All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Friday, 6 September 2013

Climate scientists are wrong and here's why

In an excellent opinion piece in the PortlandTribune, Global Warming Realist Larry Logan explains, in a reply to Steve Holgate's piece

Even if climate scientists were wrong, good will come from their point of view

 why Climate Scientists are wrong. (link)
Indeed, “climate” scientists are wrong. The last 17 years shows no statistically significant trend in the global temperature. Here in the Pacific Northwest, NOAA records show our winter temperatures have cooled at a rate of 1.2 degrees F per decade during the last 20 winters. Of 75 climate models predicting a hotter future climate, not a single one has been correct to date. (emphasis added)
Sea level rise is slowing, with the rate from 2005 to 2012 below the range from 1954 to 2003. “Nature” reports that drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent and covers a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” (see Roger Pielke Jr) 
The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in more than a century. The U.S. count of strong to violent tornados (F3+) has decreased from 1954 to 2012. There is no increase in floods in the U.S in frequency or intensity since 1950. We’ve just finished the coldest summer on record at the North Pole and a record high August Antarctic ice extent. 
Larry is referring to previous comments by a Steve Holgate. Holgate referred to the "consensus" which is a political, not a scientific argument.

Remember when two Australian scientist went against the whole scientific community.......
Two Australian scientists were today awarded this year's Nobel prize for physiology and medicine for their "unexpected" discovery that has saved millions of people from the pain of stomach ulcers. 
Robin Warren, a pathologist from Perth, and Barry Marshall, a senior research fellow at the University of Western Australia, share the prize for their 1982 discovery of a bacterium, helicobacter pylori, which causes stomach inflammations and ulcers. 
Prior to this discovery, it was generally believed that stress and lifestyle were the chief causes of stomach infections. (link)
Larry continues:
In referencing the “unanimous judgment of climate scientists,” he unknowingly refers to the infamous Doran survey to which 3,146 scientists responded. Of those, the survey’s authors self-selected only 77 to be included in the final tabulation, with 75 agreeing to the proposition, as would be expected, that indeed there must be at least “some” contribution by mankind to temperature, regardless how trivial. Stunningly, this is the (flawed) survey that created the oft-repeated meme “97 percent of scientists agree.”
In Australia, although the Coalition are promising to reverse the carbon tax, but are retaining some idiotic "Green"policies including supporting renewable energy targets and carbon mitigation.

Re Renewable energy targets, Larry writes:
Well, in Spain, 2.2 private sector jobs are lost for every one created through government-subsidized “green” jobs. In Italy it’s 4.8. Ruinous wind power schemes have increased energy prices in the U.K. by 25 percent and in five years are now projected to be as high as monthly mortgage payments. (Steve defines this as “affordable.”) Elderly pensioners are choosing between heat and food. A wind farm built near your house in the U.K. reduces the selling price 30 percent — if you can sell at all. 
And carbon mitigation?
At the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus, eight of the world’s most distinguished economists, including five Nobel laureates, ranked climate mitigation — what Steve is proposing — the 30th and last place in a ranking of where to spend our resources. They pointed out that it is less expensive to fund adaptation efforts later, if needed, rather than robbing money from our children’s and grandchildren’s futures now. Further, the billions of dollars diverted every year to fund Kyoto and other schemes would be better used instead to actually eliminate the current, real challenges of disease, sanitation, malnutrition and hunger.  
Larry finishes his excellent piece with:
No, we don’t need scientists’ “points of view,” as even the most famous of the lot have been caught adjusting both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions and to keep the funding machine going. Global climate alarmism has been damaging to science and costly to society —- and potentially more so. 

21 comments:

  1. Please understand an issue before you make a political party about it. Of the around 14,000 peer reviewed climate articles, only 24 reject global warming. If you're trying to go against that, fine, of course you can. But come up with some evidence that's better than, 'consensus is political'.

    Climate change and global warming have been proved, there's nothing more bullshit than trying to counter that in article with no evidence and no references to the sources of any of your 'facts'. I love that in one of your links it literally says, and I quote... "To overturn the conventional wisdom expressed in the assessments requires overturning the arguments found in the literature on which the assessment is based. The same logic goes for people who would challenge other findings from such assessments, such as in making a claim that the globe is not warming." You should read the stuff you link. BTW it was this one - (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/drought-and-climate-change.html)

    I'd love to see a response, I really would, cause I think the Australian public deserves better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. around 14,000 peer reviewed climate articles, only 24 reject global warming

    I would like to see your substantiation for this! Perhaps you are inaccurately quoting the flawed Cook et al paper which has been comprehensibly dealt with all over the internet.

    Scientists all share data to allow others to test it. Richard Tol has been relentlessly polite in pursuing the data through email after email to John Cook, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Professor Max Lu and Professor Daniel Kammen, the journal editor. Tol simply wants the data so he can replicate and check John Cook’s results. Cook et al 2013 tried to demonstrate the irrelevant and unscientific point that there is a consensus among government funded climate scientists (if not among real scientists).

    Now the University of Queensland’s scientific standards are being openly questioned too. Will UQ insist on the bare minimum standard that applies to all scientists — will they make sure Cook provides the data for a published paper? (Back up Link

    Here is one analysis to that flawed paper: 0.3% consensus, not 97.1%

    I'd love to see a response, I really would, cause I think the Australian public deserves better than flawed science from a University "scientist."

    You say Climate change and global warming have been proved

    No-one here disputes Climate change as it has been changing since the beginning of time.

    No-one here disputes global warming as it has been warming with interruptions since the depth of the Little Ice Age. At present there has been no warming for at least 17 years, just ask IPCC Chief Engineer Rajendra Pachauri Pachauri admits no warming for 17 years

    more b#llsh%t See our rules - No bad language If you reply again, follow the rules or you comment will be deleted.

    Tell me, anonymous comment maker,
    i) why anonymous, have you no courage of your own convictions?
    ii) As the IPCC after more than 20 years admits it has nothing to show that man made CO2 emissions cause runaway warming, have you better knowledge that the IPCC?


    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll answer your questions then respond to the rest of your comment.

    i) Because I like that when I make a post anonymously it is judged on it's own merits rather than on mine. other than that i'm just used to it.

    ii) No, i do not have better knowledge. But I can read articles properly, and not take things out of context. First, CO2 is not the only part of warming, and it's by far not the most dangerous gas for it. It's just the easiest one to monitor. Second, you should learn to read your links properly, cause this is the second time that my refutation comes for YOUR source. Here's the whole paragraph that you so easily took out of context:
    "THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend."

    See where it says "would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend."... that's longer than 17 years.


    Now as asked, here is the source of my 14000 odd articles statement:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

    Nothing to do with Mr Cook, who by the way, (if what you say is true about his refusal to grant access to is data) Is not complying with one of the key reasons why science works. That being that all papers be open to peer review.

    I would also like to note that a refutaion of global warming requires that many other areas be wrong. In fact key parts of chemistry and physics would be totally incorrect. Parts of these sciences that if were wrong major parts of our lives, of our planet, and of our universe would be totally different to how they are. You're not talking about small discrepancies like in the case those brilliant biologists you referenced, you're talking Saturn rings are made of teapots.

    In fact, our being here alive, would not be the case if not for global warming, global warming involving the same gases that we talk about today.

    Now my questions for you:
    i) How many of all of the published, peer reviewed papers that you claim are wrong have you actually read?
    ii) How much of the science around this issue do you understand?
    iii) Have you talked to anyone in science that 'claims' global warming to be true?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "30 to 40 years at least"

      That might be the opinion of a railway engineer, but not according to many of the IPCC scientists who have previously stated that 20 years is sufficient: e.g.
      "They probably can't go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there's a big jump in temperature up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again," he says.

      Here's more distressing news for the alarmists - climate scientist say 17 years is a long enough test period:

      In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
      (Back Up Link) Oh dear!

      Now to answer your questions :

      i) How many of all of the published, peer reviewed papers that you claim are wrong have you actually read?
      MANY

      ii) How much of the science around this issue do you understand? almost all
      iii) Have you talked to anyone in science that 'claims' global warming to be true? (presuming that by global warming you mean the man-made global warming hoax) yes and actually convinced several after showing them data

      Why not view " A greenie converts to Global Warming realist" linked on this site. This is a scientist who previously believed the man-made global warming hoax.

      Delete
    2. Latest Data Sets:

      For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
      For RSS: +0.120 +/-0.129 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
      For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
      For UAH: 0.141 +/- 0.163 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
      For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
      For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
      For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
      For Hadcrut4: 0.092 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
      For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
      For GISS: 0.104 +/- 0.106 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
      For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
      For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.102 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

      Delete
    3. I love how you got all high and mighty quoting the UN's climate chief and now you call him a railway engineer. You do not have to be a scientist to have a valid and well founded opinion, science is not some clicky club that ignores everyone without some special piece of paper.

      AAAAAND once again your ability to take things out of context astounds me. Your first quote, which i had to look up cause you gave no source... That quote was explaining why there hasn't been a climb in temperature, ONCE AGAIN the complete opposite of what you're trying to use it for. He's talking about the oceans ability to absorb heat. Which explains every single piece of data you throw saying that there's been no significant warming in however long.
      Here's the link:
      http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change

      I really can't properly accept all those stats you've thrown because you haven't given any sources. So besides the explanation I've already given I really can't tell if any of those are A) accurate and/or B) taken out of context, which seems to be your trend.

      I'm beginning to seriously question your ability to properly research anything, because your next quote is out of context too.
      https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

      Look again, because the 17 year period they're talking about is:
      a) in regards to separating human caused warming from the global trend. (they're not at all saying that there is no warming trend)
      and b) Their 17 year thing finishes in 2018. It is not talking about in general, just in regards to their research.

      On top of that, the same website that published the article you linked also published this about a year after the one you referenced:
      https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Nov/NR-12-11-05.html

      Since you've read "MANY" of them anyway, and you understand "almost all" of the science around this, maybe you should read the original article...
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf+html

      You didn't at all address my point about the lack of representation of a warming denying view in the scientific literature. I think it's an important point, you claim to understand "almost all" the science around this issue, and yet the people that do understand all the science do not share your view. I would ask for at least why you think that is?

      Delete
    4. High and Mighty?

      Why? Substantiation, Please.

      I really can't properly accept all those stats you've thrown because you haven't given any sources.

      If you do your research, you will find that the data sets show them to be fact.

      You didn't at all address my point about the lack of representation of a warming denying view in the scientific literature.

      Warming denying view? Really? 0.3% of the papers quoted by Cook? Thousands of papers.....google it!

      the people that do understand all the science do not share your view

      WRONG! The Alarmist scientists KNOW that they are wrong! Wait until the AR5 comes out. They are back-pedalling, albeit gently. And, as they have done before, fairly UNscientifically. Also refer to the PETITION PROJECT.

      31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
      including 9,029 with PhDs
      LINK

      Tell me, Anon-E-mouse (hidden identity) do you have ANY proof that man-made emissions of Greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic warming?

      Can you point to even one peer-reviewed paper that proves the CAGW hypothesis?

      If an hypothesis has been shown to be false, what does "Science" say about that?



      Delete
    5. "If you do your research, you will find that the data sets show them to be fact"

      Read again what I said, especially the context part.

      "I really can't properly accept all those stats you've thrown because you haven't given any sources. So besides the explanation I've already given I really can't tell if any of those are A) accurate and/or B) taken out of context, which seems to be your trend."

      And no you didn't address my point about the lack of representation in the literature. I made my point and I gave my source, 14000 odd papers, 24 that deny. You've not discredited the source of my information so my point stands. Stop trying to straw man me by continuing to mention "Cook". The point is, that if there is real scientific grounding in your arguments then why is nobody publishing articles that refute warming?

      "WRONG! The Alarmist scientists KNOW that they are wrong!"

      I don't even... and your proof of that is the widely discredited "PETITION PROJECT", first thing I have to point out (before I link all the reasons why it's completely wrong) and this is my favourite part, it was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, climate change and surgery have so much in common right? So:

      Here's why that journal is kind of a joke:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

      Here's why that petition is a joke:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism
      http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

      “Tell me, Anon-E-mouse (hidden identity) do you have ANY proof that man-made emissions of Greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic warming?”

      You really are trying to straw man me here. Where did I say that?
      Maybe my position has not been 100% clear, so I’ll tell you my opinion now. In my opinion, from what evidence I’ve seen I’d say that global warming is a ‘thing’. The extent to which our emissions are assisting it is hard to pinpoint, because it’d be going on by itself anyway. But we are having an effect, and maybe natural warming is going to heat the globe to the point of mass extinctions anyway (nobody knows). But I’d rather not help it get there.

      As to evidence supporting my ACTUAL point of view, I already gave it… I linked this and if you look back you’ll see that I linked the paper itself too.
      https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Nov/NR-12-11-05.html

      But I notice you didn’t respond to the evidence I gave for my view…

      “Can you point to even one peer-reviewed paper that proves the CAGW hypothesis?”

      Their argument is not mine, there is no dichotomy here. Just because I think we’re having an effect on climate change does not mean that I have to back up anything that anyone else says just because we share that one view. Can you please focus on what I have actually said, stop straw manning.

      “If an hypothesis has been shown to be false, what does "Science" say about that?“

      It says that it’s false… I don’t know what you want here?

      You didn’t respond to the point I made about the ocean’s ability to soak up heat and hold it for decades before releasing it, because that is something that can explain any lack of warming within a few decades.

      Yours truly
      Anon-E-mouse

      Delete
    6. Sheeeesh! Quoting a paid smeer bliog for your supposed (almost) 14,000 papers.....

      Now as asked, here is the source of my 14000 odd articles statement:
      http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

      Nothing to do with Mr Cook, who by the way, (if what you say is true about his refusal to grant access to is data) Is not complying with one of the key reasons why science works. That being that all papers be open to peer review.


      From your smearblog link....

      Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

      You say: Here's why that petition is a joke:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism


      Great source BWAHAHAHAH!

      You didn’t respond to the point I made about the ocean’s ability to soak up heat and hold it for decades before releasing it,

      Now, at last you are starting to learn. Science has long know this to be true and the Vostok Ice Cores have shown that after temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before the oceans release the carbon dioxide The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists.

      You say: linked this and if you look back you’ll see that I linked the paper itself too.
      https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Nov/NR-12-11-05.html


      Looks like you don't know the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a press release. More study needed, Anon-E-mouse.



      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. I’d take 928 to 0 any day

      “This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming.”

      The fact is that consensus is really quite irrelevant, the facts are what matter and if every scientist went along with consensus science would be much poorer. That’s why it’s not the point I make, what I’m saying has to do with a lack of papers denouncing/disproving warming.

      I don’t remember when laughing became such an excellent method of refutation, the points it makes are valid and hold true to criticisms paralleled across the internet. As well as the fact that all the sources are stated on Wikipedia, and you obviously ignored the other article I posted, maybe there were too many big words, I’ll have to keep that in mind for next time.

      “Science has long know this to be true and the Vostok Ice Cores have shown that after temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before the oceans release the carbon dioxide The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists”

      I’m not talking about CO2 there, where did I say CO2? I’m talking about heat… and decades…
      You really must learn how to argue against points I’m actually making. This is from the article I posted earlier:
      http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change

      “The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record.”

      Maybe you should learn the structures of the English language, READ AGAIN:

      “You say: linked this and if you look back you’ll see that I linked the paper itself too.
      https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Nov/NR-12-11-05.html”

      Yes I did say that, and yes I did do that too,,,
      Here’s the “paper itself”
      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf+html”

      Here’s one of the biggest proofs I could give in support of CO2’s impact on the greenhouse effect. Look at Venus, it orbits the sun at about 108 million km, and we’re at about 150 million km. Its atmosphere is 96.5% CO2, and its surface temperature is on average 462C, our average is 15C. To put that into perspective, Mercury is on average 58 million km from the sun and has an average surface temp of 157C. Venus is almost twice the distance away and receives a quarter of the solar radiation that Mercury does… Seriously, do you need any more proof of the effects of CO2. How can you explain that?

      Delete
    9. SHeeeeesh! Here you go again, old mouse.

      You kept on pushing garbage from DeSmearBlog to push the point but say “Nothing to do with Mr Cook, who by the way.” But it was! Did DeSmearBlog have too many big words that you didn’t understand or had you only glanced at the top of this flawed analysis?

      “Stop trying to straw man me by continuing to mention "Cook".

      Your link quoted:
      Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

      OOOOoooPPPpps!!!

      So, having realised that you were wrong about Cook et al you then refer to Oreskes (Science 2005)

      Could it be this one:

      “Oreskes wrote an essay on science and society Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change in the journal Science in December 2004 (Let’s call it Oreskes 2004). Obviously although MS Oreskes has a B.Sc she does not recognize that “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.

      Take a look at the SPPI report which, in part said:
      "It is not clear whether Oreskes’ analysis was peer-reviewed, since it was presented as an essay and not as a scientific paper. However, there were numerous serious errors, effectively negating her conclusion, which suggest that the essay was either not reviewed at all or reviewed with undue indulgence by scientists who agreed with Oreskes’ declared prejudice – shared by the editors of Science - in favour of the alarmist position.

      And see in the SPPI report :

      What Oreskes got wrong:

      Dr. Peiser used “global climate change” as a search term and found 1,117 documents using this term, of which 929 were articles and only 905 also had abstracts. Therefore it is not clear which were the 928 “abstracts” mentioned by Oreskes, and Science did not, as it would have done with a peer-reviewed scientific paper, list the references to each of the “abstracts”.

      Significantly, Oreskes’ essay does not state how many of the 928 papers explicitly endorsed her very limited definition of “consensus”. Dr. Peiser found that only 13 of the 1,117 documents – a mere 1% – explicitly endorse the consensus, even in her limited definition.

      Learn to research better and just not recycle other people's crap!

      Delete
    10. It's interesting to see nothing in your comment that makes any mention of either the ocean, or of the shining example of the capabilities of a greenhouse effect that is the lead-melting surface temperature of Venus. I'd like to steer this back to the actual science.

      And as I said in my previous comments, it's not the consensus, but the lack of papers to the contrary. I completely agree with you, scientific consensus is an oxymoron. If every scientist went with consensus we'd get nowhere, science thrives on new ideas and the destruction of old assumptions.

      To be honest, I can't be bothered with all your immature bickering, I really see no point in taking part in it, not to say that I haven't. But I regret that and apologise for any insult given, I just find that it advances this discussion nowhere. So, I'd much rather just make my points and do so directly, if you can throw me some evidence to the contrary then fine, I have no problem admitting I'm wrong... If you can.

      So to be direct as I can...
      1) Venus

      2) Oceans

      3) This is a new point and not really arguing against anything you've said, this is more just to say that irrespective of CO2, we need to move away from coal as a source of electricity. Coal plants are easily one of the biggest producers and emitters of SO2 (the acid rain causing stuff). Long story short that's really bad for a lot of things. As well as the fact that coal plants are only about 30% efficient, and there are a lot more reasons why they're bad.

      So irrespective of the climate change arguments, coal really needs to be phased out, research into green energies, safer fission, and potentially fusion as energy sources needs to be done. And it is, but it's almost pointless if no governments care enough to actually implement any of it.

      Delete
    11. it's not the consensus, but the lack of papers to the contrary.

      Well, first of all there is the Alarmists’ suppression of peer-reviewed papers including –

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/the-tribalistic-corruption-of-peer-review-the-chris-de-freitas-incident/

      "This is outright malicious interference with the scientific process, and it’s damned ugly. I can’t imagine anyone involved in professional science who could stand idly by and not condemn this." Except of course the disgraceful ClimateGate emailers who carried out this unscientific suppression including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Salinger, Tom Wigley, Barrie Pittock, Mike Hulme + others. In addition Pachauri, the head of the IPCC is copied into many of the emails, meaning that he was fully aware that some of the key scientists in the IPCC were effectively out of control.

      Delete
    12. Then there are the 1100 plus peer-reviewed papers supporting Skeptic Arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.

      Before you post some glib remarks from one of the smear sites (Sks, DeSmearBlog) first read all 17 of the detailed rebuttals at the site below.

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      Thank God you have decided to give up your immature bickering

      If coal plants are (as you say) 30% efficient, how inefficient are the health-harming wind turbines, and the equally inefficient solar panels.

      If these forms of energy were efficient they wouldn't need subsidising. Remove the subsidies and see how long they continue.......

      Delete
    13. Well, anon-E-mouse, did I hit the raw nerve that you have been trying for since your first comment? Did you always want me to link to the 1100+ anti-AGW peer-reviewed papers and then stick up one of the SMEAR blogs inane rebuttals!

      Sorry, but if you can't make your own debating points, thanks for visiting and thanks for reminding me how flawed the Alarmist arguments are.

      Delete
    14. Yea, dem arguments be mega flawed, you’ve been so good at knocking back everything I’ve thrown at you that I might just send you a big shiny medal. The way you destroyed my arguments on the ocean and on Venus… WOW!!

      Oh, wait… you didn’t, you didn’t even mention them…. So please, in your next response, can you please tell me why these points of mine are worth so little of your time to address? Or was the character limit so low that you couldn’t condense your argument? There must be some massively inherent flaw in those arguments that I’ve missed, would you be kind enough to point it out to me?

      I seem to remember you sighting the IPCC as an authority when you questioned “have you better knowledge that the IPCC?”

      And I remember you mentioning the AR5…
      ”WRONG! The Alarmist scientists KNOW that they are wrong! Wait until the AR5 comes out. They are back-pedalling”

      Well Mr Brown, The AR5 has arrived on our collective doorstep and it might just be me and my dodgy left eye, but I seem to see no back-peddling. In fact I see scientists only gaining confidence in their facts… I will mention that the AR5 does site a rise in ocean temperatures (relevance to my oceans point)
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_09_13_ipccsummary.pdf

      I know that it’s probably that you’ll mention the NIPCC in response to that point so I’ve prepared a small rebuttal in advance… I’ll not post it yet as you’ve not brought it up, but may I just ask you to look at where The Heartland Institute gains much of its funds? Maybe I shouldn’t bother, you probably already know about that and have a pre-typed rebuke. I look forward to seeing it.

      Now I’ll get on to green energies…
      Coal averages 30-40% efficiency, it depends on what type of coal and some other things.

      Solar is at 44.7, and getting better fast.

      Wind converts 80% of the energy it collects.

      Hydro is at 90%.

      I think nuclear is around 80-90%, I’m not sure.

      I couldn’t find geothermal or tidal.

      My point here is that these technologies are growing fast, all we need to do is fund research and soon we’ll have many alternatives that are safer AND more economic than fossil fuels. There’s no down side here, all it needs is the funding.

      But more importantly…
      Oceans

      Venus

      AR5

      ……?

      Delete
  4. I don't know about you guys but I kinda like global warming. I don't care if it's man made or not. Give me summer days over winter days anytime. It seems you guys run around worrying way too much. Sit back, enjoy a pina colada and watch the tide come in. Beautiful isn't it? Yes, and someday, if it warms up a little more, we might just reach an optimal global world temperature. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    Chris McLaughlin
    Orange Park, Florida

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am a grubby engineer with a slightly better than average education. Your argument is hooey. Any of my people that came in with as little substantiation for a premise that would cost large chunks of money for an unprovable benefit would be tossed out the door, probably out to the street.
    Data taken from weather stations in the same location over the last century show the 30s were warmer than now. Archeological digs show the Vikings were farming the south coast of Greenland a millennium ago, something you still can't do today. Beowulf describes a king's palace where the throne room was a big hall, heated by a bonfire in the center and vented by a hole in the roof. In DENMARK????? Try that today, after all this so-called warming, and you will freeze to death well before January.

    So if there's clear evidence that the climate has been significantly different in recent human history, what possible evidence do you have that the current trend is any more of a problem than before? After all, a few millennia ago there was a chunk of ice over a mile thick sitting on top of Milwaukee, and our ancestors saw that and lived through it.

    Ever wondered where those sharp edges on the Matterhorn came from?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This video explains the "PETITION PROJECT" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As they say in that CROCK video - the point is to confuse, to fog the issue. This sci-fi effort wouldn't confuse anyone but the most gullible.

      Just to test one point - all names are listed - none of their quoted fake names are on the lists.

      Delete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!