The truth I got from that article was that not all climate scientists agree with that global warming is going to be a huge problem that others have predicted. Also of interest was that we may actually be facing such a thing as global cooling.
To say we may soon be facing global cooling overlooks a simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are a tiny fraction of the planet's climate. Global warming is global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance, with the vast majority of that imbalance being absorbed by the deep ocean. Land and air surface temperature measures are important but reveal only a small fraction of the issue. If you understand CO2 to be a greenhouse gas then you need to explain why the earth would not warm with increasing CO2 concentrations.
Okay, so please give me sources to show that indeed 98% of climate scientists agree this way.
Doran (2009) presents evidence for 97.4% that accept the mainstream view.
Well, since I'm not a climatologist and was simply trying to expose folk to the view of an actual climatologist, and since I don't seem to have had much success in creating clickable links, and since I know that some people don't want to trudge through long articles, I thought I would paste some highlights.
Why pick a climatologist with a viewpoint in the 2.6% minority, without any disclaimer to that effect?
Anyway, what am I to think when I read that "According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007"?
The first thing I would think is let me go to the NSIDC website to see what they, as the primary source, say about Artic ice. Let me be sure I am not reading a cherry-picked datapoint - why 2007? why summer ice? why quote the area of ice and not the age or the volume? Was 2007 perhaps a record low point in a longer term downward trend, and we have since seen a 26% recovery in a downward trend? What is the NSIDC stated position on climate change? Thats what I would think.
Yes. Dr Viner who is head of the "British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad."
This is not proof of conflict, just a statement. Describe the specifics of conflict of interest as you see it. The British Council is a charity with a £708m budget, £10m of which is devoted to educating people on climate change as 97.4% of scientists understand it. I don't see a problem appointing a published climate scientist to lead this effort - do you think a tabloid journalist is better qualified?
When you say his contribution has been "thoroughly debunked point by point" are you simply broadcasting a statement, or is there real evidence of this by means of sources?
Asked and answered - see second link I already posted.
If I could offer my 0.02 on critical thinking on this subject it would be:
1 - What am I reading? Is it written by a climate scientist, a journalist or an 'expert'? If it is any form of media be very suspicious.
2 - How do I get to the primary source of 3rd party quotes? Is it accurate? Is it in context? What does the author of the quote say about his own work?
3 - How do any datapoints fit into the context of the bigger picture? Consider climate to be measured in decadal periods, not years. Single year datapoints are next to useless, and things like '2007-2010' highly selective. Are there are other related datapoints that add value - eg ice volume as well as ice area.
4 - How does the field of enquiry (eg satellite measurements of Artic sea ice) relate to other similar fields? eg Antartic ice. How does the field of enquiry compare to direct observations of the same part of the earth? What are the locals saying about changing conditions?
5 - Is there an alternate view to that which I am reading? Where has the scientific majority position settled on this?