New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating’

[Billy_Bob]

So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.

Out comes the John Cook Et Al lie, that was placed in peer reviewed paper, that was found to be a total fabrication, yet passed PAL REVIEW..

Liberals and their math... Go figure..

Tha stat is bullshit and it's easy to explain why. The stat your graph gives is simply stating most of those studies did not say the words of man causing climate change. If you understood how science works, you would get this. What Those studies say is that the level of CO2 and other elements is what is changing our climate. Where is all that CO2 coming from? Man made activities. See climate scientists aren't in the profession to say anything sociological, political, or economically related. They just point to facts. They are simply stating the massive levels of CO2 generated are what is causing climate chance. It's man who has generated all that CO2. It doesn't take a scientist to make the connection.

Misstating the statements of other scientists is LYING! FABRICATING!
MISLEADING! But your ok with this kind of behavior by John Cook?

You should stop reading Skeptical Science-John Cooks blogg and pull your head out of wherever it is implanted. use your dam brain. Try and find one live brain cell to use for critical thinking skills.

 

[Billy000]

So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.

Out comes the John Cook Et Al lie, that was placed in peer reviewed paper, that was found to be a total fabrication, yet passed PAL REVIEW..

Liberals and their math... Go figure..

Tha stat is bullshit and it's easy to explain why. The stat your graph gives is simply stating most of those studies did not say the words of man causing climate change. If you understood how science works, you would get this. What Those studies say is that the level of CO2 and other elements is what is changing our climate. Where is all that CO2 coming from? Man made activities. See climate scientists aren't in the profession to say anything sociological, political, or economically related. They just point to facts. They are simply stating the massive levels of CO2 generated are what is causing climate chance. It's man who has generated all that CO2. It doesn't take a scientist to make the connection.

Misstating the statements of other scientists is LYING! FABRICATING!
MISLEADING! But your ok with this kind of behavior by John Cook?

You should stop reading Skeptical Science-John Cooks blogg and pull your head out of wherever it is implanted. use your dam brain.

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

No they have not.

You do not have a study which shows exactly what CO2 has done, its specific effects, nothing. Just today I posted again the empirical evidence which show your little fantasy a lie. Here

Even the IPCC says they have grossly overestimated mans impact and use the term "Best Guess" in AR5.. Empirically the CO2 forcing is ZERO. There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which must exist if CO2 and water vapor were coupled. The models and theroy fail empirical review and forecasting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As a big government progressive you will do as the government says, say what they tell you, and be a good little servant so that they will continue to feed and cloth you... You will toe the liberal agenda line and spout the lies they tell you plainly without even one cognitive thought or critical thinking skill used.

You might want to be a slave but the rest of us do not.

 

[Billy000]

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

No they have not.

You do not have a study which shows exactly what CO2 has done, its specific effects, nothing. Just today I posted again the empirical evidence which show your little fantasy a lie. Here

Even the IPCC says they have grossly overestimated mans impact and use the term "Best Guess" in AR5.. Empirically the CO2 forcing is ZERO. There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which must exist if CO2 and water vapor were coupled. The models and theroy fail empirical review and forecasting.

Lol so on the one hand you dismiss the vast majority of peer reviewed studies that say the acceleration of CO2 has changed out climate but on the other you cherry pick a single study that disputes them. One that isn't even peer reviewed I might add. Empirically the CO2 force is zero? What the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[Billy000]

As a big government progressive you will do as the government says, say what they tell you, and be a good little servant so that they will continue to feed and cloth you... You will toe the liberal agenda line and spout the lies they tell you plainly without even one cognitive thought or critical thinking skill used.

You might want to be a slave but the rest of us do not.

That's what makes you so fucking stupid. I am not listening to Obama or any government. I am listening to actual experts in the field.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

No they have not.

You do not have a study which shows exactly what CO2 has done, its specific effects, nothing. Just today I posted again the empirical evidence which show your little fantasy a lie. Here

Even the IPCC says they have grossly overestimated mans impact and use the term "Best Guess" in AR5.. Empirically the CO2 forcing is ZERO. There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which must exist if CO2 and water vapor were coupled. The models and theroy fail empirical review and forecasting.

Lol so on the one hand you dismiss the vast majority of peer reviewed studies that say the acceleration of CO2 has changed out climate but on the other you cherry pick a single study that disputes them. One that isn't even peer reviewed I might add. Empirically the CO2 force is zero? What the fuck are you even talking about?

One, You Again use the appeal to authority when that authority has been manufactured.

Two, Mid Tropospheric levels (10 feet off the ground to about 30,000 feet) are the focal point of CO2 water vapor coupling, if it did infact exist. There is no Mid-Tropospheric hot spot nor is there any coupling of water vapor to CO2 by simple empirical observations. The models are simply wrong!

Three, The forcing is the IPCC's way of saying, increased temp from CO2 increase caused an increase in water vapor, which holds heat in the mid troposphere, resulting in the mid-tropospheric hot spot and positive feedback loop. This does not exist by empirical observation. Even the LOG derived temp rise is 1/8thed the empirical rise seen. When natural variation is considered, CO2 has no attributable warming to claim.

You have used every single alarmist excuse in just a few posts and each one has been shown failure by simple empirical observation. Science is observation. Models are not empirical evidence of anything because they are not real and can not predict earths climatic changes with ANY accuracy.

 

[Billy000]

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

No they have not.

You do not have a study which shows exactly what CO2 has done, its specific effects, nothing. Just today I posted again the empirical evidence which show your little fantasy a lie. Here

Even the IPCC says they have grossly overestimated mans impact and use the term "Best Guess" in AR5.. Empirically the CO2 forcing is ZERO. There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which must exist if CO2 and water vapor were coupled. The models and theroy fail empirical review and forecasting.

Lol so on the one hand you dismiss the vast majority of peer reviewed studies that say the acceleration of CO2 has changed out climate but on the other you cherry pick a single study that disputes them. One that isn't even peer reviewed I might add. Empirically the CO2 force is zero? What the fuck are you even talking about?

One, You Again use the appeal to authority when that authority has been manufactured.

Two, Mid Tropospheric levels (10 feet off the ground to about 30,000 feet) are the focal point of CO2 water vapor coupling, if it did infact exist. There is no Mid-Tropospheric hot spot nor is there any coupling of water vapor to CO2 by simple empirical observations. The models are simply wrong!

Three, The forcing is the IPCC's way of saying, increased temp from CO2 increase caused an increase in water vapor, which holds heat in the mid troposphere, resulting in the mid-tropospheric hot spot and positive feedback loop. This does not exist by empirical observation. Even the LOG derived temp rise is 1/8thed the empirical rise seen.

You have used every single alarmist excuse in just a few posts and each one has been shown failure by simple empirical observation. Science is observation. Models are not empirical evidence of anything because they are not real and can not predict earths climatic changes with ANY accuracy.

All you are doing is regurgitating what the study says. It's not like you actually understand it. You are also harping on ONE study. A study that isn't peer reviewed. That makes it useless.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As a big government progressive you will do as the government says, say what they tell you, and be a good little servant so that they will continue to feed and cloth you... You will toe the liberal agenda line and spout the lies they tell you plainly without even one cognitive thought or critical thinking skill used.

You might want to be a slave but the rest of us do not.

That's what makes you so fucking stupid. I am not listening to Obama or any government. I am listening to actual experts in the field.

The only "fucking stupid" one is you.

How long has gate keeping been done by the alarmists? 25? 35 years? Those precious peer reviewed journals were controlled, and still are, by radical alarmist shills. They denied papers not consistent with the agenda driven politicians and kept dissenting science from being published. Your precious peer review is garbage. Climate gate exposed your clan of "pass your papers to your friends" for rubber stamping acceptance by paid for whores of government and liberal control agenda politicians.

You fit the bill of a useful idiot.. Believe what we tell you without question... A big government fool..

 

[Billy_Bob]

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

No they have not.

You do not have a study which shows exactly what CO2 has done, its specific effects, nothing. Just today I posted again the empirical evidence which show your little fantasy a lie. Here

Even the IPCC says they have grossly overestimated mans impact and use the term "Best Guess" in AR5.. Empirically the CO2 forcing is ZERO. There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which must exist if CO2 and water vapor were coupled. The models and theroy fail empirical review and forecasting.

Lol so on the one hand you dismiss the vast majority of peer reviewed studies that say the acceleration of CO2 has changed out climate but on the other you cherry pick a single study that disputes them. One that isn't even peer reviewed I might add. Empirically the CO2 force is zero? What the fuck are you even talking about?

One, You Again use the appeal to authority when that authority has been manufactured.

Two, Mid Tropospheric levels (10 feet off the ground to about 30,000 feet) are the focal point of CO2 water vapor coupling, if it did infact exist. There is no Mid-Tropospheric hot spot nor is there any coupling of water vapor to CO2 by simple empirical observations. The models are simply wrong!

Three, The forcing is the IPCC's way of saying, increased temp from CO2 increase caused an increase in water vapor, which holds heat in the mid troposphere, resulting in the mid-tropospheric hot spot and positive feedback loop. This does not exist by empirical observation. Even the LOG derived temp rise is 1/8thed the empirical rise seen.

You have used every single alarmist excuse in just a few posts and each one has been shown failure by simple empirical observation. Science is observation. Models are not empirical evidence of anything because they are not real and can not predict earths climatic changes with ANY accuracy.

All you are doing is regurgitating what the study says. It's not like you actually understand it. You are also harping on ONE study. A study that isn't peer reviewed. That makes it useless.

You really dont have one fucking clue do you?

 

[Darkwind]

What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.

Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..

Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.

Except Global Warming! How stupid do you think people are that read the news?

Stop pretending you know what peer-reviewed means.

Stop pretending that peer review is some kind of ultimate arbitrator of truth...

What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you'd expect by chance.1

That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish' and `reject'. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven't already done it?'

and from the same article..

One answer is that it is a method to select the best grant applications for funding and the best papers to publish in a journal. It is hard to test this aim because there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. Plus what is peer review to be tested against? Chance? Or a much simpler process? Stephen Lock when editor of the BMJ conducted a study in which he alone decided which of a consecutive series of papers submitted to the journal he would publish. He then let the papers go through the usual process. There was little difference between the papers he chose and those selected after the full process of peer review.1 This small study suggests that perhaps you do not need an elaborate process. Maybe a lone editor, thoroughly familiar with what the journal wants and knowledgeable about research methods, would be enough. But it would be a bold journal that stepped aside from the sacred path of peer review.

Another answer to the question of what is peer review for is that it is to improve the quality of papers published or research proposals that are funded. The systematic review found little evidence to support this, but again such studies are hampered by the lack of an agreed definition of a good study or a good research proposal.

Peer review a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

And of course, we see that peer review is not the golden standard it is held up to be..

Peer review involves an anonymous panel of objective experts critiquing a paper on its merits. Obviously, a panel should not contain anyone who agrees in advance to give the paper favorable attention and help it get published. Yet a variety of journals have allowed or overlooked such practices.

Because of politics..

Yet a look at the organization's own submission guidelines makes clear that if you are a National Academy member today, you can edit a research paper that you wrote yourself and only have to answer a few questions before an editorial board; you can even arrange to be the official reviewer for people you know. The result of such laxity isn't just the publication of a dubious finding like the hurricane gender-bias claim. Some errors can have serious consequences if bad science leads to bad policy.

and of course..

Fixing peer review won't be easy, although exposing its weaknesses is a good place to start. Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley, is a co-founder of the Public Library of Science, one of the world's largest nonprofit science publishers. He told me in an email that, "We need to get away from the notion, proven wrong on a daily basis, that peer review of any kind at any journal means that a work of science is correct. What it means is that a few (1-4) people read it over and didn't see any major problems. That's a very low bar in even the best of circumstances."

Hank Campbell The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility - WSJ

 

[IanC]

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

No they have not.

You do not have a study which shows exactly what CO2 has done, its specific effects, nothing. Just today I posted again the empirical evidence which show your little fantasy a lie. Here

Even the IPCC says they have grossly overestimated mans impact and use the term "Best Guess" in AR5.. Empirically the CO2 forcing is ZERO. There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which must exist if CO2 and water vapor were coupled. The models and theroy fail empirical review and forecasting.

Lol so on the one hand you dismiss the vast majority of peer reviewed studies that say the acceleration of CO2 has changed out climate but on the other you cherry pick a single study that disputes them. One that isn't even peer reviewed I might add. Empirically the CO2 force is zero? What the fuck are you even talking about?

I don't think you are getting the point. Climate models have used aerosols as a fudge factor to give them a quasi-realistic ability to hindcast the climate. Lewis and Curry produced a paper using IPCC inputs (aerosols, CO2, etc) that showed climate sensitivity was much less than the IPCC claims. A new paper (not by Lewis) came out with much more precise estimates for aerosols. Lewis plugged the new numbers into the method and now the central estimate is not even in the 95% IPCC range.

Climate sensitivity has been found to be lower than IPCC numbers in all papers published in the last ten years that use actual measured data. Only computer generated data is even remotely close to the exaggerated claims of the warmists crowd.

 

[skookerasbil]

But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.

What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.

You mean the peer reviewed climate science process that is rigged?


Nah......most know what that means which is why when you poll Americans about their "concerns" with climate science, it ranks about 21st out of 22.

GALLUP >>> Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S.

PEW >>> Most Americans Believe in Climate Change But Give It Low Priority Pew Research Center

LMAO.....look at that list!!! People are concerned about everything EXCEPT climate change!!!


fucking dUh



s0n..........you spend too much time listening to MSNBC. They live in a parallel universe over there..........which is why they only have about 179 viewers/night!!!

 

[ralfy]

There are some more interesting points on the issue here:

Aerosol forcing and Then There s Physics

 

[jc456]

But it's settled science.... bullshit!

Breitbart News via fox ^
A new scientific paper has driven yet another nail into the coffin of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. (H/T Bishop Hill) The paper – Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, published in the American Meteorological Society journal – finds that the effects of aerosols on climate are much smaller than those in almost all the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As usual you cons cherry pick papers that are not peer-reviewed and largely insigificant to create your own narrative. I feel sorry for you.

What makes you say it wasn't peer reviewed?... Because it DIDN'T get a sack full of cash from a government grant?

Obviously you don't know what peer-reviewed even means.

Obviously you practice PAL Review and censorship of non-approved liberal bull shit agenda/propaganda..

The alarmist appeal to authority is a dead giveaway that you dont have a dam clue about what is truly science..

Peer reviewed rarely has anything to do with politics.

hahahahhahaahhaaahhaa what a fool!

 

[jc456]

So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.

Out comes the John Cook Et Al lie, that was placed in peer reviewed paper, that was found to be a total fabrication, yet passed PAL REVIEW..

Liberals and their math... Go figure..

Tha stat is bullshit and it's easy to explain why. The stat your graph gives is simply stating most of those studies did not say the words of man causing climate change. If you understood how science works, you would get this. What Those studies say is that the level of CO2 and other elements is what is changing our climate. Where is all that CO2 coming from? Man made activities. See climate scientists aren't in the profession to say anything sociological, political, or economically related. They just point to facts. They are simply stating the massive levels of CO2 generated are what is causing climate chance. It's man who has generated all that CO2. It doesn't take a scientist to make the connection.

sure and....

 

[jc456]

So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.

Out comes the John Cook Et Al lie, that was placed in peer reviewed paper, that was found to be a total fabrication, yet passed PAL REVIEW..

Liberals and their math... Go figure..

Tha stat is bullshit and it's easy to explain why. The stat your graph gives is simply stating most of those studies did not say the words of man causing climate change. If you understood how science works, you would get this. What Those studies say is that the level of CO2 and other elements is what is changing our climate. Where is all that CO2 coming from? Man made activities. See climate scientists aren't in the profession to say anything sociological, political, or economically related. They just point to facts. They are simply stating the massive levels of CO2 generated are what is causing climate chance. It's man who has generated all that CO2. It doesn't take a scientist to make the connection.

Misstating the statements of other scientists is LYING! FABRICATING!
MISLEADING! But your ok with this kind of behavior by John Cook?

You should stop reading Skeptical Science-John Cooks blogg and pull your head out of wherever it is implanted. use your dam brain.

This really isn't hard to grasp. I want you to find the peer-reviewed studies I mentioned. They are going to tell you massive levels of CO2 have changed the climate. They will also provide a timeline of when the acceleration began. Any idiot can make the conclusion from there that man has changed the climate.

 

[Crick]

He has thousands of peer reviewed studies and better than 97% of the world's active climate scientists. It's you Billy Boy, that haven't got jack shit.

 

[ralfy]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

 

[IanC]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

what do you think he said in that interview? did he take back his claim that aerosols were less of a forcing than previously thought? no he didnt. he basically pleaded not to be ostracized for publishing bad news. he swore fealty to AGW dogma, even though his work nudged down the climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 even further. the climate models are hanging on by a thread, the IPCC estimate range for climate sensitivity still encloses the last five years of papers but only just (AR4 wouldnt). there is a lot of praying for a big El Nino or something to happen, and soon, otherwise the whole thing will come tumbling down.