Don’t forget Nitrous Oxide, also a potent greenhouse gas and a byproduct of the breakdown of synthetic fertilizers.
All of them – politically, that is, not scientifically.
Lomborg resigned as director on 2004, IIRC it was mostly on technical grounds why the case was dropped, but the criticism still continued and he only got a Pyrrhic victory.
His funding was also cut in 2011 by the Danish Government.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/03/333972/bjorn-lomborg-funding/
I feel like somewhere in there is at least a tacit admission the models are a part of the basics of global warming…so you’re coming along. 
We’ll see in 50 to 100 years how good the current models were at accurately predicting climate and events that far out. In the meantime, if you do know what you don’t know, good on you. You oughtta be in modeling! 
If you want FUD, look no further than IPCC AR5. Based on the current climate models, there’s plenty to fear, a remarkable range of uncertainty (but generally on the fearful side) and substantial doubt that our descendants will be up to the challenge of how to muddle through the mess we left them.
For some reason you think it is a mark of pride to think that models are not **part **of the basics, what was clear is that you thought that there was no empirical evidence used to check them.
As the late Schneider told you what they did before and after the volcano eruptions, shows that the models did pretty good, it is only your baseless opinion that you still think that we are safe to ignore how they support what researchers are telling us what is likely to happen.
Wrong, the latest reports did not talk much about the worst scenarios, because those were too grim to contemplate, and IMHO I think they will not be likely because people will eventually support change in larger numbers than now. What you see there in AR5 are the conservative and most **optimistic **ones.
Quoted from here and there:
CO2 is not evil as long as it is in balance with the rest of nature.
What you’ve missed in your glib little paragraph is that trees store CO2. Millions of acres of forests of the world have been decimated to plant cash crops, and it’s getting worse. When trees are cut down, they give up their stored CO2 into the atmosphere. Since most of the trees are burned, we get a double whammy of CO2 from the same trees that were cut down.
So what? you might say. After all, they’re planting crop trees to replace the ones that are cut down, so it’s sort of a halfway wash, right? Problem is, crop trees have a far shorter lifespan than what they replace, so in 10 years or so, they’re cut down (releasing their stored CO2) and burned (rinse, repeat) and new crop trees are planted, and the cycle goes on until either that crop is no longer economically viable, or the land is depleted to the point where it supports nothing.
Apparently I was wasting my time in making that fairly comprehensive post about Lomborg, about contrarian climate scientists, and about the harassment of actual respected climate scientists, because you didn’t read it. Ah, well, hopefully at least other people did.
Lomborg isn’t a climate scientist and wasn’t particularly writing about climate science, and being unfamiliar with what he was writing about he got a large number of things wrong. So his book understandably caused a great deal of controversy and rebuttals by people who actually knew what they were talking about because it was their career expertise. As for the legal status of the specific charge of intentional scientific malfeasance against him, guess what? I don’t give a shit. Your Lomborg example was an irrelevant red herring from the start.
If you actually have a point to make, then make it. Let me help. The point seems to be that climate science can’t be trusted because it’s become so “semi-religious” that those with evidence disproving AGW are vilified and suppressed by some secret cabal of “warmists”. OK. Please give us an example of a qualified climate scientist with good evidence against AGW who is so vilified, ostracized and suppressed that his terrific evidence has not been allowed to see the light of day. That is your claim. Prove it.
How do I know you can’t? Because if such a person existed with a concomitant body of evidence sufficient to make his case, he’d have the Nobel Prize by now. Your impressions are a typical populist delusion about this subject that have no basis in the actual reality of how science works. It’s right up there with oil companies suppressing 100-mpg carburetor technology and the moon landing hoax.
Oh look, another scientist fired for daring to disagree that AGW has been proven.
Oh look, another totally laughable misrepresentation of reality! 
-
IPS is a policy advocacy think tank, not a scientific organization (their focus is on policies on matters of “peace, justice, and environment”). Of course they’ll drop someone who differs from their advocacy position. Would you expect the Heritage Foundation to have anyone on their advisory board who ***wasn’t ***a denialist lunatic? Check it out: denialist lunatic – every single one. This is how policy advocacy works. It’s not how science works. Meanwhile Rossiter continues to hold other similar part-time consultancies, and remains an adjunct prof at American University.
-
“Scientist”? He’s not even remotely a climate scientist: he holds a math degree and his interests are in international security and anti-war activism. Apparently another crackpot who thinks he knows more about climate science than actual scientists who have dedicated their careers to studying it.
Apparently “Climate Depot”, which has never said anything truthful about climate science, can’t say anything truthful about anything else, either. But I’d expect better than to have them linked on this board as any kind of source of fact.
Indeed, I looked around, and it is the denier sites the ones that are pumping the misrepresentation that “Climate Depot” is doing. Incidentally the political annalist and Mathematician from the article is making a big deal of the so called “Pause” observed in the surface temperatures, forgetting* about the oceans and the melting ice.
- I have to say it, I’m underwhelmed when people that should know better are only pushing ignorance that is only making harder and more expensive for us to deal with the problem in the near and far future.
If that’s the proof you have of a scientific conspiracy you’ve got nothing.