Scientists are as sure of industrial climate disruption as they are that smoking causes lung cancer. So why hasn’t the international community made progress toward addressing climate disruption? There are at least four reasons.
Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition is calling for the end of illogical arguments in the public discussion about climate disruption. But it’s hard to take his calls serious given all the illogical arguments and errors he makes in his various commentaries. Part Two of Six.
S&R reviewed eight related commentaries written by Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition since mid-December. We found that the commentaries represent tone trolling and are packed them with distortions, errors, hypocrisy, and more. Part One of Six.
The journal Frontiers retracted a study of conspiracy accusations among climate change deniers even though their “investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study.”
by Greg Laden In an ongoing effort to discredit mainstream climate science, climate contrarians have incorrectly asserted that there is a “pause” in the rate of global warming. This was never true, […]
Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit is proceeding to the discovery phase and the easily disproved false claims in the National Review’s and Mark Steyn’s latest motions to dismiss are unconvincing.
Overwhelming evidence is why the vast majority of climate experts agree industrial climate disruption is real. But climate disruption deniers want you to believe it’s all a popularity contest.
Industrial climate disruption has no deity and thus is not a religion. But that won’t stop deniers from misusing “religion” in an attempt to discredit industrial climate disruption.
The Galileo Fallacy: introducing Climate Illogic, a new series unmasking illogical claims made against climate science
Climate disruption deniers who claiming to be like Galileo battling the Catholic Church are making a fundamentally illogical argument.
James Taylor of the Heartland Institute compound his original mistake of distorting a peer-reviewed survey by repeating his distortions and choosing to attack his critics instead of correcting his many original mistakes.