Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Revie

So I take it neither of you 2 can answer the questions?
Either answer the questions or go away. I'm not going to respond to anyone who does not understand the basics of physics. I'm not going to respond to an attempted deflection.

 

So you think you are an expert on the climate and climate systems? No one is arguing that man is not contributing but the amount of that contribution is sure in doubt and the climate alarmists are close to making fools of themselves.

 

Another attempt at deflection? Or is your understanding of basic physics as bad as your reading comprehension.
<<posts ignored until you answer question>>

 

LOL, another one that thinks they know everything there is to know.

 

How much warming does the alleged 116 ppm of human emitted CO2 actually cause?

 

According to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. I'll let you do the math.

 

That is not true, in fact what you are saying is offensive. New polls show that more millennials are more right-winged on all of those topics. The old way of thinking built this country and kept it from collapsing time and time again. Reagan after the Carter Administration, GM President William Knudsen pre-WWII, Calvin Coolidge after the Wilson administration have kept this nation afloat with Conservative Ideas. Common sense is not primitive, it is the belief in freedom and self-reliance.

You say that we should be ignored. That's what the Democrats said about the Abolitionist, and the Civil rights Advocates. Your way of thinking has perverted freedom.

 

The air will always warm first because home heating systems heat the air, not the furniture or water in the bathtub. Any other damned fool questions?

 

The extra energy causes the atmosphere to warm, the ground to warm, the water to warm and the ice to melt. By focusing on the decreased warming of the atmosphere, the pseudos are exhibiting a classic case of cherry-picking data; they are ignoring the energy being retained by the water and soil and the energy causing the melting of the ice.

I believe the AGW hypothesis concerns atmospheric warming caused by man's burning of fossil fuels - you know, global warming. It is this global atmopspheric waming that is supposed to be causing all of the other phenomena - glacier melting, droughts, floods, mass extinctions, etc. If this is not so, then one wonders why all of the attention to Dr Mann's "Hockey Stick" and headlines of "hottest year since forever" as both address ONLY atmospheric temperatures. I'm guessing that is why skeptics are focusing on the atmosphere - until recently, so were AGW proponents.

Now if one side of the debate wishes to change the statement of the hypothesis, that becomes a new debate. Nevertheless, the ultimate issue will remain - is man's burning of fossil fuels causing the phenomenon? Another way of asking that question is "how can you tell the effects of man-caused events versus natural effects?"

 

That is the 64,000 dollar question. Right now the apparent hiatus may be more caused by natural variability which means that the current theory has some holes in it since it does not include this variability.

 

And you'd be wrong again, From Warming of the world ocean, 1955–
– 2003

and

Nothing " recent" about research into the distribution of extra energy.
And from the 2007 IPCC report

.

 

Emphasis added.....

global warming, the gradual increase of the temperature of the earth's lower atmosphere as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution
. Global warming and its effects are also referred to as climate change.

The temperature of the atmosphere near the earth's surface is warmed through a natural process called the greenhouse effect. Visible, shortwave light comes from the sun to the earth, passing unimpeded through a blanket of thermal, or greenhouse, gases composed largely of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Infrared radiation
reflects off the planet's surface toward space but does not easily pass through the thermal blanket. Some of it is trapped and reflected downward, keeping the planet at an average temperature suitable to life, about 60°F; (16°C.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropogenic+global+warming+theory

global warming
n. An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

global warming
n 1. (Physical Geography) an increase in the average temperature worldwide believed to be caused by the greenhouse effect
Collins English Dictionary &#8211; Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

glo&#8242;bal warm&#8242;ing
n. an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

global warming
An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Noun 1. global warming - an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere (especially a sustained increase that causes climatic changes)

global warming,
an ecologic model of world climate changes based on the greenhouse effect, exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestation, and conversion of cropland to industrial and other urban uses, all contributing to an increase in the earth's temperature. Major shifts in climate are not unusual in the history of the earth, which has undergone global warming in previous periods of geologic history.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

Global Warming
An increase of average global temperature&#8212;up to 1ºC&#8212;since the beginning of the 20th century
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

From Wiki...
The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4]

A hypothesis has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth&#8217;s average temperature.
http://climatephysics.com/weinstein-disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

One day people will actually read where the "97% of climate scientists support AGW" comes from and it will die its overdue death. The following did the same thing your PNAS did:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
By John Cook et. al.
Environmental Research Letters, 15 May 2013

Abstract
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. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus.​

Of all of the papers - not scientists, but papers - reviewed, a majority (67%) did not know the cause of global warming. Its only when the study is limited to those papers expressing a position on AGW that the 97% number shows up.

The second phase of the study in which the authors of the papers were surveyed about AGW, only 14% of the authors responded, and 96.4% of that group had written papers that claimed global warming was man-caused. Clearly in this follow-up study, only the AGW supporters responded and again the 97% (96.4%) shows up. This follow-up is nothing more than a unscientific voluntary survey.

All of the above is in the study.


The study does NOT show that 97% of climate scientists support AGW. It does show a majority of climate scientists have not signed on to AGW. The 97% claim is just another bit of propaganda (if not an outright lie) by the global warming church.

 

Oh! Dear! Dictionary definitions!! I am overcome with awe - NOT!!

I note that only the dictionary (not academic reference material) are referring to the atmosphere the others talk of AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. Though I will admit that the term "Global warming" is a generic phrase that can be applied to a variety of situations

 

Is it incompetence, misreading or miscomprehension?
The conclusions are at complete variance with the quoted statement

 

The incompetence comes from believing Cook, the cartoonist.

Here are some comments by those used by Cook to "cook" up his number.

Is this an accurate representation of your paper? 'Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." - Dr. Morner

'I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake'" - Dr. Soon

'No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.' - Dr. Carlin

 

You mean Cook the person with the undergraduate degree in physics and the post grad Major in SOLAR physics? The Winner of the Eureka Award? The Climate Change communications fellow for University of Queensland? Someone who ALSO maintains a website and is a talented cartoonist - since when is being versatile a bad thing?

Oh! And he has authored a book on climate science denial

Now Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat - have we ever found out what his qualifications are?

No links I note but of course who the !@#!@ cares what Willy "no I have not got thousands from Dark funding" Soon says anyway?

But where did that come from - well "Climate Depot" Marc Morano's site - the man who has a degree in science - POLITICAL SCIENCE

 

Before I address your links, are you posting the information because you "thought others might not have seen it and would be interested in its contents" or are you trying to make a point? Is this in response to my post?

 

John Cook, the cartoonist that maintains Skeptical Science. The Cook that is trained as a solar physicist and says he is motivated by his Christian beliefs. He is one of a number of Christians publicly arguing for scientific findings on anthropogenic global warming, and is an evangelical Christian.

I wonder why you are not the least bit interested in the false characterizations of the papers used for the 97%.

 

Surprisingly being Christian does not preclude someone from believing in Climate science - or were you trying to imply that being an evangelical Christian was somehow proof he is not qualified?

AS for the "characterisations" well you are right they are that - what they are NOT are critiques of the paper - merely criticisms from the "usual suspects"

 

Again, the false characterizations of papers used in the 97% should be a clue to you how it was put together but it seems not to make a dent in your belief that it is somehow correct. Instead you rely on the false premise that any correction is somehow an attack on your true belief.

 

If you had linked to a CRITIQUE (and remember I had to dig out where that stuff was from myself) I would read it but it is from Marc Morano's site - Marc of the infamous misinformation programs

 

LOL, time and again unless it comes from something like Skeptical Science, you will not address that many of the papers in that study were not pro AGW but were interpreted by people like Cook to be so. Instead your fall back position is that anything that is critical of your true belief is misinformation.

 

Once again - I will address a CRITIQUE but not a general gripe by idiots like Morner - he who does not believe that sea levels are rising

So what is a Critique?

http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/critique.jsp

 

Get up to date, AR5 has been released.