causing temperature increases, and CO2 is primarily created by human activity, therefore changes in our lifestyles are required to stave off the predicted horrible results. The problem we have seen, though, is that the feedback mechanisms tend to be negative, not positive, thus, ameliorating the impact of CO2 on global temperatures. And, history actually shows that CO2 concentrations are a result of warming, not a cause of it. This actually has a physical reason, as warming causes the oceans to release CO2. You can see the problem here is that we aren't even sure what's contributing to the CO2 increases.
Of course, we have more things the AGW crowd ignores. Solar activity is ignored. Land use changes are ignored. Ocean cycles are ignored. If you ask an AGW alarmist, they want to hide the Little Ice Age and Midieval Warm Periods.
The thing is, MW and your readers, AGW is a very flawed theory, and everyone does not agree with it. It's not settled science.
The only thing settled is that CO2 concentrations have increased, and that temperatures have increased until about 1999, but that continued an increase that actually began in the early 1800's after the end of the Little Ice Age.
I encourage all to actually study the issue and decide for yourselves.
This will help.