900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Read: The following papers support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
AGW Alarm (defined), "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
Peer-Reviewed: (defined) "of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication."
Skepticism: (defined) "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object."
Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers. There are many more listings than just the over 900 counted papers,
Peer-Reviewed Paper Count: 900+
Additional Paper Count: 90 (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers)
This is a dynamic list that is routinely updated. When a significant new number of peer-reviewed papers is added the list title will be updated with the new larger number. The list intentionally includes an additional 10+ peer-reviewed papers as a margin of error at all times, which gradually increases between updates. Thus the actual number of peer-reviewed papers on the list can be much greater than stated.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
Now just what percentage of all papers on AGW do those papers represent?
Did you know that "1,477 verified architectural and engineering professionals" believe the World Trade Center Towers were destroyed by "controlled demolition" by the U.S. Government?
That must be a significant number of professionals, eh?
You climate science deniers are getting more desperate by the minute.
I know you've explained it to him numerous times but until he actually understands what the scientific method is he'll never recognize it. But then he's happy in his ignorance. He's part of the "cool" crowd now which would never have happened without the AGW farce.
You remember the long-forgotten bozo from last week who claimed he did it - and the world never noticed?
Thanks in part to pinheads like you who dodge the data, lie and attack those who reject your doomer doctrine.
Still dodging my questions and providing zero evidence. Keep it up your doing our work for us.
And remember Rule number 7:"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." See your a Drag BJ.
Promoting the latest failed doomer prediction in a long line of failed doomer predictions. marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/AGW%20analogies66JSA.pdf
Joker mentioned something about they have no sense of humour. That would explain why 1/2-watt can't see the humour in the fact that the more he fights to prove the climate catastrophe is true the more people he alienates from it.
He's been taught by idiots that his methods are cool and clever. And like an idiot he believes them and takes to the streets with his arrogance, condescension, and total lack of understanding of human nature. End result, all he will ever manage to do is piss people off and turn them away.
Odd thing, someone who isn't sure and expresses that uncertainty when confronted with "of course it's true, your an idiot if you don't think so, what are you a Republican shill, etc..." (cont.)
Human nature being what it is they are far more likely to respond "piss off you little twit, if you think it's true then it has to be garbage."
So by all means let 1/2-watt rant and rave all over the internet. He's making us friends wherever he goes.
Yeah, but none of the warmists' papers can refute natural variability.
Zero.
We have 900 papers on the other side.
900 to 0.
Let me repeat that for you beej.
NINE HUNDRED TO ZERO!
You may as well try to refute the tides.
You are getting more insane by the minute, Gator.
How many times must we explain this to you?
Are you really that stupid?
If our climate is behaving perfectly naturally, why should we assume man has anything to do with it?
Beej, if you cannot understand this simple bit of logic, you truly are a lost babe in the woods of life!
I suspect he doesn't even know the meaning of the word "introspection" and hasn't had an original thought since the last one someone gave to him.
One has to be able to think for oneself in order to do science, introspection is a part of that process, looking at why you think what you do about the results you have observed. Searching oneself for things like confirmation bias, etc.
All things we have seen he is either incapable or unwilling to do therefore any of his science is immediately suspect.
He'd make a great case study for someone looking at social or psychological dysfunctions.
Now explain why anyone has to refute "natural variations" in the weather, Gator?
Yours is perhaps the most idiotic claim a denier has ever made.
Amazing.
You are an idiot for even asking that question.
Again moron, if you cannot show that our climate is unnatural, then there is no point in even discussing AGW. Period.
If climates change naturally, and they do, then the change must be shown to be out of the explanation of nature.
You are the only person I have ever 'met' who does not uderstand this very simple concept.
If you cannot understand this simple logic, then you have no grounds for questioning the intelligence of any other human being.
Less Hoofnagle and more Spock!
Therefore IF is he is admitting natural variation is the cause then to make the claim that human activity and/or CO2 is the cause is in contradiction and we would like to see his explanation of how he resolved that contradiction.
Now if he is NOT admitting natural variation as the cause and wishes to continue his claims that human activity and/or CO2 is the cause (which appears to be more likely given his rants) he needs to prove that natural variation can not be the cause.
In other words 1/2-watt, you need to learn to do some science and put up or shut up.
Being the zealot that you have shown yourself to be we expect you will do neither.
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science
Gosh.
Still denying science I see, and name calling.
Class act beej.
There is no house of cards, just the facts - there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic's arguments.
Like the rest of the climate science deniers, not one has been able to explain why they are against the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real.
Co2 has never driven Climate. Funny how Climate closely follows TSI and not Co2 eh BJ? It's the Sun Stupid! hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/geophysicist-explains-how-sun-controls.html
He is not trying to understand, won't care what you say, won't read anything you provide.
His only point in coming here is to cause problems and be an ass.
For good or bad my only point in ever responding to him is to do unto him as he does unto us.
I'm glad you, Amirlach, Gator, and a few others continue piling the references and sources up to bury him.
But I also know you guys will never get through to him, he's not that aware.
The problems with idiots like him is if you don't respond he thinks he has managed some kind of victory as he is to dense to realize that most people just grow tired of wasting their time on him.
I suspect he never made it to the formal operational stage of development.
I got in touch with the site's 'owners' and they said it won't be back up in the forseeable future. As their domain name agreement expires in October it looks like it's over.
They removed the site completely and now only a 'site temporarily down for maitenance' message appears. globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/404.php
Funny tho'.... motionlab the 'maintainer' has corporate customers that have links to "superheros.." on their sites. Probably just a coincidence!
All the best... Jeff
For whatever reason the peer-reviewed paper list makes them go hysterical. They probably thought they had a monopoly on the science.
And it is also true that simple fact undermines every claim you climate change deniers make against the science.
You really don't fool anyone with your denialism, Poptech, and you know it.
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
And you have yet to provide a "Single" fact to bach up your doomer cult theory's. So sad.
A "simple fact" is all the models predicted a troposheric hot spot. When they failed to find one with empirical measurements the "Theory" was discredited. Real World observations always trump theory, case closed.
Even the europeans are starting to cotton onto the fraud of AGW. townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2011/04/16/the_us_should_follow_europes_lead
Are we surprised?
Still losing 900 to 0!!!
And just how did we arrive at this conclusion?
I don't recall you providing a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variabilty.
I'm not used to arguing with children, forgive me.
Grow a pair and prove your lies for a change.
You are like a retarded child that just doesn't "get it" that no one believes you when you say you saw a flying elephant. And you wonder why no one wants to play with you.
Keep it up, you and your behavior is why people who once believed in AGW have abandoned it. They are tired of morons that are all mouth and no science.
You do more harm to your cause each time you speak. If you actually were as smart as you think you are you would realize just how counter productive you really are.
No science, no proof, no clue. Sums AGW believers up very nicely.
You don't fool anyone.
How about sharing some of that 'overwhelming science' you rant on and on about and yet never share.
Or are you here just to pester the grownups?
You denialists have never been able to explain why you should be against the science of climate change, no matter where it leads.
You can't claim black is white no matter how much you try. Get real, Poptech, and stop your utter nonsense.
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Climate Change Reconsidered (868 pgs) (NIPCC Report)
We are against bogus science such as that pushed by climate alarmists and propagandists such as yourself.
Show us some 1/2-watt, we've been asking your for weeks now.
We know were it leads, insanity as you are living proof.
So far the only overwhelming proof you have provided us with is that of your own mental deficiencies.
Good job!
Where's the Missing Hot Spot BJ? Where's the Missing Heat? Why have all the Model Predictions failed? 16 years of no warming proves AGW false.
Even Europe is begining to see the truth. "The absence of sunspots is the most prolonged in a century, and scientists say the reduced solar activity is reminiscent of the Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when the Northern Hemisphere suffered through the coldest weather, worst storms and shortest growing seasons of the Little Ice Age...
Even ultra left wing loons are starting to see the light, why can't you BJ? Oh yes DENIAL!
He wasn't taught how science works so he can't question results or even recognize science when he sees it.
He wasn't taught to think for himself so he is unable to do anything but let others think for him.
He never learned much of anything other than how to be an ass apparently. But that does appear to be what the schools are focusing on these days.
I can see it now, on the back of his Mom and Dad's car the bumper sticker reads:
Proud parents of a mindless idiot.
Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil.
15 April 20011
"However, a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors.
"The top ten contributors are alone responsible for 186 of the papers cited by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The data also shows that there are many other familiar climate sceptic names among the major contributors to the list."
continued at:
www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
Once again, you climate sceince deniers show how truly desperate you are,
Did you forget these papers are all peer reviewed?
Do you understand what that means?
Would you like to buy a bridge!
Gullible really is the opposite of skeptical!
Your winning the battle for us by showcasing your sides i logical stoic belief in a disproven AGW theory. Your ignoring of reality and lack of credible data are doing far more to turn people away from the "Cool Aid" than we could ever hope for.
Keep up the good work BJ.
Seems the only whiner here is you. But I guess when you're only good at one thing you go with it huh?
You know, I bet even where you live they have medications and treatments that could help even you. But you have to first realize you need help. So far you haven't shown us your very good at realizing anything.
That's too bad. But keep up the good work for us, making friends for our side wherever you go. And we aren't even paying you. Gosh.
Admitting defeat again?
Still no science, sad.
Honestly the alarmist's claims are getting weaker and weaker by the minute.
Now beej why don't you try and actually provide a proper argument instead?
Or are you afraid that it might corrupt your preconceived beliefs?
Another epic fail for you climate science deniers.
Gosh, you can't.
I knew that.
I have heard "Hooked on Phonics" is a very good program for people who need help in reading and language comprehension. Perhaps if you got a copy you might be able to actually read and understand the evidence that has refuted your "overwhelming science".
You know, that "science" you are too overwhelmed to provide.
We knew you'd be back to being overwhelmed. Seems like it's your natural state.
Poor 1/2-watt, he's overwhelmed again.
berfofanation.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979205593 AGW REFUTED!
icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf AGW REFUTED!
See how data is manipulated?
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/june-1934-all-48-states-over-100-degrees/ jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/ AGW REFUTED! See how easy that was BJ?
Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"
Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"
When confronted with the irrefutable fact that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments, desperate alarmists like Christian will always turn to whatever smear they can come up with, in this case (predictably) that the papers or authors were "funded" by oil companies. What is falsely implied is that these scientists are corrupt and oil companies are paying them to be skeptical. This is an easy argument to prove, you simply need to show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company. Alarmists never show this because they cannot...
And you wonder why your are known as what you are - denialists.
Classic denialists at that.
Show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company.
In science real world empirical observations always trumps models and theory. Always.
Still in Denial that empirical evidence has already refuted your AGW religion BJ?
Find any of those missing Hot Spots yet? Or explained away the cooling oceans and climate? Or even why we keep finding Viking farms frozen in "Perma Frost" clear evidence it was warmer in the past than present and the Climate Gaters are fraudsters?
Show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company.
Show the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating AGW is real.
I know why you can't admit it. But that's why your denialists are losing your political battle against science.
Show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company.
Show the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating AGW is real.
Maybe you missed the devastating Republican win in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 that stopped all environmentalist nonsense in it's tracks?
I should buy you tickets to the Creation "Museum" in Kentucky. It's mere existence proves Creationism is true and evolutionary biology is false.
That would certainly reinforce your religious belief in denying climate change science, wouldn't it?
Back up your lies BJ,
Show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company.
Capiche?
Show that these scientists changed their position on AGW after receiving a monetary donation from an oil company.
Show the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating AGW is real.
Your statement above showcases your complete lack of understanding of how the scientific method works.
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
IPCC models and theory fail step 3. Step 4. Are mostly ignored, they refuse to release data and methods so others can check the results by repeating the experiments. Very Unscientific.
You must be new at this.
Show me any denialist that has been convinced of facts. Take your pick: Holocaust Deniers, Creationists, 9/11 Deniers, JFK conspiracists, you name it.
The fact that you need to avoid the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrating AGW is real exists independent of me or anyone else flushes your nonsense down the toilet.
None of you has been able to support your claims against the science of climate change support your claims. Period.
So you, Gator, and the newbie Poptech, are making utter fools of yourselves - for the record. Such is the existence of you denialists.
Show the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating AGW is real.
I am waiting for the evidence.
But lying about it is so much less work for him. Poor kid.
Once again we see the complete ignorance and duplicity of the squealing alarmists who bring zero science to back their insane claims.
This climate is completely normal and not even beej can disprove that.
You know all those AWG model predictions that failed? That's AGW Theory being Refuted.
Co2 rising, global temperatures falling = AGW Refuted. Oceans cooling = AGW Refuted.
Climate follows Total Solar Irradience not Co2. Natural Variability is Real. AGW is just a failed theory.
There's no need to keep making a fool of yourself. Really.
900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
The peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly demonstrates AGW is real while you cling to your sinking ship yelling "It's unsinkable!"
You'd better learn the scientific method, Poptech.
You cannot provide any evidence to support your failed doctrine so you just keep parroting the same tired old lies over and over. Which by the way only serves to highlight the fraud and helps turn ever more people away from your cause.
So in short. Thanks BJ for showcasing your doomer cults lack of scientific credibility.
You refuse to.
Duh.
Show the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating AGW is real.
www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8900-biggest-drop-in-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Come on. We're all dying to know
Indeed, 1/2-watt IS an expert on denial...
HIS OWN!
Hey Adam! Like any doomer, beej has zero evidence. I have asked him for his underwhelming science time and again, but all the little weasel does is call names and make unsupportable claims.
Oh, and he likes to say natural variability is not important. After all, he has an agenda to keep!
So you desperately need me to do your research for you? Once again, you climate science deniers admit you haven't done a bit of research on the science of climate change.
Gosh. No wonder you have to rely on snake-oil salesmen to tell you what to think.
BJ you have obviously got no idea about anything. Could you please stop wasting our time, and simply leave this website?
I believe the tatic being used by 1/2 watt was outlined by Monbiot in his package developed for the useful Idiots army.
He keeps throwing out bogus apeals to authority while attempting to shift the onus of proof over to us.
First. The authority argument has been debunked several times.
Second. There never has been any OverWhelming Body of Science supporting AGW. There is, after 35 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, still only a loose theory.
Lastly, It is not up to us to prove anything other than they have not made a credible case.
That has been done in spades....
1/2 is simply parroting nonsnese from his masters.
In his defence... he is likely not very bright and probably actually believes it so you can't feel other than sympathy for him.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm
And in less than a day.
If all Greenie leftwing Socialist nutbars would simply stop emmiting CO2 for 5 minutes.
just 5 minutes... Is that too much to ask from these bleading hearts?
Sad but true....
Some of the Rules of Propaganda :
■The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
■The rule of unanimity: presenting one's viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by 'psychological contagion'.
■The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
I found BJs playbook...
We appeal to science, BJ applies these 3 liberally...sorry...bad pun....
Either way, we've seen it before we'll see it again.
But, and a big but, scientists have always stated that there were other drivers apart from carbon emissions! It's just that they can't explain the last 50 years of warming.
For example, the strongest driver of climate change, solar irradiance, has been steady since 1980, and therefore can't explain the warming.
And I've seen many scientists quoted in this list stating their research has been totally misrepresented.
You have seen "many" scientists? Name them.
No scientist's research has been misrepresented because the papers all support a skeptic argument against AGW alarm not whatever false position the scientist believes it was listed for.
Can you please let me know which papers specifically do so, especially explaining the last 30 years? From graphs I've seen, solar irradiance has been flat since 1980, and dropping in the last few years (therefore we should have seen some cooling yet 2010 was the warmest year on record).
Even the paper that Gator put forward shows that solar irradiance peaked in 2000 and is now going into a downward trend.
That would explain why we are cooling.
What part of 'cooling' do you not understand? Fifteen to sixteen years of cooling.
What part of data mainipulation do you not understand?
What part of natural variability do you not understand?
It has been both warmer and colder in the past. You should be rooting for warming because it is beneficial to the vast majority of life on this planet. Cooling is deadly.
"Global temp falling even faster than I thought," says Bastardi. "There are some nasty short- and long-term implications in control of the weather and climate. You and I have nothing to do with it, nor can we control it."
"This something we have not seen before," Bastardi adds. NASA keeps lowering their sunspot numbers. Sunspots are now near where they were in the early 1800s during the Maunder Minimum.
I'm not saying we're headed into a little ice age, says Bastardi, but "this is alarming."
(cont'd below)
I firmly believe the long-term climate is going to be colder over the next 30 years, Bastardi warns. This La Nina will return next winter because of the cold PDO. If we're starting out as cold as it is right now, and with a double La Nina, "it's going to be cold all over."
"If this trend continues ... we'd better sit up and take notice!"
Indeed.
So, only one entity is claiming continued warming, and that 2010 was the 'hottest ever'. Tje other three global data sets show cooling. Who is cherry picking now?
Philip read the following paper
'ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model' by Nicola Scafetta and Richard Wilson published in 'Geophysical Research Letters' (2009)
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2008GL036307.pdf
conclusion
"This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007,2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not
vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
Obviously you have not been studying OUR Sun.
May I suggest you start here...
The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity S. Duhau, Ph.D.1, and C. de Jager, Ph.D.2
Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999.
JournalofCosmology.com, June, 2010
Then read about Svensmarkhere...
thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home.html
...or watch the documnetary here...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XYxL66O_s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZg_ThJa7I&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcARqSAZuEQ&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c62kKxoL334&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnKOceNxGls&feature=related
Did you hear they're soon expecting results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN?
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/update-on-the-cern-cloud-experiment/
There is of course no single driver of climate, but I believe Svensmark has found the trump card. Can't wait to read the rest.
Love seeing Drewski (mis)quoting the Vatican and using congress as scientific proof of AGW. They have truly lost the debate!
- We are in a transition period from a Grand Maximum to a Grand Minimum.
- A Grand Maximum is a period of high solar activity
- A Grand Minimum is a period of low solar activity
- the transition started in 2000 and is forecast to end in 2013.
- Therefore during the transition solar activity is decreasing
- Therefore we should see temperatures dropping
This is consistent with graphs I have seen where solar irradiance has been steady since 1980 and showing a drop in recent years.
Yet average global temperature are still increasing (with 2010 the warmest year to date).
I wish your paper did provide evidence that it's solar irradiance and not our carbon emissions, unfortunately your paper seems to just confirm the opposite and that our sun cannot explain the recent increase in temperatures.
c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0148c8746821970c-pi
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting February 1, 1997 and ending January 31, 2011. Per the NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending January 2011 was the 5th coldest January-ending period for the last 15 years. (In terms of a single month, January 2011 was 37th coldest January in the past 117 years.)
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 1.3°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
What about Svensmark?
I have little respect for anyone on either side of the argument who cherry picks data to attenuate the data to support the case. If I did the same, say taking the last 5 years, 10 years, 100 months, 50 months, whatever, I'm sure I'd find two points which would show a dramatic increase in temperatures.
And why pick US data records ending January, why not February, March? In any case it's global climate change, not US climate change. After all if I want to cherry pick countries, I recall hearing that Australia's 2010 was easily their warmest on record. I'm sure I could find some other region showing an even greater rise, be it Sweden, Japan or Outer Mongolia.
Most scientists, even the most respected sceptic, Lindzen, accept that the earth's warming. And the agency you quoted, the NOAA has stated that 2010 was the warmest year on record, as have many other bodies.
Then you surely have no respect for the IPCC.
As for 'cherry picking', here is what NOAA has to say about the recent cooling trend...
According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
The US is a part of the globe (large part) and it has cooled for over 15 years. Removal of over 4500 weather stations from mainly higher latitudes higher elevations and rural areas accountsfor the 'warming' and is why 2010 was called the warmest. Of course, even to do that, they had to adjust 1934 temps down.
AGW is truly man made.
www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
surfacestations.org/
www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=671981&ret=close
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/cooking-the-books-at-ushcn/
www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/noaa-ncdc-pursue-goal-of-warmest-year-ever-for-2010-release-newly-fabricated-global-temperatures.html
And please source your quote about the NOAA and the removal of weather stations, it's the first time I'm hearing this and would like to know more.
And no the USA is not a large part of the world, at least not from a geographic sense. Again, that's why it's called global climate change, not USA climate change, and why the NOAA has stated that 2010 was the warmest year on record globally.
Here is a 900 page report for you to read, which pretty much sums up the 'science' of the IPCC
www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
Although, if you can't read that, then a much simpler piece is here
sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
And let's not forget the 900 papers in question. How many of them were included in the IPCC's report?
Can you please show me where in his research does Svensmark provide evidence that the current climate change is being caused by climate change, or that it is a stronger driver of the current climate change than greenhouse gases?
You obviously did not study his work. I am not going to do your homework for you. Read the material or watch the documentary and your question will be answered.
Now I have a questuion for you. Since there is nothing unusual or unprecedented abvut recent cliamte changes, why do you believe man's contribution of 3% of the atmospheric CO2
budget is driving climate? Can you provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent climate changes?
I can provide 900 that say your position is completely wrong.
According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century
In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930's with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)
joannenova.com.au/2011/03/was-2010-the-hottest-ever/
For an illustrated version of why the GHCN is no longer acceptable for comparison to historical data go here.
blog.qtau.com/2010/05/dude-where-is-my-thermometer.html
Again, if you cannot disprove natural variability you have nothing.
- solar irradiance has ben flat since 1980, with some evidence that it has recently been dropping, as further supported by the peer-reviewed study you provided.
- Milankovitch cycle is not in warming phase
- cosmic rays... Have been shown to not be driver of current climate change, waiting for your evidence from Svensmark
Meanwhile we have known carbon dioxide has greenhouse gas properties since the 1850's, and human emissions have been rising as have global temperatures.
Can you please provide me with more reputable sources than two blogs that 2010 was not the warmest year on record?
You apparently do not understand or again have not studied the Svensmark material I suggested, or you would not have said what you did about his work.
You are a zealot who cannot prove our climate is unnnatural, and you have an agenda.
I have better things to do than explain time and time again that ignoring nature's 97% contribution of the atmospheric CO2 budget while demonizing man's 3% is the epitomy of silliness.
I refuse to point out ad nauseum that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate or how we got here.
I am not going to repeatedly explain to you that our Sun has many factors that influence climate other than its brightness.
Your refuse to listen has sentenced you to a life of ignoirance.
Still, even with all its typos, my post makes more sense than AGW ever will.
Hell, numerologists are more convincing than warmists!
Let's make a small change to your analogy. Take a stadium where each day 10,000 people come in and go out. Then one day 10,300 start coming in (only an extra 3%), but only 10,000 continue to leave. It would only take around 33 years for there to be 10,000 people sitting around in the stadium, on top of the 10,000 coming and going.
And that is why even a human contribution in CO2 emissions of only 3% on top of nature leeds to a significant increase over many years. Although the reality is that a third of that extra carbon is absorbed by the oceans so the addition is only around 2% per year.
And I am paying attention to the information you are providing, that's why I'm asking for the sources so I can look into them further.
Let's discuss natural greenhouse gases.
Wetlands are the greatest source of greenhouse gases. Man has reduced wetlands globally. Your 'additional' 3% just went away, utterly lost in the noise. In fact, man can now be credited with reducing the greatest source of greenhouse gases.
Get a grip.
You still cannot show our climate is anything other than natural.
That would be like saying forests are one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions (which they are when trees die), and by cutting them down man has removed a carbon source, ignoring the fact that trees are also a carbon sink, and by cutting the trees we have captured some of that carbon in timber but a lot of carbon gets released through burning.
And it is not a greenhouse gas.
Philip, Gator is right, you are not worth discussing this with because you don't listen. Regardless of what is shown to you, you either don't read it all all, or you completely ignore it, or you expect someone else to spoon feed it to you rather than invest the time yourself.
That you continue to claim things based on false assumptions and poor science is not a surprise, since you ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs.
Still cannot get your facts straight I see.
Oceans are presently the largest sinks, followed by forests, 'woody encroachment', 'wood products', rivers, and then finally wetlands.
i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/biopact3/biopact_US_carbon_sources_sinks.jpg?t=1195070645
Wetlands capture less than one tenth what forests capture.
'Atmospheric methane accounts for some 20 percent of greenhouse gas heating. Scientists have solid knowledge of methane levels produced by landfills, livestock and fossil fuels, but wetlands -- which are responsible for 70 percent of methane emissions from natural sources...'
When methane breaks down it becomes water vapor and CO2.
Man produces 3% of the CO2 produced globally.
That make a great deal more sense than blaming CO2 but seems to be played down considerably by the IPCC and their supporters.
So far it would appear that a truer model would be that as the atmospheric temperatures rise that rise is followed by an increase in CO2 to help regulate those rises.
Numerous times it has been mentioned that the CO2 trend follows the temperature trend not the other way around. Just how much of a lead/lag rate there is would be interesting information. How much an increase in one precipitates an increase in the other would also be useful to know though I doubt we'll ever get any useful data from the IPCC or it's support group.
But what is a 'greenhouse gas?
Greenhouse gas
Any of the atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of the Earth's surface.
So any gas that can be heated? Can't all matter be heated?
So what is special about 'greenhouse' gases? Would there not be "greenhouse solids' as well? Or 'greenhouse liquids'?
It is all nonsense and frankly irrelevant. Geologists are the most likely of all the sciences to be skeptical of AGW. That is because they understand just what our planet is capable of doing and surviving. We have a 4.5 billion year old service manual of which the alarmists have only read the last letter, incorrectly.
That sure looks like math to me. I certainly don't see any chemistry.
More specifically I see a very simplified mathematical model that by virtue of excluding the many other variables that would be involved (for that to be an accurate example of the atmospheric process) you can achieve the end result you desire to prove your argument.
Sounds an awful lot like what we have been condemning the IPCC and various scientists for. Models where the variables are either manipulated or completely ignored in order to get the desired outcome.
I suspect that is why you believe in their models, you use the same logic.
It's maths that by adding an additional 2% per year we can have a significant impact over many years.
Until you understand that you can claim (that by the math) CO2 creates an impact all you want while you conveniently omit the atmospheres self regulating functions that have managed to keep the life moving along for centuries through periods of HIGHER CO2 CONCENTRATIONS. Convenient how you ignore that.
Until you understand the actual chemistry you can talk all you want about how "it's the chemistry" when you every time you speak you demonstrate that you don't understand how that chemistry works.
As I've said before, nothing new, just another believer repeating what you've been told.
There are numerous articles and papers exposing the fallacies in your argument, but why list them when you won't read them.
I say "Assumed" because while the models all claim the Co2 water vapor feedback will create a troposheric hot spot empirical measurements prove it simply is not there.
So we are back to the debate where the warmists claim models and theory are correct and the data is not.
"It's simple multivariate statistical modeling. And through it we know that if we took out the greenhouse gases from the equation we would not be able to explain the rise in temperatures in the last 50 years, as variations in the other variables do not account for it." This is simply false as proven by Niv Shaviv here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&feature=player_embedded#at=1265 Starting at 22:05, at 25:00 he talks about a model with "Free Paramiters"...
Clearly this would show there is no need for carbon emmision cap and tax schemes. No cause for alarm. No need for billions in grants for Climate study.
It's simple multivariate statistical modeling. And through it we know that if we took out the greenhouse gases from the equation we would not be able to explain the rise in temperatures in the last 50 years, as variations in the other variables do not account for it.
"Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity.”
“People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best astrophysics: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation.” "Satellite measurements between 1986 and 1996 do indicate that Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" their data."
After all they are not the only ones who have shown that solar irradiance is not responsible for the recent increases in temperature.
Scrutiny of the paper Gator here provided us (The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity S. Duhau, Ph.D.1, and C. de Jager, Ph.D.2
Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999.
JournalofCosmology.com, June, 2010), supports this very same conclusion, stating that we are heading towards a minimum in solar irradiance, yet we are still seeing average temperatures increasing.
(No, the NOAA was not the only reputable body to announce that 2010 was the warmest year on record, the World Meteorological Organization also stated this).
Yes.
Sejrup, H.P., Lehman, S.J., Haflidason, H., Noone, D., Muscheler, R., Berstad, I.M. and Andrews, J.T. 2010. Response of Norwegian Sea temperature to solar forcing since 1000 A.D. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: 10.1029/2010JC006264.
Now, can you provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variabilty?
Now is it clear why the Co2 based models all failed to predict the last 16+ years of cooling? They are based on false Co2 assumptions.
Clearly reducing solar effects were done to shore up the AGW Co2 theory. Solar effects were blamed on Co2 with no proof, in fact it was knowingly fraudulent data manipulation.
The case for Solar is getting stronger as more research and papers are being released.
The Global Warming scare will go the way of the Global Cooling scare of the 70,s. See the world didn't end on the 21st after all.
Hey Phil! You need to get your facts straight.
#1 - NOAA is reporting cooling. 16 years and 5 months worth.
#2 NASA GISS is the only data set that reports statsitically significant warming, the only data set that says 2010 was the hottest.
#3 - WMO does not have their own independent data set, they borrow from others.
Now, back to step one...
(cont'd below)
I demonstrate for my guest how the icemaker operates and let him or her listen to the sound it makes when completeing its task of dumping ice into the tray. My guest cannot explain any difference in the sound made by the mystery noise and that of my icemaker.
Now, do I spend alot of money at this point, to exorcise the demons from my home, or, do I further investigate the noise to be sure?
Of course any rational human would rule out the icemaker before proceeding with ridiculously expensive and outlandish tactics.
This is what the alarmists have never done. They have never completed step one of the investigation and their claims of AGW are therefore illegitimate.
(cont'd)
Until then they are charlatans who cannot even show we have a climate issue.
I will ask again, even though you have consistently avoided this issue. Can you provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent climate change?
If not, we have nothing left to discuss.
It was interesting hearing him on Laura Ingraham's show, where Laura thought she had a true skeptic and trying to get him to condemn climate science and Bjorn restating that climate change is the biggest issue we face after all.
I see you provide no link to what you claim.
Lomborg: U-Turn On Global Warming? Hardly. (The Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2010)
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703376504575491643716526782.html
www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1540-bjorn-lomborg-u-turn-on-global-warming-hardly.html
Ice ages are the biggest challenge we will face, Lomborg is correct.
Your proof please? Not links to the "greenhouse gas theory" actual proof that CO@ and CO2 alone of the gases in the atmosphere is the one and only gas capable of absorbing heat.
A theory is not fact. A lot of things have been "known" over the years. At one time we all KNEW the earth was flat, at one time we all KNEW the earth was the center of the universe.
Perhaps you should read this:
www.suite101.com/content/greenhouse-gas-theory-discredited-by-coolant-carbon-dioxide-a365870
Here is the paper, I have no idea what the current review status is:
www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf
Apparently "only greenhouse gases absorb IR" and we are led to believe that O2 and N do not and are therefore not "greenhouse gases". (cont.)
General percentages would be:
78% N
21% O
0.93% Ar
and 0.036% CO2
(source = www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmosphere/atmospheric_composition.html)
So how is it that the claim is made that all of this "greenhouse effect" is due to something that is less than 400ths of a percent of the atmospheric makeup is causing so much trouble?
We (the human race) have "known" a lot of things over the centuries of our existence. Many of them turned out to be based on false assumptions. It would appear the theory of the "greenhouse gas" that we have "known" since the 1850's may well be one of them.
Imagine a stadium with 10,000 cheering fans. Three get up and leave. Is it any quieter? The alarmists' think it would be, and that their argument is convincing.
Now let's add water vapor into the mix.
Now imagine a stadium with 200,000 screaming fans, waving banners and chanting AGW! Three of them get up and leave. Is it any quieter? Will the vendors have to lay off workers? Will the home team now feel less support from their fans?
Of course not! AGW is a ridiculous claim based simply on the math, well before you discuss natural variability.
It takes faith to be a warmist.
NASA new it was false 40 years ago, most chemists also know it to be false, apparently it is still taught to physics students however.
Philip responds like and adult, he asks questions and provides his views, that we disagree is not surprising but I would not respond to him like I would to dreswki or some of our more obnoxious trolls.
The only reason I would continue to engage Phil, is for the edification of others. You are wasting your time trying to convert a Soutern Baptist to Hinduism, and the same can be said for AGW zealots and skepticism. It is as water to the witch for them.
A .05% blood alcohol level will impair your driving, it's not math, it's chemistry.
Giving up already? Have you studied the Svensmark material?
Can you disprove natural variabilty?
If not, find a new hobby.
Having trouble disputing the chemistry?
You are right it is the chemistry, so why are the alarmists placing so much credence on mathematical models if "it's not the math, it's the chemistry".
Sorry Philip, you have provided no new news, no new theory, and nothing to indicate to me I should place any credence in the theories you do present.
Perhaps if you actually understood the chemistry you would realize that CO2 cannot do what is being claimed by the IPCC and the other parties on the warming bandwagon.
So until THEY actually understand the CHEMISTRY, then it is THE MATH. Specifically mathematical models that have yet to predict or prove anything.
The 0.05% BAL is a worn out example, please do better next time.
Learn to read, I am really getting tired of you warming fan boys that only read what supports your beliefs while being unable to comprehend anything that doesn't.
A 150+ year old theory that has never been proven but is quoted by everyone is laughable.
Please read the letters of protest from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites). And from Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN - Group Sunspot Number indicator) - who agrees with Willson."The graph tampering done by Judith [Lean] and Claus [Frohlich}was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge." Fröhlich [and co-author Judith Lean] made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments... He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model.ttp://hockeyschtick.blog spot.ca/2010/06/judithgate-upd ate.html
Once again the IPCC was caught manipulating data to fit models. In real science you adjust the MODEL to fit the DATA. Climatisim has this 180 degrees backwards.
I would think an honest seeker of answers would want the truth straight from the source. But you have an agenda, and I refuse to play by your rules.
Do your own homework.
Hey Phil, you missed a comment!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&feature=player_embedded#at=1265
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded
1934 was the warmest year in recent history. stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/june-1934-all-48-states-over-100-degrees/
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml
" The graphs show pretty clearly that the formation rate increases with the radiation. At O(10,000) ions per cubic centimeter, the nucleation rate approximately doubles while the existing data are compatible with a linear dependence."
"This is a very intense relationship. Note that the clouds in the atmosphere cool the Earth roughly by 10 times the warming induced by a CO2 doubling, so even 10% of the change of the cloud cover beats a doubled CO2. 10% of the change of the clouds corresponds to roughly 1,000 ions per cubic centimeter - in the regions of the atmosphere where the clouds are expected to form."
The reason that I find it hard to disprove the findings of the IPCC based on a blog or online article is that I appreciate the hurdles the report has to make before it's released. The report has to be reviewed by representatives of all governments in the world, and a unanimous agreement has to be reached before it's released.
That means that representatives of the governments of the likes of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and any other oil producer all have to approve the review.
Do you not think that these governments would themselves try and find flaws and gaps in the review? Do you not think they are bombarded with counter information from skeptics? Yet they still unanimously agree to release the report
The Forthcoming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity S. Duhau, Ph.D.1, and C. de Jager, Ph.D.2
Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1983-1999.
JournalofCosmology.com, June, 2010
The IPCC has also stated that although solar activity has driven past climate, it has had only a mimimum forcing on the current climate change. Apologies, I can't recall the exact quote or page from the top of my head.
Phil you are a liar. First, there is no 'consensus'. Secondly that paper discusses climate change based upon solar cycles and not warming through AGW.
Telling lies does not win debates.
First it was intellectual dishonesty, and now we get outright lies.
Yes many of the articles have been interesting and all have generally supported the consensus that there are other drivers of climate change, namely solar irradiance. Amirlach's youtube links for example. But they do not show that it can explain the current warming, only past warming.
Things like agricultural specialists who have observed massive increases in the CO2 concentration within a greenhouse that was done to boost plant growth ALSO had the side effect of LOWERING the temperature, not increasing it.
See there are a lot of people in the real world that observe what actually happens and when it doesn't match what the scientists are claiming call b.s.
The same thing that can explain past warming explains current warming, just not in your models.
But then your models keep denying that things are now cooling NOT warming. Unfortunately reality indicates the models are wrong.
That's because we have been cooling for 15 years. Guess you missed that info, or did not read it?
Still no peer reviewed science to refute natural variabilty? Gee, I wonder what the fuss is all about?
documents.nytimes.com/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=1
In 1995, the Global Climate Coalition, an industry-financed group challenging efforts to negotiate a new climate treaty or legislation, sought advice on the latest climate science from its committee of advisers on science and technology. The resulting internal document, "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer," challenged recent research hinting that human-caused global warming was already measurable. But it rejected a variety of what it called "contrarian" arguments against the basic concept that accumulating heat-trapping emissions would substantially warm the planet. The coalition, according to other documents, later requested that the section of the primer endorsing the basics of global warming science be cut.
In 2006 a Military Advisory Board of 1 retired 3- and 4-star admirals and generals assessed the impact of global climate change on key matters of national security.
The report includes several findings:
* Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.
* Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
* Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
* Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.
Either one is silly.
5,587 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report are not peer-reviewed
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (64pgs) (Fraser Institute)
Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (PDF) (130pgs) (Fraser Institute)
But apparently as we have been seeing over and over, if it doesn't support the IPCC and their theories and models then it has to be peer reviewed AND has to be from someone that's a "climate scientist", and on, and on.
But if it supports the IPCC and their theories and models THEN if it isn't peer reviewed, let it slide. They aren't a climate scientist? Well it is a multi-disciplinary field so that's okay too.
Too many contradictions, too much duplicity and hypocrisy from those involved claiming we should just trust them.
Disagree with the theories and AGW in general, must be in the pay of big oil, etc. etc.
But if you happen to be heavily invested in carbon trading schemes, green industry, etc. well, no bias or conflict of interest there. Just trust us.
When I was younger I was very much involved in science, having returned to college I'm getting back into it.
In general though I prefer to leave the "heavy science" to Gator, amirlach, Adam, etc. They have the links, references, and so on readily available.
But sometimes you just can't not say anything when someone is being so obviously obtuse.
I never said anything about the pay of big oil, or the pay of the green industry; I've stuck to the science.
Quote:That was you was it not? In which case you have used the term haven't you?
Now tell me, are you that insecure that you think I was referring to you alone when I wrote the reply (which btw was not to you but to another regular here)?
Or could it just possibly be that I was referring to the various "double standards" employed by the different people we have seen pass through this site preaching the AGW gospel to us without ever once considering how many of their sources are just as guilty of the things we are accused of?
Grow up.
I personally do not think the term denier is appropriate and do not use it.
I'm just reading through the Fraser Institute's Independent Summary, and one thing jumps out at me right away. Section 1.4b, where they talk about solar activity. Why are both graphs over thousands of years in period? It makes it impossible to determine what's been happening in the last 150 years, and more importantly in the last 30 years, since graphs that do cover these periods in more detail show that solar activity has been flat in the last 30 years, and may be even trending downwards, as the paper Gator provided us stipulates.
And if solar activity is trending downwards, what is causing the increase in temperatures in the last 30 years globally?
They state that there is new evidence of the impact of solar activity on climate. That is so, and again Gator's paper adds to that body of knowledge. But again they make no reference to the last 30 years!!
And again Figure 5 is across such a large timeframe that it is impossible to make out the last thirty years.
Philip, I think that it is plain obvious that you have not read the paper I gave you, since you just keep on repeating the same old arguments again and again. There are two datasets which monitor solar irradiance: ACRIM and PMOD. Claims that sun could not have caused the past 30 years of warming is based solely on the PMOD data, which has been shown to be unreliable. ACRIM does indeed show an increase in TSI over the past 30 years, and that dataset is independent so more reliable.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKOvszg8PXc
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0Bjxensd0&feature=related[/youtube]
That does not take away from the fact that the final report had to be unanimously approved by representatives of all governments, including those from oil producers Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, UAE, Venezuela, Russia, etc.
Surely these reps would have tried to pick apart the science? Surely they would have been inundated with people supplying them with evidence contrary to the general consensus?
The only conclusion I can make is that the contrarian evidence was so poor that they had to dismiss it and sign off on the IPCC report.
www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
Philip are you willing to read this report and see that there is a contrary view to the IPCC, or aren't you?
Do you understand that there is the scientififc report, and then the summary for policymakers? Big Difference.
And to call a report that uses propaganda as 30% of its sources 'robust' is ridiculous and proof that you are regurgitating warmist talking points.
Found even one peer reviewed paper to refute natural variability. That should have been the first paper written, what happened?
Peer Review? What Peer Review? Failures of scrutiny in the UN's Fourth Assessment Report (PDF)
Really, really sad.
Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data — had been hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth.
Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.
On the other hand PR executives who are ex-Tobacco ex-Oil Industry, or the likes of Al Gore who has interest in green investments I consider less respectable.
Isn't it interesting that Phil quotes Lindzen the way lefties quote Hitler to 'prove' he was a Christian. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
Same with quoting Lindzen, and using those quotes to validate AGW. Lindzens roundly mocks AGW, for good reson.
'Why do we need to deconstruct global warming? Simply because it has been an issue that has been routinely treated with misinformation and sophistry abetted by constant repetition, institutional endorsements, and widespread ignorance even (perhaps especially) among the educated. Because of the increasingly dangerous and expensive approaches being promoted to deal with this alleged problem, it is, I think, important to understand what is being said as well as to understand how climate actually works.'
(cont'd)
I will begin with a few items that illustrate how this issue has been manipulated, and how, to a great extent, global warming has been merely a device for implementing broader agendas. I will then continue with an emphasis on the science.
From the 1970’s, there was a general feeling that ‘climate change’ would be an excellent vehicle for a variety of agendas. People openly espousing this included Bert Bolin, who was an adviser to the Swedish prime minister, and later the first head of the IPCC.
(cont'd)
Once the global issue emerged on the public scene, two cooperating institutions were formed in the 1990’s with interlocking leadership: The Tyndall Centre for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The latter is headed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and the former by Michael Hulme. These institutions epitomize the exploitation of the climate issue. Their members constitute numerous participants in the IPCC.
Full pdf can be found here...
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf
Now you can stop quoting Lindzen as an AGW supporter.
Are your intentions to publish your 900+ list, or a review of it, in a peer-reviewed journal and open it up to peer critique?
Personally I hope you do, it would add legitimacy and greater media awareness of your work.
They are still peer reviewed.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
And thanks for the link to Scafetta et al., just reading through it now. Of all the information submitted here, be it from blogs, Czech websites, or worse, just plain name calling (and again I apologize for the copy and past from NYT which used the term denier), this has been the only one that I can consider of peer-reviewed quality.
When one of the premises is that in the circles representing the issue there has been a concerted effort to keep papers out of sight that don't support the theory (regardless of their scientific merit) then scientists can and will find other avenues through which to publish and converse.
Whether or not you accept those avenues has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the information that they present.
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf
www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Philip, seriously are you delusional? You are posting under a topic that says,
"900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm"
There are over 900 sources that are peer-reviewed quality.
The list is a resource of papers and will not be published in any journal as that is irrelevant to it's purpose.
Everything on the list is fully cited and sourced giving it all the legitimacy that it needs.
Case in point several authors in your list have said you have misunderstood their findings and they should be not in your list.
Secondly, the ISI list, which lists every journal that meets peer-reviewed criteria does not list the journal Energy and Environment, therefore I would seriously question the inclusion of any study in your list that was published in this journal. After all why stop there, why not list every dissenting paper that's published in Newsweek, Time or Popular Mechanic.
Here we go again with the "my journals are more credible than your journals" even though we just went through this not long ago and your argument was shown to be based on incorrect information.
You do realize you have not made one single argument here that has not been tried numerous times already and each time has been shown to be incorrect by Adam, amirlach, Poptech, Gator, etc.
Perhaps you believe that if you keep repeating these things enough it will make them true.
That makes one of us.
I don't think anything about it is "rather convenient" at least no more convenient than the numerous things you choose to ignore or misrepresent when discussing the subject. Rather convenient for you then isn't it?
Philip see
Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4034
Philip see
Rebuttal to "Energy and Environment – "journal of choice for climate skeptics" Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers part III"
z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4042
And
'Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment'
www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html
1. What search phrase did Oreskes use in her paper? Please do tell.
2. What date range did she search?
Lie #1: The ISI lists every journal that meets peer-reviewed criteria.
Lie #2: Energy & Environment is not list in the ISI
Oh boy did you FAIL at using GOOGLE. Please let me know what bogus source you got your lies from.
Then tell us why you are really an idiot.
What sort of idiot doesn't check something before they post it?
Philip, please go waste someone elses time.
science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0958-305X
How is this possible you just posted nonsense of an idiot's website you found online? Surely your idiot website and you posting otherwise means you are correct and the ISI is wrong. I really want to know where you are getting you idiot information from.
I am still amazed that the representatives of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE and every other major oil producer did not put forward the studies you have compiled in order to refute the findings of the ipcc reviewers.
Surely at least some of these authors or the think tanks that don't accept that the science is settled would have presented these studies to these representatives from these countries? Were they that remiss in not taking the opportunity, or did the representatives find these studies were flawed in some way?
I'm keen to hear your views on what you believe happened.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
All of the oil companies are on board with AGW. You know, evil 'Big Oil' companies that fund us skeptics. Not only will they reap enormous profits off of cap and trade, but oil prices will be higher as well.
Let's think, dwindling supplies in their reserves, increased demand (regardless of CO2 reduction schemes), higher prices for their product and a side scheme already proven to be rife with corruption and outrageous profits.
(cont'd below)
Jan 2nd, 2011...
“Carbon trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth. Since Kyoto signatories bought in to the cap and trade concept in 2005, there have been more than $300 billion worth of carbon transactions, prompting several investment banks, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, to set up their own carbon trading desks,’ reports Mark Schapiro. He adds, “In this highly specialized new industry, perhaps a thousand people really understand how onsite measurement of CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) projects work, and there is a serious potential for conflicts of interest.”
Gee, I just cannot figure this one out, maybe some of the others here could help us out. This is really hard, like math. (sarc)
This explains why Phil has not noticed the large flaws, such as the fact that noone has shown our climate to be anything other than perfectly natural.
Ah, devotion!
You have completely discredited yourself and are wasting everyone's time.
The "claim" I am referring to is the falsely implied notion that no peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skeptic arguments and is not a direct refutation of her biased and fraudulent paper. I am well aware that when you use arbitrary search phrases in a limited database you can get the results that you want.
Anyone who dismisses the fact that natural variability has not been disproven is not an honest broker of facts. That one truth about the 'search' for climate drivers tells it all. IF the alarmists were honest, disproving natural variability would have been job #1.
How odd that nearly thirty years later, this essential process, the one proof that a problem even exists, has never been completed.
If Phil were honest, he would have to admit that the alarmists skipped step one. Then he would need to ask himself why. Of course he could then consider why so much time has been spent trying to erase previous warm and cold periods, trying to smear skeptics, trying to show a consensus where none exists, instead of their job of disproving natural variability.
The most sound information was provided by Adam, who provided the reference to Scafetta and Wilson, a peer-reviewed article which does provide evidence that solar irradiance may be driving the current increase in temperatures. However I note that going back to the original data source of solar irradiance that Scafetta references (ACRIM; acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig1.pdf shows that solar irradiance has gone down in recent years (which is backed up by the Duhau paper Gator referenced), and more importantly science is about replicability and I note that other scientists have stated frustration in not being able to replicate Scafetta's findings, and Scafetta won't provide the data he has used (www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/please-show-us-your-code/).
You apparently have learned nothing, not surprising for a fanatic.
Common mistake for someone who thinks the planet is still warming. I showed it is not. Fanatics do not care.
Gator also shows that there is money involved; of course there is, we are a capitalist system and people will want to take advatange of it. But using this as proof that the science is flawed is ludicrous. After all how much do you think Koch and Exxon have spend to fuel the doubt industry, and how much do they have to lose?
More lies and delusion from the fanatic.
(cont'd below)
Three data sets show that 2010 was not the warmest ever. UAH, RSS and Hadley. In fact, even NASA's original data does not show this. It was only after Hansen et al rewrote the temperatures for 1934 and removed cool biased stations that this fraud was even possible.
Yes, all of this is documented.
No, Phil does not care, he is a fanatic.
They have not spent a penny on me. But since you brought funding back up, let's review deep pockets and campaigns of misinformation
.
Exxon spent 23 million, the US Government spent 79 billion, that's a ratio of about 3000 to 1.
Just look at the twenty-one million dollars spent on one California law.
Al Gore's movie was found to be propaganda by a court of law. How much has he made off his speeches and personal appearances? Propagandizing. Lying.
He then misconstrues my point about Lidzen and Muller, I never said they were advocates of AGW, I said I respected them based on the university positions they hold and their background in climate science. Fair enough, I should have appreciated the audience...
My biggest disappointment with Gator's commentry is where he won't specifically point to where in Svensmark's website or youtube videos he proves that solar cycles are the answer, telling me to do my homework (how convenient); either he doesn't understand Svensmark or he believes that pointing out the proof opens it up to be critiqued.
I am sorry you do not understand the complexity of our system. But then noone does, including myself.
Natural variability is just that. It varies. Different cycles hit peaks and valleys at different frequencies and occasionally meet for a stellar climate change. This is not hard to figure out unless one is a fanatic.
This is just one more reason why singling out the teensy weensy CO2 that man produces in all of this chaos is doubling down on stupid.
Apparently you do not value their opinions. But it's nice you think they are great guys based on their titles!
I wear your disappointment as a badge of honor! Thankyou.
I'm sorry a one hour video that puts Svensmark's theory in simple terms is beyond your fanatical comprehension. But in this instance, I am the teacher, and you the pupil. And as such it is up to me to ask you what you learned from watching the video.
Now, maybe you have some punchline you would desperately like me to set up for you, but that is not my responsibilty.
Sorry you are disappointed, but again it is a compliment to me. Thankyou.
The big difference between sceptical scientists like Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and Vincent Courtillot is that their theory's are admitedly Falsifyable and critique is welcomed as it leads to a better understanding.
Dr Courtillot talks about his theorys ability to be falsifyed by empirical observations in this presentation. www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded
Unlike the so called "science" of the IPCC which is settled and unfalsifyable.
Despite all of the models claimed as proof having failed to predict the last 16 plus years of non warming, the AGW theory seems to have no falsifyability.
Models are not proof of anything despite warmists wishing it to be so.
Meenwhile he dismisses the importance of his list being submitted into a peer-reviewed journal, and just having it on a webpage where he is the sole Judge and Jury for what constitutes a peer-reviewed paper that supports the skeptic position; and ignores original authors who have stated that he has misconstrued their findings, bringing into doubt the whole list (someone conveniently povided this link: www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-part-two-using-our-paper-is-misleading).
What are you afraid of Poptech, publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal!
I am sure Energy and Environment would have a good look at it. Or are you afraid even they will knock it back?
Please tell me what search term she used.
You keep repeating long debunked nonsense,
Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers
The list is not going to be published in any journal and no claim was every made that it was.
Your desperation is showing. Just remember there is nothing you can do about the list.
Please tell me what search term she used.
On the contrary, they still allowed the IPCC report to be published and made public, suggesting that they also dismissed these studies as flawed.
How is it that the government representatives of the oil producers, armed to the teeth with studies that back their individual countries' best interests, still approve the final report which stated that there is 90% confidence that human ghg emissions are responsible for the current changes in climate?
How is it that the best and brightest from these countries still dismissed your studies?
A spokesperson for Shell said the company could not yet comment on the Friends of the Earth report.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/28/redd-forest-protection-banks-oil
Duh.
Now I have steaks to attend to, smarter than Phil.
Ciao!
Schools in BC are laying off teachers so they can afford to buy carbon credits from big oil companys. communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/feeltheheat/archive/2011/05/07/carbon-folly-squeezing-schools-to-aid-energy-giant.aspx A case of being carefull of what you wish for!
Who says the people you have subjectively declared the "best and brightest" really the "best and brightest"?
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion
We get them quite often here. They come with their anti-gospel, believing they are spreading 'news'.
I was a climatology student 25 years ago and spent eight years studying in the Earth Sciences department. Eight years of geology, climatology, geography, cartography and remote sensing et al.
I have spent over thirty years studying climate change as it is now known and seen every hypothesis there is. Unlike a fanatic, I only wanted the truth.
I will admit, about twelve years ago I started to have concerns that the alarmists could be right and looked again at what they were telling us. I gave great care not to dismiss their wild assertions outright. But I also took care to verify their claims, and they were not verifiable.
Then the cooling set in, game over.
NOAA Confirms 15 Years of Cooling
c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e3d591cc970b-pi
Removal of Cool Biased Weather Stations
c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e3d591cc970b-pi
Fabricatiing Temperatures
www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
Sea Levels Falling
stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/chart_117.png
Antarctica Cooling
stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/animationimage40101.jpg
And despite all of this, Phil knows that the hypothesis of AGW is solid.
Philip has shown us nothing new (which includes his complete lack of understanding of what he has been shown).
I wonder how many times he will repeat "the Milankovitch cycle" in his replies? I get the impression that he uses various terms without any real understanding of them in order to sound like he knows what he is talking about.
And then we have this little gem:
Quote:Which he follows with:
Quote:So Philip must be ludicrous himself for making that connection eh?
They have talking points, not logic.
They invent rules and then summarily dismiss them. Weasels.
I actually saw them accuase us of not wanting to participate in open debate. From the people who gave us 'the science is settled, the debate is over'!
1. It may disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion.
2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).
3. The papers can hold opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).
4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso). www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/
5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.
6. "Poptech", the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).
7. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.
z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4081
Pleases list "read" papers that do not fit this classification. Or are you simply another troll?
This is consistent with the comments by scientists who complain that they've been misrepresented by the list, mentioned elsewhere in these comments.
Happy trolling!
No scientist has ever been misrepresented by the list because the list has nothing to do with THEIR personal position on anything.
The whole field of climate change for pop scientists like Poptech is no longer a question of science but one of ideology. They see climate science as a supposed threat to their established world view and self identity (free market, libertarian, etc), without realizing that climate change is a bigger threat to these idealogies that anything else.
After all how are we going to deal with ongoing climate change disasters apart from throwing more goverment money onto rebuilding infrastructure, drought recovery, climate-driven wars?
They do not seem to understand that a market-efficient mechanism like a simple carbon price (without the potential financial market manipulation that a carbon cap tax brings) is the best way of implementing a low-carbon economy that minimizes the threat of large government.
Even better, take the proceeds of a price on carbon and offset it with a tax cut on individuals and suddenly consumers have more money to spend and drive the economy. Little wonder that even some Republicans are beginning to revisit a price on carbon.
What Chris has done is made a strawman argument as to the purpose of the list as these papers are included but so are ones that simply support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm.
I don't see climate science as any "threat", I see it is ideologically driven to support alarmist positions.
Cap and trade is not a market solution but a government one. Your economic illiteracy is not surprising as all alarmists I meet do not understand free-market economics.
I see no ongoing climate change disasters let alone delusional nonsense like "climate-driven wars". Markets are more than capable of dealing with any natural disaster so long as you remove government interference such as government funded insurance and price controls.
And with regards to Cap and Trade, you will note that I reject it as a solution as well, it is open to being compromised by interest groups and the financial community. Hence why I accept what more economists propose is the most sound market mechanism, a simple price on carbon.
Your last paragraph just reinforces that your view of climate science if framed by idealogy.
It's a shame that you don't see the long term implications for free markets that climate change brings, that by necessity in having to deal with it, it will entail more government interference and higher taxes. I'm all for free markets and limited government, that's why I think (and I am not alone, so do many economists, conservative politicians around the world, and business leaders) that a price on carbon is worth bringing in now rather than dealing with the future consequences.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x/abstract
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030701568727
There are more but it proves my point that you are making things up.
My last paragraph has nothing to do with any ideology but a comprehensive understanding of economics.
And if you want a simple rebuttal of Chilingara, Khilyuka and Sorokhtinb, here's one as good as any:
link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00254-006-0519-3#page-1
Most other climate scientist think very little of them due to the basic errors they make and other research they simply ignore.
Any others you would like to put forward?
Svensmark has rebutted all criticisms of his work as have Chilingar. You are obviously incompetent as well as you did not provide a rebuttal to the Chilingar paper I presented ("Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission") but a completely different one ("On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?"). Regardless this was rebutted by Chilingar as well,
www.springerlink.com/content/vl7536426072q7j7/?MUD=MP
You have no evidence "most climate scientists" hold any such opinion and now have to resort to hand waving.
The list is full of such papers and I do not engage in debates with those proven to be dishonest as you have by lying that only one such paper exists on the list.
I've done the thing of going through the links provided by "skeptics" and raising issues with them, but either the comments don't get published (a la Pop Tech) or they just reply with another barrage of links, and don't reply to my questions. Finally decided it was a waste of time - except for the very few cases where a genuine scientific argument is being made.
There are genuine climate skeptics who actually deserve the name skeptic, but they're few in number.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, or how we got here. There is not a single paper that can refute natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes. This is why I am a skeptic.
Sixteen years of no warming invalidates the alarmist models, by their own admission. Yet even if temperature were to continue to rise, it still only proves the globe is warming, and not why.
All of the alarmism is based upon models and assumptions, and not a shred of hard science.
That is how Pop Tech is able to compile this list, their science is squishy.
Sorry for not finding references for those - it's 3 am and I've got an unrelated article to write.
"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years."
You see Chris, in the real world scientists debate, and admit they do not know. Only the religious deny debate, and deny nature.
But since you are a know it all, this should be easy for you
Please submit even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
What's an interesting surprise is when (in the examples I gave) self-described skeptics, funded by hardline deniers in the case of the Koch brothers, find warming.
Quoting Gator:
You used quote marks but gave no source. Google tells me you're quoting the Daily Mail. Mainstream newspapers are not reliable sources, but this British tabloid has a worse reputation than most.
It's a story about data from the British Met, as interpreted by the tabloid - but the British Met says the first decade of this century is the warmest on record, and they haven't retracted that, AFAICT.
Quoting Gator:
When did I claim to know it all?
Quoting Gator:
You quote tabloids and I need to cite peer-reviewed papers? Oreskes has done that review already, and anyway, it's 4am. Good night!
Oreskes is a fraud.
Any more nonsense? Keep it, I asked for...
Quote:Get busy.
Found the name of the climate skeptic who was funded by the hardline anti-AGW Koch brothers: Richard Muller. It shouldn't be hard to find his paper, but he also wrote an article (himself, not a journo) in the WSJ: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
We've seen the climategate emails, we've now see Michael Mann exposed for making claims that were untrue, we've seen Gleick and his methods.
When these people start acting like scientists maybe we will listen, instead they act like spoiled little activists and it is not science they are publishing but activism.
Until you learn the difference there isn't much point in your saying anything more.
I think it's telling that a former skeptic who believed that the heat island effect could explain the rise in temperature data, independently reviewed all the data in a study funded by the Kochs and came to the conclusion that the rise was real.
There aren't any real skeptics who are climate scientists left. Even Lindzen has accepted AGW, just questions the impact it will have.
Nice spin on Lindzen's views though.
The response to Mullers BEST is that the "Paper" FAILED Peer Review.
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/why-the-best-papers-failed-to-pass-peer-review/
I was simply responding to Gator's misreading or dishonesty about the Muller study, claiming it was a study by "warmists" funded by "warmists". Did you miss that?
Please, if you are going to quote me, do so correctly...
Quote:Warmists, like priests, are supported by their flock. Therefore they are paid to find warming, like a priest is paid to find salvation. If Playboy funded a Billy Graham inquiry on God, Billy would report that God is alive and well. I said nothing about "funding", I choose my words carefully, if you are going to reference them do so honestly.
You alarmists go on and on about the Koch brothers and big oil and miss the forest of funding worldwide for alarmism. Rank hypocrisy.
Spin, spin, spin.
What you seem to be saying is that even a skeptic paid by deniers is automatically, by definition a "warmist" if they find warming. A belief system which cannot possibly be falsified is worthless.
No true scientist believes the earth is round!
What about X, Y and Z?
Ah, but they believe the earth is round - they're not true scientists.
(I don't think you're actually that stupid, but your ridiculous response to Muller's study doesn't earn you respect.)
"About Berkeley’s Richard Muller, whose recent “study” on surface temperatures, has caused headlines like “Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’“, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2006:
… Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming…
Fake graphs, fake credentials, fake skeptics, fake data...
This is why we refuse to play along, you guys cheat and lie constantly. We refuse to allow alarmists to hijack science and stuff garbage down our throats.
So, let's start at the beginning.
Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
Once we have established that it is not natural, we can then proceed to search for alternative explanations.
Build a case for AGW, or buzz off.
Expecting a single paper to conclusively refute natural variability is like expecting a single paper in archeology to refute creationism.
I'm just asking you to back up the claims of this blog post, only without the Gish Gallap.
"About Berkeley’s Richard Muller, whose recent “study” on surface temperatures, has caused headlines like “Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’“, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2006"
Get a clue, or stop lying, or both.
I can't find the original for that - all I find is "skeptic" blogs reporting that headline - and I shouldn't need to remind you that headlines are written by journalists for sensationalism. I do know Muller has said skeptical things over the years.
But let's say you're right, for argument's sake. I concede the point - I was wrong, and Muller wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic.
Now, back to the topic of this blog post. Pick one paper you're willing to defend - name it, and be prepared to debate it without changing the subject.
I for one know that the sky is not falling, because there is nothing unusual, or unprecedented about our current global climate or how we got here.
I'm not interested in playing pretend.
Here's the thing - I didn't come here for spin or hearsay. I didn't come for subject changes and challenges to prove something different to the topic of this blog post.
I came because of the claim in the title of this blog post. '''I have repeatedly asked you: Pick one paper you're willing to defend - name it, and be prepared to debate it without changing the subject.'''
Your unwillingness to discuss the science and your love of ad hominem attacks render this conversation very boring. You've failed, and I'm done. Enjoy your self-declaration of victory which you'll undoubtedly leap to straight away.
Credit to climatechangedispatch for allowing contrary viewpoints in comments, unlike Pop Tech. Credit to Philip Makowski for making sense (and reading so many of these papers).
Find ONE Chris, just ONE.
"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003
There, now we have shown conclusively that Muller was NEVER a skeptic, and is most definitely a liar.
Now, disprove natural variability, or be judged as a religious zealot. A nut.
Google search isn't working for me right now - maybe Frankenstorm messing with the connection - but I'm sure you have the original source at your fingertips. I'd be interested to see context.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure if they're genuine." - Abraham Lincoln.
All I can find are commenters like yourself repeating this quote.
You really don't know what "source" means?
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially from anyone with an ax to grind - even your allies who tell you things you want to believe. That goes for everyone - if I read a quote that supported my own case I'd want to see a source for that too.
Thankfully there's an unsubscribe link, and I've pressed it. Enjoy your discussion.
Don't know how to Google? I'll give you a hand you helpless thing. I think you will find this link palatable...
www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/29/1114828/-Muller-finds-nothing-new-on-climate-engages-in-more-denial
Now find that paper, or quit whining.
www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008
grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/
"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008
www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003
www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/
I did not order a strawman, I asked for scientific evidence...
Quote:I'm waiting...
The topic is the many peer-reviewed papers that supposedly support skepticism of AGW. Let's avoid a Gish Gallop, shall we?
Name just one paper that you think does this, and we'll discuss that, neither of us changing the subject.
Find one paper.
Get busy.
There is no rule in science that climate scientists have to answer the questions that Gator says, in the order Gator says.
I do not call the Ghost Busters to rid my house of spirits because I hear a noise in the kitchen at night that sounds exactly like my ice maker, unless I rule out the ice maker first.
We do not blame man for climate changes unless we can first prove they are not natural. This is not Gator, this is logic.
I'm sorry the school system failed you so.
I'm not going to get pulled into a vortex any further - but I'm prepared to discuss the science on one paper that you nominate, as I stated above.
Or to be precise, the Pop Tech blog didn't want to publish my homework at the time, because it didn't fit with the spin they were running.
I made a simple, and reasonable request, after you made an allegation that you actually read papers that had no business on the list...
Quote:Pay close attention. Put up, or shut up.
None of the papers I looked at supported skepticism of man-made global warming.
You claim:
Quote:I can claim that I've known enough activists posing as scientists to find the idea of them allowing open discourse absurd.
Can you prove me wrong? Seeing as neither of us named any scientists all we have are two unsubstantiated claims.
Lets see some of the links where you've
Quote:
I'm not interested in the excuse:
Quote:Either validate yourself or go away, talk is cheap and in the realm of the web many people claim all sorts of things, most of which are not true. So far I see nothing to demonstrate that any of your comments are any different.
How much damage will Sandy cause? Government funding will go into repairing bridges, power lines, increasing the size of FEMA, all further increasing gov size and debt. Meanwhile millions of people not at work will impact on the economy, to the tune of billions per day. This will all impact government tax receipts, further driving our debt.
Please keep commenting, with reasoning like you attempted above you do more to show people how completely out of touch AGW believers are than we ever could.
The problem is there's never an example.
Of all the monotonous criticism's of the list I've read, not one, not a single one has ever produced a reference. I find that telling.
As you say yourself Chris "Evidence is what scientists explore and weigh...". It's not just scientists Chris, everyone journies through life with this philosophy. Yet you cannot provide a single piece that exemplifies your unshakable belief that the list is wrong. Neither of you do.
Chris, you advise me to trust the evidence but ask me to take your word.
Which is it?
Any can you please clarify what you mean by a reference? There's plenty of people that have taken apart Poptech's list to death if that's what you're after?
No one can replicate Mann's hockey stick either as he refuses to release his data and methods.
I've been watching this forum unfold for a while, and one thing I've noticed that's very striking on this forum:
How is it that those that accept AGW are happy to put forward their real names, be it Chris Watkins or Philip Makowski.
Meanwhile each and everyone of the denialists is listing under a pseudonym, be it Gator, red jeff, amirlach, or only putting forward their first name: Russ, Robert, Adam.
Why are the denialists hiding who they are? If you truly believe what you put forward, why not stand by your arguments and identify yourselves?
By the way, have you seen the death threats, career related issues, and other "retaliation" many of the climate realists have had to face from people like you? Then you wonder why we don't advertise our full names etc. Not real bright are you? We understand history and the type of people and their mindset that you support. You establish it yourself when you can't discuss us without using the D word. Does it make you feel better? Make you feel more important?
What do you want - a passport photo?
Quote:I haven't, but I've heard of threats to climate scientists.
Quote:It's a genuine problem - "skeptic" is a noble, intelligent, rational thing to be, with the likes of James Randi and Carl Sagan. Sorry, but I'm not going to call you a skeptic. "Denier" is just an accurate description, but it can be taken to have the connotation of someone denying an ideology, when it's more about clinging to an ideology.
What term would you prefer?
If you had had pushed through your letterbox what has been spewed through ours and the threats me and Mrs Joker have had along with threats to our dogs and cat, and the vandalism to the Jokermobile all because I wrote a few letters to the press here, you would understand.
The one thing about us climate realists is that we don't stoop to the methods that you guys employ.
And just for your information Jacob, We are coming up to Nov 5th (Bonfire and fireworks night) here in the UK, so we are closing the shutters on our windows and screwing our mailbox shut for a couple of days.
Hope you are proud of your piss poor movement.
As Robert mentions, why do you unreservedly believe Chris and Phil are their real names? That, like globull warming, is more a line of faith.
See when "Alarmists" debate "Skeptics" this happens. EIKE vs PIK. "Alarmists" cannot produce any evidence. Quote: notrickszone.com/2011/05/18/skeptics-and-alarmists-clash-at-climate-conference-german-scientists-call-pik-scientific-position-weak/
You really don't know what "source" means?
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially from anyone with an ax to grind - even your allies who tell you things you want to believe. That goes for everyone - if I read a quote that supported my own case I'd want to see a source for that too.
Thankfully there's an unsubscribe link, and I've pressed it. Enjoy your discussion.
Don't know how to Google? I'll give you a hand you helpless thing. I think you will find this link palatable...
www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/29/1114828/-Muller-finds-nothing-new-on-climate-engages-in-more-denial
Now find that paper, or quit whining.