More like this
Climate change believers fight sceptics with iPhones
SkepticalScience.com releases an app that rebutts the arguments of climate change deniers
Climate change believers fed up with the new-found confidence of sceptics who think a few leaked emails are enough to demolish the mainstream view that human activities are changing the climate have a powerful new ally: their iPhone.
Global warming anti-sceptic site SkepticalScience.com has released an iPhone 'app' version of their 90-point rebuttal of the arguments most commonly used by people who do not accept the reality of global warming. With the 'Climategate' email hacking controversy still dominating the climate change debate, the timing could not have been better.
The free app means that the next time you find yourself in the pub with a contrarian friend you will at least have some facts to back up your argument. Simply whip out your iPhone and tap the argument your friend has chosen. The app gives you the latest scientific facts on that issue – updated whenever new data becomes available – as well as links to more information.
Apparently, the most commonly used sceptics' argument is: "It's the sun." To which the Skeptical Science iPhone app's devastating response is: "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions."
Of course, there are numerous killer comebacks for any climate sceptic cornered by an iPhone-wielding environmentalist. Just two years ago, Greenpeace slammed the iPhone as "toxic" for the chemicals used in its manufacture. Although Apple has improved since then, it only came fifth out of the main electronics companies in Greenpeace's January 2010 Guide to Greener Electronics, and was given a rap on the knuckles for failing "to make a statement on the need for mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions". ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Man in a Shed: you are right of course. It was the code comments that gave it all away ( like 'this is a v. dodgy calc., adding in non-existent correction factors, but who's to know...' ) - sorry I can't do *green* on this blog! But of course most journalists, like the man in the street, don't know what code is, except that spies use them. Let's just keep it secret between us propeller-heads eh!
Takes telling people what to think to a whole new level.
The science isn't settled - which was the key point of the CRU leaks of emails and CODE ( the code is often forgotten by journalists ).
Still anything that gets the debate progressing is good, and away from the extreme Warmist dogmatism which till recently refused debate.
Who needs an iPhone? You can look on the FirstPost.co.uk and get first class debate from both sides of the argument. Well, first class debate from at least one side of the argument...no names mentioned. But the politics of the IPCC and the government motives of tax-and-spend are the climate debates driver, not the sun, the clouds, the CO2 (CO2 being a minute trace gas in the atmosphere, and not a significant greenhouse gas, that is water vapour, which accounts for 95% of the troposphere greenhouse warming effect, without which planet earth would freeze solid at about -15 deg. C., so it is a vital part of the earth's ecosystem, and a bit warmer is better, thanks very much). You can get the correct theory of climate change from Svensmark's book 'The Chilling Stars' (2009). It explains the relationship between sunspots and the sun's magnetosphere, incoming galactic cosmic rays, and low cloud formation driven by muons penetrating to below the 3000m mark. The amount of clouds governs the amount of sunlight warming the earth. Simple really. Or get the DVD 'The Cloud Mystery, google it. The politics and science of it is covered on a light level in the documentary DVD 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (2007). It is all a socialist sin tax - you are bad and naughty for burning all the fossil fuels, so we have to tax you more and more and more and give a large slice of it to the poor people in Africa, and we won't let them develop their oil and gas resources to keep them poor. We like patronising them.