- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Members of the 97% "concensus" say they are being misrepresented re: AGW
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:14 pm
Libs, please explain why members of the 97% are having to speak out and explain that their papers were mischaracterized by John Cook and the IPCC.
"That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
-Craig Idso
"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission. What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006”
-Nicola Scaffeta
"it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
-Nir Shaviv
Other papers were classified as having "no opinion" and not counted as for or against.
Some quotes from these scientists:
"that is Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Nils-Axel Morner
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works”
-Willie Soon
Willie with the boom. Someone tell Willie that the debate is over.
"That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
-Craig Idso
"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission. What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006”
-Nicola Scaffeta
"it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
-Nir Shaviv
Other papers were classified as having "no opinion" and not counted as for or against.
Some quotes from these scientists:
"that is Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Nils-Axel Morner
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works”
-Willie Soon
Willie with the boom. Someone tell Willie that the debate is over.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 12:17 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:15 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
That the earth is warmer than it was a century ago.
And that atmospheric co2 has increased in that time
And that atmospheric co2 has increased in that time
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:18 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
I'm ready to get behind sun-made global warming
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:18 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
I recommend reading and watching "VICE". Greenland's icebergs are melting at a rapid rate. But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:19 pm to Cole Beer
quote:
Greenland's icebergs are melting at a rapid rate. But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
Okay? What level are they suppose to be at?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:23 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
what specifically do 97% of scientists agree on?
The sun is hot
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:25 pm to Cole Beer
quote:. . . and reforming in Antarctica?
Greenland's icebergs are melting at a rapid rate
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:29 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
Hope there aren't any DENIERS here -- wouldn't want anyone getting arrested
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:39 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
quote: Greenland's icebergs are melting at a rapid rate. But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. Okay? What level are they suppose to be at?
Whatever level will best play in to the Global Warming Alcolyte's narrative.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:41 pm to TygerTyger
Are you ready to be so arrogant to think government can do something about it?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:41 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
I declare code purple, code purple...
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:47 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
We haven't figured out how to accurately predict the weather for tomorrow.
I'm not holding my breath for us to predict what the Earth's weather will be doing in 100 years... neither am I quick to buy in on anyone that claims they know WHY or HOW any of that shite happens.
Planetary thermodynamics, weather patterns, volcanic predictions and activity, effects fossil fuel and cow farts...... we aren't smart enough and don't have the computing power yet to truly know what's going on.
It's easy to look at the temperature's records and have a gut feeling though. I'll give you that.
*edit*
Not to say that it's not worth while to try to do less harm to the planet.
I'm not holding my breath for us to predict what the Earth's weather will be doing in 100 years... neither am I quick to buy in on anyone that claims they know WHY or HOW any of that shite happens.
Planetary thermodynamics, weather patterns, volcanic predictions and activity, effects fossil fuel and cow farts...... we aren't smart enough and don't have the computing power yet to truly know what's going on.
It's easy to look at the temperature's records and have a gut feeling though. I'll give you that.
*edit*
Not to say that it's not worth while to try to do less harm to the planet.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:52 pm to wickowick
quote:
I declare code purple, code purple...
Well, since the ice is supposedly melting then you cannot declare a code blue balls or code blue.
Eskimos will no longer sit in the snow and get polaroids.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:53 pm to Cole Beer
That's cool, but I want to take this step by step, so I don't get confused. So, about what, specifically, do 97% of scientists agee?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:55 pm to Paluka
From this morning: Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:57 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
97% agree that man is causing climate change
LINK
quote:
The scientific community disagrees about plenty of things. But according to a sweeping new survey of 12,000 peer-reviewed climate studies, global warming isn't one of them.
Published this week in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the analysis shows an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that humans are a key contributor to climate change, while a "vanishingly small proportion" defy this consensus. Most of the climate papers didn't specifically address humanity's involvement — likely because it's considered a given in scientific circles, the survey's authors point out — but of the 4,014 that did, 3,896 shared the mainstream outlook that people are largely to blame.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:59 pm to Cole Beer
quote:
. Greenland's icebergs are melting at a rapid rate. But I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.
As they have been. So have Alaska's but it's been this way for thousands of years with a couple of slight oscillations.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 2:03 pm to Toddy
quote:
97% agree that man is causing climate change
gotta keep that funding rolling in
Posted on 3/31/14 at 2:04 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
As they have been. So have Alaska's but it's been this way for thousands of years with a couple of slight oscillations.
So you believe the climate's generally warming?
Posted on 3/31/14 at 2:06 pm to Choctaw
quote:
gotta keep that funding rolling in
Do you know how filthy rich even a small group of these scientists would be if they produced a valid scientific study disproving AGW?
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News