Figure 3.1.1 shows that the anthropogenic forcing component was negligible before about 1900 and
has increased steadily since, rising to almost 3 W/m2 today. However, this is still only about 1 percent of
the unperturbed radiation flows, making it a challenge to isolate the effects of anthropogenic forcing; state-
of-the-art satellite estimates of global radiative energy flows are only accurate to a few W/m2.
I am still reading, but it is a different look at how our climate is changing.Widespread use of RCP8.5 as a no-policy baseline has created a bias towards alarm in the climate
impacts literature. The extent of this problem was confirmed in a literature analysis by Pielke Jr. and Ritchie
(2020). They found that some 16,800 scientific papers published between 2010 and 2020 used the RCP8.5
scenario, with about 4,500 of the articles linking RCP8.5 to the concept of “business-as-usual”. Their
analysis showed how RCP8.5 was misused not only by individual researchers, but also by influential
science agencies like the IPCC and the U.S. National Climate Assessment (USNCA), which has directly
led to misleading coverage in prominent media outlets.
On page x of this study the five members of the writing team are listed. They are:
John Christy,Ph.D. Judith Curry,Ph.D. Steven Koonin,Ph.D. Ross McKitrick,Ph.D. and Roy Spencer,Ph.D
John Raymond Christy for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, and for his rejection of mainstream climate science.
Judith A. Curry Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.
Steven Koonin, Ph.D.He later became known as a skeptic on climate change, publishing the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, which was widely condemned for promoting climate denial
Ross McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying the scientific consensus on climate change,
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Regarding climate change, Spencer is a "lukewarmer", with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five out five members of the writing team are climate change deniers to at least a moderate extent and some reject it 100%.
This is a heavily biased study.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who understands how to research.
So who do you propose should be on the red team?On page x of this study the five members of the writing team are listed. They are:
John Christy,Ph.D. Judith Curry,Ph.D. Steven Koonin,Ph.D. Ross McKitrick,Ph.D. and Roy Spencer,Ph.D
John Raymond Christy for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, and for his rejection of mainstream climate science.
Judith A. Curry Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.
Steven Koonin, Ph.D.He later became known as a skeptic on climate change, publishing the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, which was widely condemned for promoting climate denial
Ross McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying the scientific consensus on climate change,
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Regarding climate change, Spencer is a "lukewarmer", with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five out five members of the writing team are climate change deniers to at least a moderate extent and some reject it 100%.
This is a heavily biased study.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who understands how to research.
I refer you to my comment about being the only one who knows how to research. What good is a study written by five people who all have the same viewpoint about what they're studying?So who do you propose should be on the red team?
Science is not about everybody agreeing, it is about challenging hypothesis with observed data.
Thank you.It's simple folks. No use arguing with climate change deniers. None. If you want to argue with them you will get the same results as you get with the pro-gun crowd or the anti-abortion crowd.
But just for fun......... we already know that the consensus from the scientific community AROUND THE WORLD are sounding the alarm about climate change, so pretending it isn't all that serious is just................ pretending.
SO I looked at the source the OP is referencing................
United States Department of Energy
Seriously, referencing the Dept of Energy for non-biased and scientific based analysis of climate change? Is this even for real? I mean, talk about gullible.
I am constantly amused at how accurate the Doobie Brothers were when they wrote:
- Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating.
Failed Fact Checks
- While no prior fact checks flagged the DOE itself for misinformation, this July 2025 climate report has drawn direct and credible rebukes from numerous scientists whose work was cited. According to AFP, this is the third time in 2025 that the Trump administration has misrepresented scientific research in official reports. These repeated incidents raise serious questions about editorial integrity and scientific accuracy.
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
So please point out any errors in the report?It's simple folks. No use arguing with climate change deniers. None. If you want to argue with them you will get the same results as you get with the pro-gun crowd or the anti-abortion crowd.
But just for fun......... we already know that the consensus from the scientific community AROUND THE WORLD are sounding the alarm about climate change, so pretending it isn't all that serious is just................ pretending.
SO I looked at the source the OP is referencing................
United States Department of Energy
Seriously, referencing the Dept of Energy for non-biased and scientific based analysis of climate change? Is this even for real? I mean, talk about gullible.
I am constantly amused at how accurate the Doobie Brothers were when they wrote:
- Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating.
Failed Fact Checks
- While no prior fact checks flagged the DOE itself for misinformation, this July 2025 climate report has drawn direct and credible rebukes from numerous scientists whose work was cited. According to AFP, this is the third time in 2025 that the Trump administration has misrepresented scientific research in official reports. These repeated incidents raise serious questions about editorial integrity and scientific accuracy.
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/u-s-department-of-energy-bias-and-credibility/
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
Note that they did not say how much of the observed warming was from Human activity, or if the warming would be catastrophic.We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
The same could be said about the IPCC reports!I refer you to my comment about being the only one who knows how to research. What good is a study written by five people who all have the same viewpoint about what they're studying?
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm......................................Note that they did not say how much of the observed warming was from Human activity
1.rejection of mainstream climate science.The same could be said about the IPCC reports!
What viewpoint do you think the authors share?
OH LORD!!very good link. For those who don't want to dive head-first into a scientific rabbit hole, read pages viii and ix for a overview and summary of the report.
I am constantly amused at how accurate the Doobie Brothers were when they wrote:
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
Let's break down Cook's methodology a bit.97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm......................................
97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Not to mention you had to dive far down and way back to find SOMETHING you could point to................
Published 15 May 2013
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011
Meanwhile...............
July 7, 2025
What is the Current Consensus on Climate Change? — HOME
More to the point of this post, what is the current scientific consensus on climate change? I’m not going to depend on the version provided by Elbeyi, Jensen et al, as they seem rather biased. However, NASA has compiled over a dozen consensus statements, which are remarkably similar to each other. Hwww.exploringtheproblemspace.com
They selected 11,944 abstracts that contained the strings ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
1:Many of the authors studies have been cited in the IPCC reports, how is that a rejection.1.rejection of mainstream climate science.
2. climate change denial blogosphere.
3.was widely condemned for promoting climate denial
4..denying the scientific consensus on climate change,
5.with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
All five writers had their minds made up before the study. They were chosen for this reason. How did you miss that in my post?
1:Many of the authors studies have been cited in the IPCC reports, how is that a rejection.
Sources?2: None have denied that Human activity can change the climate!
3:Some of them were condemned for finding different results, that does not make their findings wrong!
4: They are part of the scientific consensus
5:Mainstream climate science cannot even agree on which simulation best represents the future, ECS or TCR,
and the difference between the two are vast.
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. ClimateSources?
Okay.A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Read the report, they do not say that Human caused climate change is not real!
John Christy
Christy was a lead author of a section of the 2001 report by the IPCC
There is nothing anti science in the report.This administration is anti-science. Enjoy reading their comics if you want.
If that were true, this thread wouldn't exist.There is nothing anti science in the report.
The thread exists because I found the report interesting, and posted it.If that were true, this thread wouldn't exist.
OMG, seriously? AGAIN referencing Dept of Energy?? Are YOU kidding?A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
Read the report, they do not say that Human caused climate change is not real!
John Christy
Christy was a lead author of a section of the 2001 report by the IPCC
Alabama’s State Climatologist John Christy is considered an outsider, if not a pariah, among most climate researchers. His critics say his work has been plagued by errors and many of his conclusions dismissed.
Christy reached his conclusions based on research he performed with another UAH professor, Roy Spencer, that used satellites to, in effect, measure the temperature of a portion of Earth’s atmosphere. In the early 1990s, when the research was first published, it seemed to show the planet was not warming like mainstream climate science said it was.
However, other researchers reviewed the results and found what they said were significant problems with its methodology, as well as the data it produced. In 1997 and 1998, shortly after Christy and Spencer published their findings, two different teams of researchers showed the orbit of satellites used to measure the temperature were inconsistent, thereby skewing results.
Other studies found similar issues, including one in 2004 that published evidence that Christy and Spencer’s measurements of what they believed to be the lower atmosphere were being contaminated by the cooler upper atmosphere. The team also found many of the same problems with inconsistent orbits in Christy’s and Spencer’s research.
In the eyes of mainstream climate science, Christy’s and Spencer’s work has not aged well.
“They’re arguments are s***,” said Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M professor and director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies, who is a frequent critic of the UAH team’s research.
According to Dessler, Christy’s and Spencer’s arguments have not swayed the scientific community. Dessler referred to a survey, touted by both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“Virtually 100% of the community agrees with the conclusions – the earth is warming. Humans are largely to blame for that,” Dessler said.
These days, Dessler said, Christy’s perspective on climate change seems less about science.
“It seems to be much more an argument that’s designed to generate soundbites that politicians can use,” Dessler said.
How do you think comments debunk something. The report stands on it's own merit.OMG, seriously? AGAIN referencing Dept of Energy?? Are YOU kidding?
I already debunked that site in my comments above and you are going back to them?
John Christy may be the country’s best known climate change skeptic
Alabama’s State Climatologist John Christy is no stranger to controversy and doesn’t shy away from the spotlight. His critics say his work has been plagued by errors and many of his conclusions…wbhm.org
FOR THE LAST TIME:
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
*Yawn*How do you think comments debunk something. The report stands on it's own merit.
The people who have criticized the report have not done so based on erroneous data.
Also the report acknowledges that Human activity can change the climate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?