Will this cause any contrarians to question their conclusions?

I tend to put little stock in blogs from either side, but given how much denier stuff is sourced just from blogs I find it strange when they tell us blogs are not to be trusted, they just seem incapable of seeing the irony.

On the face of it, it seems valid as any truthful reading of the general science makes far more sense then the large host of varying theories deniers are now trailing behind themselves as they lurch from it not happening to it is happening but it's natural and the variation in that "it's the Sun", "it's cosmic rays", "it's volcanoes" or the conspiracies "it's the greens", "it's the communists", "it's the U.N.", "it's Al Gore" etc etc etc. Skepticalscience (another blog) have made a list of all these and I think it now numbers over 150, the gulf between being an actual skeptic and a denier is getting wider and as deniers claims continue to just get sillier they will lose the real skeptical element as it seems they have with Mr. Tucker.

Not sure how my opinion is supposed to change from reading this. I was aware of the IPCC findings and have been for quite some time. I have little doubt that man's CO2 is warming the climate, but the amount is severly overestimated. So, lets just say that in the next 100 years we saw 1.5 degrees of change, then who is more wrong, the person who said <1 degree or the person who said 5 degrees? Now clearly that last 15 years have not bore out the exponential rise purported by many people including yourself. This leveling off of the increase has been the source of all of the errors seen in the curent models, yet do not strike me as odd in the slightest. It is well known that temp follow CO2 in a logarithmic manner and that while CO2 has been rising in an exponential manner, the likelihood of maintaining that exponential rise for the next 50 years is very low. Now the log and an exponential is a line, The log of less than an exponential is a less than linear increase. Therefore the argument for an exponential increase in temps as seen in the models is not warranted. Hence the warmers are significantly overestimating the effect of CO2.

Now this of course does not mean we should not reduce CO2, simply that we need to stop acting as if the world is going to end and come up with good solutions. Now I am a libertarian, which is why I fall with the repubs on the handling of this. THe repubs are not against doing anything, they would more than welcome the best solution that we have, nuclear power. It is the dems that have alienated the repubs away from environmentalism with their idiotic non-solutions. THe dems want to create a huge tax scheme, that will likely have many loophole, be nearly incomprehensible, and have little effect beyond increasing the cost of power. Why little effect? Because of loopholes like ethanol as CO2 neutral.

A true solution that the repubs would likely accept includes dropping subsidies for gas and placing them on e-cars. Creating many nuclear power plants off of the same design and making a policy of replacing old coal power plants with these. We could literally be CO2 free in the next 40-50 years, without destroying our economy. The biggest opponents of nuclear power, though, have traditionally been democrats. So in summary, the dems take a crazy view of CO2 and grossly overestimate its impact, while at the same time, they care so little about the environment, that they go against our best plan to be CO2-free.

DO you have some evidence suggesting my viewpoint is wrong? Because this blog and article certainly doesn't.

Jim Z,

Good post and good question. The warmers like to pretend that skeptics only believe what Rush or Glenn says. The truth is that I never watch Rush or Glenn, so I have no idea what they say. What I do know is science and the scientific method. The warmers are more than willing to accept the viewpoints of "scientists" who are "smarter" then them. I get paid to test the hypotheses of scientists smarter than me and not beleive them. I get paid to use the scientific method. The warmer "scientists" do not follow the scientific method, yet make claims of more certainty then I do, when I follow the method! their models overestimate, and the y come up with scarier models in response? Clearly the warmers do not care about questioning and logic, but are happy to go along with whatever they are told. Since this is clearly the case, their best response to the weak point is to attack others for the same. It is similar to how the biggest gay-bashers are usually gay themselves.

I doubt it.

The claim that he is a "convert" and is now "confessing" rings hollow. The linked-to blog article gives no examples where he previously publicly "joined others on the right in dismissing concerns about climate change", and I googled extensively but could not find a single case either. His whole career as a public commentator appears to consist of that blog and his twitter page, neither of which is older than the 2009 book he says changed his mind.

This is rather a pity, because Mr. Tucker seems to be an intelligent thoughtful young man, able to convincingly articulate the common sense argument that being a conservative does not require one to be willfully stupid or a crass liar about science. And it seems entirely possible that he did change his mind about climate change (PRIVATELY). But he spoils much of the effect by what certainly seems to be exaggerated hype about "confessing" to "dismissing" climate science "not long ago."

When a real hard core science-denier publicly confesses his sins and converts -which may be a long time coming (according to some replies I received to my YA question a while back "Where are all the EX-climate change science deniers?")- THAT will be news indeed, and could well cause a few other deniers or fence-sitters to do some serious self-questioning. This is clearly NOT such a case.

Doubt it as you only need to look at the comments posted on that blog to realize that facts are not at issue, its all about ideology and a Luddite view that only Fossil fuels can 'save' us from he evils of communism. Reality, common sense, science, logic, facts, even just prudent betting have nothing to do with the denier stand point.

Not a chance. Just look at jim's answer. Deniers deny - that's just what they do. The fact that an open-minded person was able to move beyond his own ideological denial won't have any impact on most other deniers.

I'm not really sure you have an actual question. I was confused at first I thought this was going to be a believer opening his eyes and viewing the real world but you show me a follower trying to convince us that he use to not be a follower.

I am looking for the smoking gun that convinced this guy to change his mind but all I see is someone agreeing with conclusions.

Un-huh..

And "skeptical science" is "skeptical."

Please. Do you expect this to have any effect on anyone who's actually paying attention?

If a climate change advocate actually makes a prediction that comes true, that would have impact. So far they're scoring zero.

I hope he's right. I don't want to see any more cold weather in May.

It sounded like a bunch of bunk to me. I have no reason whatsoever to believe he was ever a conservative and less reason to believe that he has a clue about the underlying science. What is it about alarmists that they seek to abrogate their reason and intellect to others. They want people to believe in a consensus instead of looking at the science.

Warmists are contrarians. It's getting colder.