You might find solace in rehashed and widely disproven arguments from a source who is reputable in the field of aerospace.
The fact that most scientists and most aerospace engineers disagree with him should be a strong indication that this issue demands more than merely tired, old arguments retold by a different name. You need a smoking gun-- proof that recent climate events are either not record-breaking or not anthropogenic. Allegations of "Climategate" is not sufficient nor is a non-reviewed journal article because it is not open to the scientific method.
The shotgun approach to disprove both climate change and its anthropogenic roots shows desperation, not evidence. It hardly presents a rational, scientific argument to say that climate change doesn't exist, but IF it does, it isn't anthropogenic.
Regional or point temperatures are not sufficient to prove or disprove climate change. The Medieval Warm Period is only significant in a small area of Europe and certainly not like the charts Rutan shows. Only a global average temperature proves climate forcing. Most research shows data that does not agree with Burt Rutan's charts on page 5 or any other page.
Funny, the first article you quote is written by one of the prime ClimateGate perpetrators.
And saying "allegations of ClimateGate is not sufficient" is not sufficient in the face of clear evidence of tampering and suppression of data that conflicts with their preconceived notions.
The real problem is that climate scientists are dependent on public funding for their research, and the most direct way to get more funding is to make a case for just how urgent their research truly is, at the expense of the truth.
Claiming "most scientists" disagree with him is just another attempt to stifle dissent. There are plenty of reputable scientists who disagree with the current orthodoxy.
You're only proving my point. "ClimateGate" was the framing of real data intended to show a stronger trend. It wasn't a smoking gun. ClimateGate showed a human lapse of ethics which occurs EVERY SINGLE DAY on the opposite side of the debate. The mere fact that the Heartland Institute cannot decide whether to prove climate change does not occur or merely whether climate change is not anthropogenic presents an omnipresent ethical lapse. They do not even attempt to explain the inherent contradictions of their logically-challenged shotgun approach.
Climate denialists complaining about selective presentation of data is exactly like the National Rifle Association complaining about Fast and Furious. The only problem with the Fast and Furious investigation was that it actually TRACKED guns sold to the eventual criminals who committed murders. If the NRA had their way, guns would be sold every day at gun shows to straw buyers without background checks where they eventually would be used to kill federal agents and innocent civilians. In that sense, they work for manufacturers and against responsible owners. The only difference is without federal investigations, the NRA would still be able to continue claiming with impunity that gun show purchases are never traced to crimes.
The fact that most scientists and most aerospace engineers disagree with him should be a strong indication that this issue demands more than merely tired, old arguments retold by a different name. You need a smoking gun-- proof that recent climate events are either not record-breaking or not anthropogenic. Allegations of "Climategate" is not sufficient nor is a non-reviewed journal article because it is not open to the scientific method.
The shotgun approach to disprove both climate change and its anthropogenic roots shows desperation, not evidence. It hardly presents a rational, scientific argument to say that climate change doesn't exist, but IF it does, it isn't anthropogenic.
Regional or point temperatures are not sufficient to prove or disprove climate change. The Medieval Warm Period is only significant in a small area of Europe and certainly not like the charts Rutan shows. Only a global average temperature proves climate forcing. Most research shows data that does not agree with Burt Rutan's charts on page 5 or any other page.
http://www.snolab.ca/public/JournalClub/Chris.pdf http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003b.pdf