Slashdot Mirror

Attacking the messenger is valid when no one can think of three successes in 25 years.

I could quote areas where UN has suceeded (as I said, the UN works with more than peacekeeping issues), but it would just divert the issue and attract anti-UN trolls. Let me come up with a counter example: the UN is not the only player who has failed in the countries you mentioned. So has NATO, the US, the African Union, the EU... Should we discredit everything these agencies say? No, because they work with many other things too. The people working on the peacekeeping missions are NOT the same people working with The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. So again, what you are doing is ad-hominem.

Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if I keep chopping down trees that deforestation would occur.

Or that if we burn things that emit greenhouse gasses, the planet gets warmer...

Still, good examples, but nothing compared to the Global Warming scare tactics of today or the Ozone depletion

Oh, the Ozone "hole" is still there, it is just not mentioned often in the media these days. Ozone depletion didn't turn out quite as bad as some people warmed, BECAUSE WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Even some politicans, like Margaret Thatcher (who has a Chemistry degree from Oxford University), realised the dangers and helped drive through the Montrol agreement which caused a gradual reduction of manmade ozone destroying gases. The thinning is still there, but it is finally stabilizing and may slowly heal over decades. If you think the ozone whole was a myth, ask people in Australia about increased rates of skin cancer the last decades.

, global cooling

Myth, it was the popular press talking about it for a while, you did not have anything near the scientific conscencus we have on global warming today.

Fact is that the climate changes all the time. We have global cooling and enter ice ages and then we have global warming to get us out. Sometimes we cool form within an ice age and warm we are not in one. It's 100% natural.

No, it is not.

Besides, RTFA is about the possibility that the main source of heat in our solar system may be responsible for all this heat. Why is that such a far fetched idea?

Why is it such a far fetched idea that gases that trap heat locally (a process known to science since the 19th centruy), if released in sufficient quantities globally might have the same effect globally?

Those are examples from former leading environmentalists to show how wrong they've been in the past

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. They are not the people presenting the data, it is scientists.

and to show their true agenda (the end of capitalism)

Also irrelevant. If someone has a political agenda, we might suspect that they slant or distort the data, then we check the data through a peer-review process.

"As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud."

On the other hand, that show is full of shit.

Here's some more pre-troll reading.

Here's some more pre-troll reading.

"Personally, I'm no longer willing to take either side of this debate at their word." I am in absolute agreement with you on this point. Particularly as the IPCC has itself been caught out on a bogus graph in their 2001 report. At least the US National Academy of Sciences thought it was bogus, anyway.

I had the impression that the 'CO2 lags temperature issue' had something to do with the Vostok ice cores, and had been resolved. Doing an advanced Google search on the realclimate.org site turned up this little gem:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 /05/positive-feedbacks-from-the-carbon-cycle/
which is also the main reason I don't trust documentaries to provide much real climate change information. For the record, I haven't seen Gore's movie either. Same reason. The arguments in the above link are complex, and anything prepared for general audiences is bound to be an oversimplification. Which provides much scope for filmmakers, writers, etc., to perform duelling debunking (and sell lots of tickets, books, advertising, etc.)

To accurately judge, one would have to *be* a climatologist (and it's well outside my field), or place your faith in those you have the most trust in. Given my government's many examples of being, shall we say, economical with the truth, I actually have more faith in a UN organization. Particularly as it would seem safest to err on the side of caution. I suppose that carries it's own set of risks. For instance, what if the best available science were to suddenly change, and a carefully assembled carbon trading market were to collapse overnight? But on balance, the IPCC position still seems best to me.

One final comment: I hate seeing references to 'correlation does not imply causation' on Slashdot. I've seen it misused too many times. It actually depends upon your field, and what 'imply' means in that context. I hate to reference Wikipedia, having had a horrible experience where a page changed to nearly it's polar opposite for a short time, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_ imply_causation currently carries a good explanation. I particularly like what Edward Tuft had to say. To quote the article:

Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation must be at least expanded to either
Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.
or
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.

That is absolutely the single best summation I've ever seen.

Hi, I'm at work right now so I don't have time to answer your questions fully but I can direct you to some resources that may help you. In regards to the lag in CO2:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Regarding Cosmic Rays:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-cl othes/#more-412

Virtually all Global warming question:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Hi, I'm at work right now so I don't have time to answer your questions fully but I can direct you to some resources that may help you. In regards to the lag in CO2:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Regarding Cosmic Rays:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-cl othes/#more-412

Virtually all Global warming question:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Hi, I'm at work right now so I don't have time to answer your questions fully but I can direct you to some resources that may help you. In regards to the lag in CO2:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Regarding Cosmic Rays:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-cl othes/#more-412

Virtually all Global warming question:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Simply put, we can't reverse climate change, and of course we'll have to spend money mitigating the damage we've already done. But ever heard the expression, "When you find yourself in a deep hole, the first thing is to stop digging?" The changes that will come if we don't start reducing our emissions will be far more disruptive, destructive, and expensive than the ones we're incapable of stopping.

Don't be so quick to buy into the "global warming on other planets" talking point. Mars isn't exhibiting "global warming," merely the possible warming of the southern pole. I think Pluto is expected to be warming at the moment simply because it recently passed as close to the sun as it ever gets. Other planets and moons I've seen trotted out as examples are usually the result of AGW skeptics wandering way outside their fields of expertise, cherry picking "interesting" news reports, then tottering off.

I agree that the whole "corn ethanol" idea is one that needs to be taken out behind the chemical shed and shot.

BULLSHIT. Volcanoes emit a tiny fraction of the CO2 that human sources emit. Try looking at the actual numbers rather than the ones pulled out of your ass. Volcanoes: .15 gigatons per year. Humans: 7 gigatons per year.* So how does it feel to be so very wrong?

* ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 /05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/ )

Can you link to those studies? Every one I've ever read has pretty conclusively refuted this red herring. Above all, solar radiance has been constant for the last 30 years. I agree with you that there is uncertainty, and by that very logic, a rational being must begin to think probabilistically. By far the most probable culprit for what we are witnessing is our own behavior, and our response should be weighted accordingly.

Debunk away? No problem.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi ves/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/

He may be reputable within his area of expertise, but on this he's demonstrably wrong.

Not a debunking per se, but more discussion from some very reputable sources.

"Or his ludicrous suggestion that we only have 10 years to turn things around, or it will be too late"

This "ludicrous suggestion" can also be attributed to James Hansen, Hansen is a world renown scientist who is the head of a government department you may have come across while checking Gore's facts. Naturally this kind of "minor" political interference has nothing to do with the funding for monitoring the biosphere being redirected to putting a couple of daiper wearing adults onto the surface of Mars.

The senario you "paraphrased" for sea level rise - It was made clear by Gore he was refering to the "worst case" senario, I suggest you have not watched the presentation or maybe the cavetes somehow eluded you.

Al Gore has science firmly on his side even if some of his speculation proves incorrect.

"As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. "

3.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

"The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback:"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 /12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Given the way that people have been vilified for suggesting that the claimed connection between CO2 levels and temperature is not well enough founded to claim as settled fact, that statement might be better worded as "the pravda is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback." Vilification of individuals as individuals for not toeing the official line is the hallmark of fanatic religious belief, not of scientific investigation. I keep getting a flashback to a cartoon I saw years ago with a person hauled up before a tribunal looking down at him, with the caption "You are charged with preaching wrongful, pernicious, and misleading doctrine about weight loss." I wonder how long it will take the bureaucracy to completely choke off dissent through the mechanism of eliminating all funding for researchers who don't agree in advance that the results of their research will support the official position about global warming.

Nevermind the readily observeable information that while not only Earth's climate is getting warmer, so is Mar's - due to the rotational temperature changes in the Sun.

Realclimate: Global warming on Mars?. The Mars argument is already two years old and a connection between the factors affecting the Mars climate and those affecting Earth climate is not supported by scientific evidence.

Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more.

So they say that if you "zoom out" you can't even see the lag (since 800 years v.s. 400/800 thousand years isn't really visible). Is that a joke or something? There is still a bloody 800 year lag! Doing more research going into their linked explanation they say the follow:

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no. The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

So here they claim that CO2 could have caused the next 4200 years of heating? But the truth is we aren't even sure? Furthermore, this explanation is also clearly false. Why? Taking a look at this graph of temperature vs CO2 concentration graph from the Vostok ice core samples, you can clearly see that temperature actually started to fall before CO2 falls (by hundreds of years too). How does this work? How could it be that CO2 is causing the warming (through feedback) if temperature fell while CO2 was still rising!

The most important point that the movie makes (IMHO), is that we aren't even sure if CO2 actually drives climate change. Having read many of the attempted debunks of the movie, I have yet to come across an explanation that holds water. Excuses like, "oh well that was in the past, the warming happening now is from CO2" clearly show the unwillingness to look at evidence and try to get a more meaningful scientific theory.

There were some factual errors in the movie (volcanoes producing more CO2 then humans is not true, the temperature records were shown to go to the year 2000 but were in fact up to 1980). However, there were numerous factual and exaggerated points made in Al Gore's (who btw isn't even a scientists, and you attack the real scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle?) An Inconvenient Truth (claiming that CO2 matches temperature but never overlaying to see the 800 year lag, temperature increases are occuring only small parts of the Antarctic not everywhere, etc) yet it is seen as an accurate film by AGW proponents (including those that write realclimate.org). I suggest that instead of launching personal attacks on the filmmakers and those that participated in it that you (and others) instead look at their arguments. The 800 year lag argument casts a very long shadow (IMHO) on AGW proponents claims and really shows how much more research we need before we start making economy crushing decisions.

Here is a good analysis:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /03/swindled/

The movie The Great Global Warming Swindle is a fraud. The filmmaker has been convicted in the past of "creative editing". And sure enough, Professor Carl Wunsch from MIT, who is shown in key moments of the movie, is crying foul.

Another funny fact: many of the "scientists" shown in the movie are introduced as members of renowned academic institutions... which they left long ago. In other words, the movie is misrepresenting lobbyists as scientists. That should speak volumes about the integrity of the filmmakers.

As for the science in the movie, I'll let Real Climate debunk it.

The problem with controversies that have become too political is there is NO WAY to get good definitive information about global warming or any other politicized issue.

You could try just listening to the actual scientists, and not the media circus.

For instance, http://realclimate.org/.

The first model I played with was in the 1980's. The model can output pretty much what you want it to. Any halfway decent programmer knows that. They area gross simplification built upon a chosen set of rules. All of them. ANyone that tries to tell you otherwise is ignorant of the sheer complexity of our climate.

The main problem is that "climatologists"[2] do not use real world data to correct and hone the models. They merely come up with new facets of assumptions.

... we genuinely don't have real, hard data on what the temperature globally were 500 years ago.

global warming is already happening on mars... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

but shhh... don't tell the "george bush and suvs are melting the ice caps" crowd that. give them something to talk about in their dull day.

It might be fun to at least consider looking into your statements of 'fact'. For example, you might think about whether the statement "Mars has global warming" is a scientific fact, or just a hypothesis still in need of testing... or it might be fun just to smirk and assume you have all the answers.

Your link, for example, says, "new data points to the possibility" of a warming trend. Here, in contrast, is someone disputing (in just one of many ways) your implicit suggestion that both Mars and Earth are warming due to some external cause:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Another thing to consider: "more study is needed" (from your space.com citation).

Finally, even if Mars is experiencing 'global warming' - is it of the same magnitude that we are? Why is it happening? You seem pretty eager to latch on to whatever evidence supports your theory without finding out very much about it...

what we don't know (and it's one of those things that might be impossible to prove, as so many things are in science) is whether these increases are caused by us

So, in summary, the model results are compared to data, and if there is a mismatch, both the data and the models are re-examined. Sometimes the models can be improved, sometimes the data was mis-interpreted. Every time this happens and we get improved matches between them, we have a little more confidence in their projections for the future, and we go out and look for better tests. That is in fact pretty close to the textbook definition of science.

You may also be interested in a counter-response to that NYT article here.

Also, the NYT article criticizes Gore for being at odds with the IPCC about sea level rise. However, Gore was considering the scenario of substantial melting of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, while the IPCC report specifically excludes such possibilities from their estimates because they don't feel it can yet be adequately quantified. They do note, IIRC, that there was sea level rise as substantial as what Gore talks about the last time we had an extended period of high CO2 concentrations.

When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It's important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption.

Hi. I got my MS from MIT studying deep-ocean sequestration of CO2. So I know something about the carbonate system in the oceans.

Anyway, you are correct, over geological time, CO2 concentrations have lagged temperature increases. But your conclusion is incorrect. What you fail to recognize is that the increased CO2 enhanced and prolonged the warming. Yes, there can be other climate forcings, like solar cycles. No one disputes that.

What's different this time is that due to our activities CO2 (and methane, etc) is the primary forcing mechanism. This is because we are injecting it directly into the atmosphere. That's why it is leading this time, not lagging.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, in that increased concentrations trap heat (of course, there are lots of other feedbacks in the climate system, and that's where it gets interesting). Arrhenius recognized this over 100 years ago.

The current net flux of carbon is into the oceans. As a result, it is acidifying.

I am happy to listen to opposing viewpoints. I am not happy to have to respond to the same debunked misunderstandings about CO2 and climate that many skeptics cling to. For starters, show me some negative feedback cycles that can strongly temper a 3x change in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

If anything, you've described a positive feedback (CO2 -> warmer air -> warmer ocean -> ocean can hold less CO2 -> warmer air...)

No, it's not. Read this before you start making things up.

You cut off your quote of realclimate.org just one small sentence early....

"The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback:"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 /12/co2-in-ice-cores/

How did this person get modded +5 for taking a partial quote and ignoring the explanation that was a mere one sentence below his inaccurate tirade?

"Boy have you ever touched an area of denial there. The Global-Warmingists will tell you with a perfectly straight face that weather is chaotic but climate is not, of course they can't tell you what "secret-sauce" does the magic."

The "secret sauce" is statistics, this link describes how it is used in climatology. Here are a couple more examples of science that use "secret sauce" in a similar manner...

The quantum world is mathematically perfect chaos, yet our reality emerges from it and our physical laws are derived from it using the same "secret sauce".

The three body problem is a chaotic system with no anylitical solution and yet we can still manage to fly space probes all over the solar system with mind boggling accuracy, again by using the same "secret sauce".

The Sun is one big ball of chaotic plasma...

The "magic" is simple and recipies for "secret sauce" can be found at the heart of all scientific disiplines. In the end your troll has nothing to do with science, maths or "Global-Warmingists", it is your own psudeo-skepticisim that is preventing you from looking behind the curtain.

Try here.

Not that I am totally convinced of global warming, but I feel you left out their main argument. In the next sentence after the part you quoted, they give their true explanation and a link to a more detailed explanation. They say that something besides CO2 causes a first small jump in temperature as well as a rise in CO2, but that this increased CO2 then causes the real warming. In other words they say there is a feedback system pushed by CO2 which is triggered by some unknown mechanism. So, maybe the idea in global warming is that *we* have triggered the feedback cycle.

Also, if you look at the graph of the temperature over the last 400000 years it appears to me that there is a really sharp increase in temperature when an ice age ends, and maybe this is the feedback cycle suddenly activating. But.. I'm not really qualified to interpret the data.

The movie was produced by the BBC4 and is titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It shows an honest, reasoned response to the Global Warming Scare on a point-by-point basis from scientists and at least one journalist. The scientists all have credentials out the whazoo and are recognized leaders and contributors in their respective fields.

There seems to be plenty of dishonesty in that production as well...
Read more about it http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /03/swindled/

Apparently, Carl Wunsch (one of the scientists in the film) was misled into thinking the feature was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this)

His response after viewing the finished production includes the following:

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

His full response...

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the
British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others.
When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a
technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does
not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or
"swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, tha

Timothy Ball and Richard Lindzen are idiots. Lindzen argues against Global Warming the same way Intelligent Design supporters argue against evolution. Timothy Ball uses the tired "1970's global cooling consensus" argument (see here and see here), specifically quoting Lowell Ponte, and he also overstates his qualifications. I also found another article by Ball where he lists reasons why global warming is good for Canada and actually says "Thank goodness for global warming."

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

An old quote from Lindzen, one of about three names dropped regularly by MMGW deniers. Despite his sob story, Lindzen isn't exactly having a hard time looking for work; as there are plenty of free-market economist groups who are directly threatened by the notion that companies may have to be responsible for their effects on the world.

Meanwhile, Lindzen's own widely-peddled MMGW denial has caused federal funds for GW to shrink under a Republican and industry-loving legislature.

You have to admire some of the handwaves that the RealClimate article resorts to in order to preserve the global-warming doctrine. "Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small." It's either true or it's not. The RealClimate site admits that the "Great Global Warming Swindle" statement is correct, but that when you look at the 800,000 year range of the ice cores, this lag is insignificant. Excuse me, but if you make the claim "X causes Y; just look at these graphs, where you see X and Y moving in similar patterns", then ignoring the fact that X happens after Y makes your entire claim invalid.

If increasing CO2 levels cause increased global temperatures, then the historical record would show that the CO2 levels increased before the temperature rise. But the temperature rises actually occurred prior to the CO2 rise; making the claim that an effect is due to a cause that happened after the effect makes you look like an idiot. If the CO2 level changes mimic the temperature changes from 800 years earlier -- but not the current temperature changes -- over the measurement period, then it doesn't matter that the lag is 0.1% of the measurement range, then the CO2 level changes are not a cause of the temperature changes.

On the other hand, the Mars thing has a very strong alternative explanation.

Global Cooling is a myth.

The show's a big piece of crap by a guy who's notorious for his anti-environmentalist screeds. How Channel 4 were convinced to air it is a mystery. One of the scientists used, Carl Wunsch of MIT, has already blasted the filmmakers for how they systematically misrepresented their project, and then selectively and misleadingly used interviews with him to bolster arguments he categorically rejects. Same strategy as creationists and other conspiracy theorists.

See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/