- For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It's not a viewpoint or a sceptic's inaccuracy. It's an observational fact.
- ...either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.
- It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn't discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill.
- is the media biased in its reporting on climate change?
- what influence does ideology have on media coverage?
- how does spin influence media coverage of ecomyths?
- ...there are at least two areas of persistent, and legitimate, scientific debate left
- First, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent and pace of warming from a particular rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases...
- Second, there is a wider debate over what to do, or not do, about climate change, with peoples' preferences (a carbon tax, a technology push, building dikes or parasols in space) not so much a function of science as values.
Since I posted this, Roger Pielke Sr. has posted this exchange prompted by Revkin's post above. His main point is that climate is not warming as predicted nor as suggested by the standard greenhouse gas hypothesis. Carbon dioxide is at best 30% of the positive climate forcing. Moreover:
- With respect to added CO2, I am becoming convinced that its effect (threat?) is more from alterations in ocean and land biogeochemistry rather than its radiative heating. I am also convinced (and have published on this as well) that the more heterogenous climate forcings (due to aerosols and land use/land cover) have a much greater impact on climate through alterations in atmospheric and ocean circulations than do the well-mixed greenhouse gases.