Many of these same arguments were also contained in Essex and McKittrick's book Taken by Storm. After reading their book, I commented that:
- Essex and McKitrick do an excellent job of outlining the basic science, underlying math and pervasive lack of true understanding that underpins the issue of global warming.Their tone is non-judgemental, unequivocal and principled. They ask fundamental intellectual questions, explain concepts using accessible examples and highlight how good science has been lost. It is a must read for anyone seeking insights about climate change and the broader interplay of politics and science.
Rather, advocates of AGW will variously claim:
- its irrelevant
- the critique has no traction
- its just more denialism
- somehow its all paid for by nefarious oil concerns
- we all know the science is settled
- if something is real and self-evident, how can its basic scientific principles be both suspect and presumptive? Should they not be clear, unequivocal and rational?
- what distinguishes science from religion?