Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ –

[Billy000]

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

Which brings us to the truth.

Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.

Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.

It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.

OK, I will stop pointing out that colleges get grants. Grants pay professors. If you and the GW fear mongering side will quit with the big oil is buying off the opposition, at least quit saying it without proof.

I'm sorry. Do you actually not understand how grants work?

I am sorry, do you think people will be fooled into thinking you do because you asked an asinine question?

How about you just explain how grants work if you actually think the researchers involved make a pretty penny off of them?

 

[Freewill]

Thank you, Freewill for posting this paragraph.


There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

Now while the volcanoes do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as water vapor, the amount is trivial compared to what we put into the atmosphere. What is not trivial is the amount of aerosols they put up. The sulpher compounds reflect light, to the extent that they significantly cool the atmosphere for a few years. Case in point, Tambora in 1816, the year without a summer.

You are welcome, you asked for where in the article it said that eruptions effected GW, there you have it. He actually says it does but the effect is minimal. That is a judgement call, never the less the author does say it effects GW.

Lol so your original point was that humans do not cause climate change and volcanos do, and now that you have the quote saying the effect from volcanos is very minimal in comparison to humans, your point is...what?

You see how you it's so obvious you just pick and choose the information you want to hear?

I did not say what you quote. As usual you know so much that isn't so.

 

[Freewill]

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

Which brings us to the truth.

Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.

Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.

It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.

OK, I will stop pointing out that colleges get grants. Grants pay professors. If you and the GW fear mongering side will quit with the big oil is buying off the opposition, at least quit saying it without proof.

I'm sorry. Do you actually not understand how grants work?

I am sorry, do you think people will be fooled into thinking you do because you asked an asinine question?

How about you just explain how grants work if you actually think the researchers involved make a pretty penny off of them?

Sorry another question doesn't make you appear any smarter.

 

[Billy000]

Thank you, Freewill for posting this paragraph.


There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

Now while the volcanoes do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as water vapor, the amount is trivial compared to what we put into the atmosphere. What is not trivial is the amount of aerosols they put up. The sulpher compounds reflect light, to the extent that they significantly cool the atmosphere for a few years. Case in point, Tambora in 1816, the year without a summer.

You are welcome, you asked for where in the article it said that eruptions effected GW, there you have it. He actually says it does but the effect is minimal. That is a judgement call, never the less the author does say it effects GW.

Lol so your original point was that humans do not cause climate change and volcanos do, and now that you have the quote saying the effect from volcanos is very minimal in comparison to humans, your point is...what?

You see how you it's so obvious you just pick and choose the information you want to hear?

I did not say what you quote. As usual you know so much that isn't so.

While you're here, I wanted to address the article you cited about the peer-review process. As fhe article points out, the peer review process has flaws, but as far as objectivity is concerned, it is the best process scientists have. It is certainly better than you cherry picking scientists in unrelated fields quoting their opposition to AGW without presenting any evidence whatsoever.

 

[skookerasbil]

nOnSeNsE

 

[skookerasbil]

Thank you, Freewill for posting this paragraph.


There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

Now while the volcanoes do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as water vapor, the amount is trivial compared to what we put into the atmosphere. What is not trivial is the amount of aerosols they put up. The sulpher compounds reflect light, to the extent that they significantly cool the atmosphere for a few years. Case in point, Tambora in 1816, the year without a summer.

You are welcome, you asked for where in the article it said that eruptions effected GW, there you have it. He actually says it does but the effect is minimal. That is a judgement call, never the less the author does say it effects GW.

Lol so your original point was that humans do not cause climate change and volcanos do, and now that you have the quote saying the effect from volcanos is very minimal in comparison to humans, your point is...what?

You see how you it's so obvious you just pick and choose the information you want to hear?

I did not say what you quote. As usual you know so much that isn't so.

While you're here, I wanted to address the article you cited about the peer-review process. As fhe article points out, the peer review process has flaws, but as far as objectivity is concerned, it is the best process scientists have. It is certainly better than you cherry picking scientists in unrelated fields quoting their opposition to AGW without presenting any evidence whatsoever.

s0n......like for most progressives, "costs" don't matter. "Certainly better" only works for progressive oddballs......and the whole rest of the public has figured that out. Climate science doesn't matter for dick unless it is mattering in the real world which it is not. And PS s0n.....forget cherry picking.......the climate change industry has been rigging the data for years............NOAA...........NASA...........

On the internet, the debate is robust.......but nowhere else.

 

[jc456]

I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U

1. 
   Richard Lindzen
   Physicist
   Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
   Education: Harvard University
   Fields: Atmospheric physics
   Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
   Books: Climate Change: The Facts

1. 
   William Happer
   Physicist
   William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
   
   Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
   Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
   Fields: Atomic physics
   Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics

1. 
   Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
   
   Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
   Organizations founded: Greenpeace
   Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
   Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

so dude, answer me this, why is no scientist not funded by government money agreeing with your peer papers? Unless of course you have one not funded that agrees with you. Post that name please. And a follow up, why is no scientist funded by government money saying there is no AGW? Funny isn't it. Seems that the conclusions follow the money and not science. Now, please feel free to post up the testing on 20 PPM of CO2 that shows the danger of it.

 

[Freewill]

Thank you, Freewill for posting this paragraph.


There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

Now while the volcanoes do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as water vapor, the amount is trivial compared to what we put into the atmosphere. What is not trivial is the amount of aerosols they put up. The sulpher compounds reflect light, to the extent that they significantly cool the atmosphere for a few years. Case in point, Tambora in 1816, the year without a summer.

You are welcome, you asked for where in the article it said that eruptions effected GW, there you have it. He actually says it does but the effect is minimal. That is a judgement call, never the less the author does say it effects GW.

Lol so your original point was that humans do not cause climate change and volcanos do, and now that you have the quote saying the effect from volcanos is very minimal in comparison to humans, your point is...what?

You see how you it's so obvious you just pick and choose the information you want to hear?

I did not say what you quote. As usual you know so much that isn't so.

While you're here, I wanted to address the article you cited about the peer-review process. As fhe article points out, the peer review process has flaws, but as far as objectivity is concerned, it is the best process scientists have. It is certainly better than you cherry picking scientists in unrelated fields quoting their opposition to AGW without presenting any evidence whatsoever.

Best there is, isn't like saying it is better to be told you have a cold instead of pneumonia? The whole point of the article is to stop the over use of peer check rhetoric as if it is some sort of Holy Grail. As if it is an end all to all.

Certainly people pick folks that think as they do. Implying that only one side does so is another false liberal argument.

BTW, you last sentence is exactly why I posted this in the very first OP. An MIT climatologist has nothing to do with the field? Really?


MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

 

[Freewill]

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

Which brings us to the truth.

Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.

Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.

It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.

OK, I will stop pointing out that colleges get grants. Grants pay professors. If you and the GW fear mongering side will quit with the big oil is buying off the opposition, at least quit saying it without proof.

I'm sorry. Do you actually not understand how grants work?

I am sorry, do you think people will be fooled into thinking you do because you asked an asinine question?

How about you just explain how grants work if you actually think the researchers involved make a pretty penny off of them?

Here is an article on the very subject, and a snippet from the link:

Research Grant Funding - Problems With Funding in Science

The Influence of Funding On Research
Let's start by saying money does matter. It matters in every sector including science. Even if the researcher has a pure love of the scientific method, given the right circumstances, such as pride or the right amount of money, there may be some consideration given to skewing the data or holding back on publishing results for a little longer than they should.

There are quite a few ethical concerns with privately funded research where a profit is at risk. We will use a pharmaceutical company as an example. There are rigorous requirements in the United States regarding pharmaceutical trials; the process can take up to ten years.

There is a lot of money invested in research and development of drug companies it is the back bone of their structure. This need to produce positive results can make or break a drug company. The pressure is tremendous to produce the results that are hypothesized will be produced.

Again money matters, the public at large and the medical community depend heavily upon the pharmaceutical industries to provide direction for drug use. They gain much of this information from published reports concerning research.

It is difficult for the researcher to remain impartial when there is pressure that is directly tied to income to produce a positive correlation between a drug and a disease. The researcher is bound to feel a certain amount of intimidation especially if there has been a long ongoing professional relationship between him and the pharmaceutical company.

If there is a long ongoing relationship between the scientist and the pharmaceutical company this may invoke feelings of loyalty from the scientist toward the pharmaceutical company. The scientist may be an employee of the pharmaceutical company and the grants maybe awarded within the company for merit and dedication to the company.

Unfavorable findings may be perceived to be a certain death sentence to receive any further financial support for research. This scenario not only would compromise the scientific method but could also potentially result in drugs hitting the market that either lack effectiveness or are potentially dangerous to the public.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Denial For Hire:Richard Lindzen Cites Debunked Science to...
De Smog Blog (blog)-Mar 6, 2015
Richard Lindzen, an MITprofessorand longtime climate contrarian, turned to the Wall Street Journal to rehash a series of oft-disproved claims ..

 

[Billy000]

Thank you, Freewill for posting this paragraph.


There are many reasons that large volcanic eruptions have such far-reaching effects on global climate. First, volcanic eruptions produce major quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Such greenhouse gases trap heat radiated off of the surface of the earth forming a type of insulation around the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for our survival because it maintains the temperature of our planet within a habitable range. Nevertheless, there is growing concern that our production of gases such as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels may be pushing the system a little too far, resulting in excessive warming on a global scale. There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

Now while the volcanoes do contribute CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as water vapor, the amount is trivial compared to what we put into the atmosphere. What is not trivial is the amount of aerosols they put up. The sulpher compounds reflect light, to the extent that they significantly cool the atmosphere for a few years. Case in point, Tambora in 1816, the year without a summer.

You are welcome, you asked for where in the article it said that eruptions effected GW, there you have it. He actually says it does but the effect is minimal. That is a judgement call, never the less the author does say it effects GW.

Lol so your original point was that humans do not cause climate change and volcanos do, and now that you have the quote saying the effect from volcanos is very minimal in comparison to humans, your point is...what?

You see how you it's so obvious you just pick and choose the information you want to hear?

I did not say what you quote. As usual you know so much that isn't so.

While you're here, I wanted to address the article you cited about the peer-review process. As fhe article points out, the peer review process has flaws, but as far as objectivity is concerned, it is the best process scientists have. It is certainly better than you cherry picking scientists in unrelated fields quoting their opposition to AGW without presenting any evidence whatsoever.

Best there is, isn't like saying it is better to be told you have a cold instead of pneumonia? The whole point of the article is to stop the over use of peer check rhetoric as if it is some sort of Holy Grail. As if it is an end all to all.

Certainly people pick folks that think as they do. Implying that only one side does so is another false liberal argument.

BTW, you last sentence is exactly why I posted this in the very first OP. An MIT climatologist has nothing to do with the field? Really?


MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

Lol yes quotes without context are so compelling. Never mind that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies support the AGW phenomenon.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation
Source: Washington Post

Federal Eye

Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation

By Lisa Rein November 23 at 7:00 AM
@Reinlwapo

The escalating struggle between an influential House Republican and government scientists over their pivotal study of global warming now turns on accusations that they rushed to publish their findings to advance President Obama’s agenda on climate change.

But a spokeswoman for Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal that in June published the paper by climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an interview that their research was subject to a longer, more intensive review than is customary.

“This paper went through as rigorous a review as it could have received,” said Ginger Pinholster, chief of communications for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science. “Any suggestion that the review was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.”

{Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report}
....

The study is widely considered to be a bombshell in the climate change world because it contradicted the notion of a “pause” in global warming and thus undercut the arguments of global warming skeptics. Among them is Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. NOAA’s data sets are used by climate scientists to take temperature measurements worldwide.

Read more: Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation

 

[jc456]

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.

But is it catastrophic?

What do YOU mean by "catastrophic"? You won't find climate scientists using the term. You will find AGW deniers using it as they claim "alarmist" climatologists have been predicting catastrophic change. They've even made up the acronym CAGW. It allows them to deny AGW but maintain plausible deniability when smacked up the side of the head with the facts - that they were only denying the catastrophic nature of the coming change.

Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years.

As Billy000 told you, NO ONE is quoting Al Gore in these discussions any more. Not for several years now. Doing so makes you look pretty foolish.

Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple.

It's extremely simple. The process whereby increasing heat increases atmospheric CO2 levels is simpler than the process whereby increase CO2 increases temperatures. However, they're both true. Which makes more bubbles: opening a cold bottle of coke or a hot bottle of coke? The solubility of gas in liquids, opposite that of solids in liquids, INCREASES as the temperature of the liquid goes DOWN. When we warm up the world, it's liquids gas solubility goes down and some of the atmospheric gases dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams is released to the atmosphere.

Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

I'm not sure why you think simple-mindedness is a virtue.

Which brings us to the truth.
Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence clearly indicates they are wrong.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

Why do deniers so effortlessly cast away the idea that the fossil fuel industries, who have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal and whose very existence is threatened by efforts to stop global warming, might spend some tiny fraction of those funds on discrediting AGW and ending efforts to stop it.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

The phrase you're looking for is "a boon to mankind"

BOON noun
1.
something to be thankful for; blessing; benefit.
2.
something that is asked; a favor sought.

And it's not. It will be a disaster of enormous proportions. Sea level rises will flood the coasts, hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to... where? Water supplies will disappear with the disappearing glaciers and shrinking snowpack. Crops will fail from rising temperatures, altered seasonal timing and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

Wrong. The effects of even the largest eruptions in the last millenia didn't last more than 3-5 years. CO2 levels in our atmosphere will last for well over a century.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

Wrong again. And, of course, there's no reason we can't do both. Alternate energy systems, hydrogen infrastructure, fuel cell technology, home solar and battery systems. Plenty of new tech to create a few jobs. And, perhaps you haven't checked the numbers, but unemployment isn't particularly bad right now.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Did it ever occur to you that some of those catastrophes were averted BECAUSE science warned us where we were headed? What has happened to our terribly polluted waters? Acid rain? Food production? Medicine? Computers?


AGW is real and it is a real threat.

What your response tells us is that you haven't the faintest idea how the peer review process in refereed scientific journals works. Your comments are ignorant nonsense.
peer review. Did you just write peer review again? holy crap s0n, how many times have we told you who the peer groups are? name one peer group that isn't paid by government money. One!!!!

 

[jc456]

Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation
Source: Washington Post

Federal Eye

Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation

By Lisa Rein November 23 at 7:00 AM
@Reinlwapo

The escalating struggle between an influential House Republican and government scientists over their pivotal study of global warming now turns on accusations that they rushed to publish their findings to advance President Obama’s agenda on climate change.

But a spokeswoman for Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal that in June published the paper by climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an interview that their research was subject to a longer, more intensive review than is customary.

“This paper went through as rigorous a review as it could have received,” said Ginger Pinholster, chief of communications for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science. “Any suggestion that the review was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.”

{Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report}
....

The study is widely considered to be a bombshell in the climate change world because it contradicted the notion of a “pause” in global warming and thus undercut the arguments of global warming skeptics. Among them is Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. NOAA’s data sets are used by climate scientists to take temperature measurements worldwide.

Read more: Top lawmaker rebutted on climate study accusation