Tony,

You didn't deal with the issue at all!

As to SkS 'debunking myths' you might care to go to Lubos Motl's website and see what he thinks of the debunking (he is a physicist).

Why quote Lubos Motl? OK, he is a physicist ( or was prior to departure, possibly forced, from Harvard). In the great arena of physics research, his research was a universe away from climate research. His was burried in highly complex mathematical models of the structure of matter. He was:

Not trying to understand unprecedented floods that have, are, and will continue to take lives, destroy infrastructure and more.

Not trying to understand soul destroying droughts in impoverished countries.

Not trying to understand cyclones and storms like Sandy in the US and recent highly destructive storms that ravished Bangladesh.

Not trying to understand rapidly diminishing glaciers in South America that will leave numerous small villages and towns without water that came from summer melts.

Not trying to understand heat waves that are taking more and more lives before death was due.

Not trying to understand what ocean acidification will do to fish stocks.

Not trying to predict what will happen as temperature regimes move faster than ecological biomes are capable of.

Not trying to understand the worlds carbon cycle and how we are trashing it.

Those who try to denigrate climate scientists without debating the science, and those who are apologists for the fossil fuel industry, should, in the future, be charged with crimes against the earth, our home, our children's hothouse.

P.S. Don, I think I did get it.

But, given the horrific direction we are taking,
playing word games
is identical
in all dimensions
to
Nero and his Fiddle

Why quote Lubos Motl? Because he went through each of the SkS 'myths' and provided a counter view. That's why. Do you think he got some of them wrong? Which ones?

You persist , it seems to me, in seeing things from only one perspective, and you lard your writing with adjectives. It's all so much more complicated that you suggest, at least in my opinion. I came across the term 'doomer depression' this morning. Don't allow yourself to suffer it. :)

Tony153 your posts in praise of group think say nothing except tell us you want to keep the wheels on the gravy train a little longer.

Do you have a seat on the thing, your posts tend to say you do, or are just you easily hoodwinked by those who do.

Hi Don,
Thanks for introducing me to Mr Motl. Interesting.

Lets look at a couple of myths from SkS.

Myth 1: Climate has changed before (and therefore humans not to blame)

SkS: Outlines relationships between past changes and CO2 concentration, with many links to supporting research. Makes the point that the unique feature today is the speed of change, combined with the current levels of CO2 and the increasing rate of production of CO2.

Motl: just states there climate sensitivity to CO2 is small and inconsequential. No supporting references

Myth 2: (Global warming is caused by variations in output from) The Sun

SkS provides 11 pages of argument, text, graphs and other material, with about 30 linked references to other papers. Summary: solar activity has been waning recently – sunspots fewer. If the sun were the cause, our world temperatures would be falling. SkS also addresses indirect energy input to the earth – cosmic rays, gravitational and more.

Motl provides a paragraph of thought with no references to supporting material. Also criticises SkS for not including cosmic rays and other minor sources of energy. Without support, his views are groundless. His views are purely views, or beliefs (see earlier comments on beliefs)

Myth 5: It’s cooling

SkS a number of pages of text and diagrams, plus links to supporting research. Of course the world is warming

Motl shows complete lack of understanding of climate change, in this case very similar to Andrew Bolt’s view of the world. Climate Change or Global Warming is about temperature trends that sit below daily, weekly, yearly, Pacific Decadal, El Nino and La Nina changes in temperature. It is measured in averages, generally over 10 years. Those who quote 1998, a well acknowledged very hot year, as a data item that disproves Global Warming, do not understand Global Warming.

A quick scan of other myth rebuttals by Motl showed no references to supporting material. His comments are his beliefs.

I will admit, though, that knowing how to source reliable information on the Internet is difficult for many.