- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Well then you had better get working on not being such a CAGW cheer leader because the peer review literature has been diverging from your point of view for a while now. You are still defending the state of the science that is 20 years.
The non-warming trend as crossed a milestone that the CAGW theory argued could never be crossed without CO2 reduction: 17 years without statistically significant warming, well below the model projections. This reality is forcing people like James Annan to rethink the 3C sensitivity that has been assumed by CAGW until this time.
Well then you had better get working on not being such a CAGW cheer leader because the peer review literature has been diverging from your point of view for a while now. You are still defending the state of the science that is 20 years.
The non-warming trend as crossed a milestone that the CAGW theory argued could never be crossed without CO2 reduction: 17 years without statistically significant warming, well below the model projections. This reality is forcing people like James Annan to rethink the 3C sensitivity that has been assumed by CAGW until this time.
New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real
Read more @ New Report: Global Temperature Standstill Is Real | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Some Globull Warming believers are gonna instantly rebuff this.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-yearsThe year 2012 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As shown in the graph at right, 2012 was substantially warmer—a full degree Fahrenheit (0.6°C)—than any other year since national records began in 1895. The U.S. warming rate of about 1.3°F (0.72°C) per century (red line in the graph at bottom right) is roughly comparable to the global rate of warming (see above).
Although the U.S. racked up several cooler years from 2008 to 2010, the decade as a whole (2000–2009) was the nation's warmest on record, with an average temperature of 54.0°F. In contrast, the 1990s averaged 53.6°F, and the 1930s averaged 53.4°F
Global and European temperature (CSI 012/CLIM 001) - Assessment published Jun 2010 — European Environment Agency (EEA)Europe has warmed more than the global average. The annual average temperature for the European land area up to 2009 was 1.3 0C above 1850 - 1899 average temperature, and for the combined land and ocean area 1 0C above. Considering the land area, nine out of the last 12 years were among the warmest years since 1850.
2000 to 2009 was Australia’s warmest decade on record
While 2012 was the ninth-warmest year on record, all 10 of the warmest years in the GISS analysis have occurred since 1998, continuing a trend of temperatures well above the mid-20th century average.
What a bunch of malarky!
And you are doing what true believers do best in refusing to read what my challenge your world view. Both the Dot Earth (Andrew Revkin's CAGW NYT Blog) statement and the "A Sensative Matter" blog post are by Annan himself. So if you want Annan's opinion how about you read what I posted? Another expert:
"But the point stands, that the IPCC's sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it."
But feel free to read the whole thing.
I think you should go and read what Annan has to say rather than relying on statements that can be taken out of context. He is critical of doom and gloomers, and he critiques the way models are used, but he is not a denialist.
What a bunch of malarky!
So you have no argument or just no ability to make a point?
Scientific consensus already made my point.jmotivator said:So you have no argument or just no ability to make a point?
soooo ... why don't they all resign their membership then?
Regardless of what the author says, most organisations (eg the AAAS) have a statement on climate change.
never mind .... Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the conservative ideology suggests that life is full of tough choices.
adversity helps you to find new solutions.
why doesn't the same apply in this case?
the reason you have developed the dependence is due to subsidies in the first place.
effectively, welfare to fossil fuel companies.
a carbon tax would basically just be more realistic pricing - at least initially ... and this might help wean the society off its FF addiction
So, the latter, then.
You've offered only your unsubstantiated opinion vs world wide scientific consensus since 2007.
No, I offered the opinion of James Annan, and evidence that your "consensus" isn't what you think it is. There is a reason why your side has stopped arguing pure head count consensus and started going the political route... they don't have the headcount in their favor anymore, especially in the Earth sciences.
But you living a lie really doesn't impact. I've given you the information you need, do with it what you choose.
You've offered only your unsubstantiated opinion vs world wide scientific consensus since 2007.
Since when was science demonstrated by 'consensus'? Do they take a vote on what the truth might be?
Here's some history. The History of the Global Warming Scare
And of course the IPCC has recently admitted that it's all about wealth redistribution, and the trillions of dollars that will be exchanging hands throughout the world.
What could be a better opportunity for scamsters than 'saving the planet', and making billions ion the process?
It is remarkable in its size, scope and ambition but it is still a scam.
I show you the majority of peer reviewed science supporting AGW, and you show a political blog opinion.
Thanks for making such a great case for the science deniers!
I show you the majority of peer reviewed science supporting AGW, and you show a political blog opinion.
Thanks for making such a great case for the science deniers!
That particular "blog" is data driven with excellent references to the data. Their home page starts with a definition of the scientific method. And you have a problem with that?
Detail for us the vaulted peer review process and explain how it isn't just the board of a small number of key publications who decide what is or is not published.
You obviously didn't read it as a Time Magazine article was included and an interview with a rep from the IPPC.
It seems that part of being a warmist has to includes avoiding opinions which don't fall within their preferred belief system.
I'll go with the overwhelming peer-reviewed science, but thanks just the same!
It seems you also haven't investigated this 'peer reviewed' science. Your lack of curiosity is astounding.
For those that doubt the scientific AGW consensus:
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
*sigh* The questions and the sampling are everything. As I said before, according to the wording of the Lichter survey I would be answering in the affirmative, but since that survey doesn't ask about the degree to which human action is warming the planet, it just happens to catch almost everyone under a pointless affirmative response.
And what difference does the number of publications have to do with anything? More meaningless drivel. At the time that Galileo announced his model of heliocentrism the bulk of the published data was in contradiction... did that make him wrong? No. You play the part of the Church in this scenario. Congratulations.
There were decades of publications on the subject of phrenology... did that make it right? No. You are a phrenologist.
This absurd way the CAGW crowd has begun to keep score is really pretty sad. They have people like you convinced that publication volume is somehow a scientific measure of quality and to fear reprisal should you be swayed by the contrary evidence. Don't be afraid to think critically and to read the studies you think you don't agree with and watch the lectures that you don't want to believe.
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?