|From Prof Ole Humlum's Climate4You Aug 2013|
|Last 12 years from above|
Bill: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?
Suzuki: ...yeah well don’t know how, er where er why you’re saying that. The 10 hottest years on record as I understand it have been in this century. In fact the warming continues, it may have slowed down but the warning continuous and every body is considering some sort of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong - as far as I understand – we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they're thinking.
Last three years temperature turning down
Bill: UAH; RSS, HadCruT, GISS- data that show a 17 year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory.
Suzuki: What is the reference - I don’t er…..
Bill:Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC uses…. Those Data sets show a 17 year flat trend which suggest there may be a problem with
Suzuki: There may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville Alabama who has taken the data and come to that conclusion.
From Watts Up with That:
refers to the supposed consensus. Much has been written of the fraudulent studies of
the consensus. Just last week a new opinion piece came out:
to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global
Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That’s the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.
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”.
Is Suzuki that ignorant, or does he turn a blind eye to the science that doesn't fit?
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.
See Also QandA from the viewpoint of Canada's Ezra Levant: