I need an Explanation of how CO2 Causes Climate Change

The 97% ‘consensus’

Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading; fails to mention they found more papers rejecting AGW than say humans are primarily responsible

More Woes: Warmist John Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Falsely Classifies 3 More Scientists – Dr. Morner, Soon, Carlin — Plus: Round up of analyses of Cook’s study

Cook’s Fallacy “97% consensus” Study is a Marketing Ploy Some Journalists Will Fall For

Now, try and rebut some of the issues brought up in these articles.

 

You brought him up so what makes you think I care about the views of this Watts person ?

 

Its misleading because the satellite record of such events is far too short to be making determinations about anything. We therefore have no idea if such Ice sheet fluctuations are natural or otherwise

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for that. You saved me the trouble

 

I forgot, you have a problem distinguishing between short-term and long-term trends.You do know that the Arctic seasonal minimum sea ice extent is still declining at 13.3% per decade, don't you?

 

I guess that recovery is still a decline in AGW world. I easily forget how upside down is right side up in your world.

 

Are you talking about the "recovery" in 2013 from the record low in 2012? Maybe you missed the news that it went down again in 2014.

 

What about Antarctica then ? It has been breaking all records for total sea ice coverage in recent years and that too is of no consequence due to the limitations of our satellite record duration. Where is the media coverage ?

 

You mean in the Summer when it always goes down? LOL

 

Two things, first the increased Antarctic sea ice only exists in the winter when it has minimal effect on climate, and second the increase is directly due to the melting land ice.

 

Which is why they compare it year-to-year and not month-to-month, in case you didn't notice. You probably also missed that seasonal maximums are decreasing as well.

 

Nonsense. Ice cores from both poles show that todays conditions are well within natural variability and rate of change over the last 10,000 years

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

 

Hmmm, so you think that recovery still means less ice.

 

You tell me. You're the one who suggested it was recovering when it is still declining.

 

Evidently you are not keeping up with current events and are also incapable of reading the Cryosphere Today graphs.

 

Evidently you can't tell the difference between sea ice extent and sea ice anomaly. Tell me, how would you extract any meaningful trends from daily anomalies?

 

So, the anomaly shows no death spiral but don't let that interrupt your fantasy.

 

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.“

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

 

We'll just have to wait and see what happens come March.

 

You mean except for the refutation by the scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere?

 

Did they refute Oreskes 2004, Doran 2009, and Anderegg 2010 as well?

 

LOL, Oreskes is another review of peer reviews publications like Cook. Doran is a simplistic two question survey as a master thesis and Anderegg is another review that deliberately selects scientists who have signed high-profile public documents about their views.

The science won't matter to you anyway since you rely on populist views and debatable and irrelevant reports about 'consensus' which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

 

I see denial is not just a river in Egypt

No critique - just "they cannot be any good"

 

I see AGW zealotry is still alive and well despite the real world failing to play ball with its scriptures for nearly two decades now.

Keep circling those alarmist wagons ever tighter because this eco scare has run its course and nobody is listening any more

 

In other words, valid criticism is not allowed in the AGW community.