I created this weblog to lay out my reasons and arguments for believing that CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a hoax. I have debated this and related issues many times on the internet and I frequently find the same arguments coming up again and again. So this blog is something of FAQ.s
Anyway, I am happy to and interested in debating CAGW here, but I do want to lay out some ground rules:
Rule 1.1 The issue to be debated is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Specifically, the hypothesis that mankind’s CO2 emissions will, if unchecked, result in amplified warming resulting in serious negative consequences to mankind and/or the rest of the environment.
I am not interested in debating whether the climate has warmed in recent years. Clearly by some measures it has. Nor am I interested in debating whether CO2 emissions have the potential to increase global temperatures. Clearly they do.
The hypothesis being advanced by global warming alarmists is that CO2 emissions will cause temperatures to increase, which will increase levels of water vapor, which will cause further temperature increases, etc. etc., until a point where there are serious negative consequences to mankind. That’s the CAGW hypothesis.
If the CAGW hypothesis is correct, then mankind must take significant measures to limit CO2 emissions.
I have found that many alarmists try to shift the debate from CAGW to some other hypothesis, for example the much weaker hypothesis that mankind’s activities will have some effect on the Earth’s climate — which I refer to as the AGCC Hypothesis. The distinction is as follows: If the AGCC Hypothesis is correct, it does not necessarily follow that mankind must take significant measures to limit CO2 emissions.
Anyway, if you try to pretend that we are debating something besides CAGW, I will treat it as dishonest debate and ban you if you won’t own up to it.
Rule 1.2 No strawmen. While debating CAGW, you are not allowed to misrepresent what I say. Similarly, I will not misrepresent your position. If you state or imply that my position is different from what I have actually said, I will call on you to ‘show me where I said it.’ You must either do so or own up and apologize. Otherwise I will ban you.
Rule 1.3. No weaseling. While debating CAGW, you are not allowed to misrepresent your own claims or pretend to have said something different from what you actually said. Similarly, I will not misrepresent my own statements. If I point out that you are weaseling, you must own up to it or be banned.
Rule 1.4 Coherency. While debating CAGW, I must be able to understand your points if I am to consider them and respond to them. This is not a classroom and you are not my teacher. Nor am I your teacher. Thus, you are not allowed to leave points ambiguous for some claimed pedagogical purpose (or any other reason). Similarly, I will make points as clearly as I reasonably can. You must answer reasonable questions to help me understand your position. If you evade or ignore those questions, I will ban you. Similarly, I will answer reasonable questions about my position.
Further, if your posts are consistently incoherent, I will ban you. If you feel that my posts are consistently incoherent, you are free to stop reading this blog.
Rule 1.5 Citations.
(a) You are free to ask me for a citation for a point I have made, but it must be on a point you are seriously skeptical about. For example, if I claim that men are on average taller than women and you demand a cite, you must first represent to me that you are seriously skeptical that men are on average taller than women.
(b) If you are providing a cite that a particular person or entity made a particular claim, you must quote the actual language in question. I will try to do the same.
Rule 1.6 Personal insults. No personal insults or intemperate language.
Rule 1.7 Spelling flames. If you start flaming my spelling, grammar, or the like, I will probably conclude that you are conceding.
Rule 1.8 Examples. If you make a general statement or observation, I may require you to provide examples. For example, if you claim that numerous species have gone extinct due to global warming, I may require you to name or 3 examples of such species. Similarly, upon request, I will provide examples of general statements I make.
Rule 1.9 Meta-Debate. I’m not going to waste a lot of time arguing over peoples’ debate tactics. If I sense things are headed that way, I will probably cut things off.
I may add other rules as time goes by, but that’s it for now.