Reply To: Global warming skeptics wrong because…


op-ed in Los Angeles Times rebuts some emails from global warming skeptics; includes:

The East Anglia researchers didn’t cook the books. Any suggestions otherwise are based on taking fragments of emails completely out of context.

Climate scientists have made no definitive claim that hurricanes, cyclones or tornadoes would have gotten more frequent or more powerful

"for parity" also writes: "To date, I don't believe that there have been any peer reviewed scientific studies that actually confirm any global climate change — or regional — caused by CO2."

Response: To date, no peer-reviewed scientific study has definitively confirmed that any single case of lung cancer was caused by smoking. The causal evidence that puts warnings on cigarette packages is based mainly on statistics and on a scientifically plausible chain of biological events.  As to climate change, there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers linking CO2 and global warming; you can find them synthesized in every IPCC report. Forparity’s assertion doesn’t pass the laugh test.

the list of predictions that have been vindicated is quite extensive.

"justwrite3" has thoughtfully pointed to this useful list.

Climate science still trumps skeptics