Today’s ROFL: AGW “skeptic” uses AGW Evidence as Anti-AGW Evidence

This was gold.

Over on “Mornings with David Oldfield on 2UE” Facebook, page David Rees, a vocal anti-AGW “skeptic” declared the following as part of his overall effort to provide evidence against AGW:

An Ignorant Fool

As someone who was skeptical about AGW up until late 2010, the strides I’ve made in to better understanding the science makes me embarrassed that people like this call themselves skeptics.

The website about the “Global Cooling” claims is found at – What I found hilarious is that the very first sentence blows his assertion out of the water.

Through-out the various posts on the “Mornings with David Oldfield on 2UE 954AM” page, I address the evidence for AGW, and each time there are countless personal attacks, quote-mining, and rafts of “errors in reasoning”. None have listed scientific evidence, preferring to present news articles that, when you read the actual paper being cited (or simply referred to in most cases) conclude the opposite to what is claimed.

Some AGW-skeptics on the Facebook page opt for a cynical rather than skeptical approach, ignoring the evidence presented and then trotted out the same PRATT (Points Raised A Thousand Times) addressed earlier. There are some however who outright declare that no evidence will sway them, despite claiming they are not deniers. .. And then, there are the Trolls, waffling on about toasters, and saying “The sun is hot.The Sun Warms Earth. It’s the sun.”

I will add that I am not aware of David Oldfield’s current views on AGW, and I do not expect the views of his listeners to be necessarily the views held by him.

I have since resigned myself to being less interested in addressing “AGW denialists” and focus on promoting science and critical thinking. I will however, be open to those genuinely looking for the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming!

One thought on “Today’s ROFL: AGW “skeptic” uses AGW Evidence as Anti-AGW Evidence

  1. I am glad that you are going to focus on science but then you will have to revert back to your former opinion. Here is some PRATT that will make sense now you profess to understand the physics of Infra red radiation. Adding Co2 beyond the present levels will have little measurable effect effect on the climate. The frequencies radiated from the earth that are blocked by GHGs are already almost completely saturated. When you have absorbed that truth and understand why, come back with some more erroneous statements so that we can correct them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.