By JR on Friday, October 10, 2014
Dana Nuccitelli and The Guardian are at it again
Nuca is always the same. He gives lots of links in support of his assertions but if you follow those links back they always lead to dubious claims by fellow Warmists.
Below is the first part of a hit-piece that he has just done in The Guardian on some prominent skeptics. I have not reproduced his links but you can get them from the original. Follow them through and you never get to any proof of anything -- just theories, models and speculation. Warmists have nothing else.
I have by the way seen an email from Fred Singer saying that most of what Nuca says about him is false
Nuca accuses a skeptic of a "Gish gallop". There could be few better examples of one of those than the 50+ "explanations" offered by Warmists for the non-heating over the past 18 years. That there are so many of them indicates that they are all insubstantial and that nothing in fact has been established by them
The old "fossil fuels" accusation is an amusing one. Big oil actually gives a lot more to environmental groups than to skeptics. So are Greenies "in the pay" of fossil fuel interests? It would seem so by Nuca's logic
DeSmog UK has found that libertarian banker Lord Leach is a likely funder of the anti-climate political advocacy group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). In May of 2009, Lord Leach gave a long speech in Parliament detailing his beliefs about global warming.
The speech was full of inaccuracies, myths, and misinformation. Known as a Gish Gallop, the sheer number of false claims in the speech would require tremendous effort to debunk. Most telling were the sources that Lord Leach relied upon to support his statements. For example,
Probably the best climatologist in the world is Professor Lindzen and another good one is Professor Singer.
While Richard Lindzen is a climate scientist, he’s also the climate scientist who’s been the wrongest, longest. Throughout his climate science career, Lindzen consistently took positions that were contrary to the climate science mainstream. For example, Lindzen claimed that global warming over the 20th century was minimal, that humans have an insignificant impact on global temperatures, and that water vapor will act to dampen global warming. All of these claims and many more have proven to be completely wrong. In another contrarian position, Lindzen has disputed the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.
So has the other source Lord Leach cited in the above quote, Fred Singer. Unlike Lindzen, Singer doesn’t conduct climate science research. Instead, Singer is essentially a professional contrarian. On behalf of various industries, Singer has disputed the links between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer, between chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and ozone depletion, between passive smoking and lung cancer, and of course between human activity and global warming. As with Lindzen, Singer has been proven wrong on every point.
Political advocacy are another commonality between the two. Fred Singer is affiliated with numerous fossil fuel-funded political think tanks, including the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute. When he retired from academia last year, Richard Lindzen likewise joined the Cato Institute. Their lifelong contrarianism, history of being consistently wrong, and affiliation with political organizations should make anyone question their climate credibility, let alone relying on them exclusively or claiming they’re the world’s best climatologists.