What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Sometimes it's hard to explain how the far-right and corporate lobbyists operate or how they view reality. It's much easier to understand their actions if you accept that first, they know the facts, but just choose, on the basis of business reasons, to completely ignore them and second, that they understand if they present, backed up with millions of dollars, absolute crap as fact, somewhere someone will believe them.
Recent estimates are that large energy companies, big oil companies and other interested groups are spending $1,000,000 every single day working to distort, deny and come up with reasons why we all shouldn't support clean energy.
I don't often disagree with Paul Krugman but when he recently wrote:
In a rational world, then, the looming climate disaster would be our dominant political and policy concern. But it manifestly isn't. Why not?
Part of the answer is that it's hard to keep peoples' attention focused. Weather fluctuates -- New Yorkers may recall the heat wave that pushed the thermometer above 90 in April -- and even at a global level, this is enough to cause substantial year-to-year wobbles in average temperature. As a result, any year with record heat is normally followed by a number of cooler years: According to Britain's Met Office, 1998 was the hottest year so far, although NASA -- which arguably has better data -- says it was 2005. And it's all too easy to reach the false conclusion that the danger is past.But the larger reason we're ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just too inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don't.
Nor is it just a matter of vested interests. It's also a matter of vested ideas. For three decades the dominant political ideology in America has extolled private enterprise and denigrated government, but climate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action. And rather than concede the limits of their philosophy, many on the right have chosen to deny that the problem exists.
He missed a fundamental point.
The money spent presenting fiction as fact over the past decade has had a real impact on the average American. Still, to this day, you will hear that there is debate about global warming, about whether it's happening at all.
All around us, there is massive evidence of global warming, and there is scientific consensus, but the money spent denying it gives an out to many people and many politicians.
So when something like the following happens, the tragedy isn't just that it is the effort of a few highly profitable companies who are putting profit before planet (their profit; our planet) but also that it is essentially a successful strategy.
The Institute For Energy Research, a group funded by oil companies, has paid for the author of a completely debunked study to come to the US and talk about the debunked study. What's in the study that is so wrong?
Essentially the study claims that spending money on clean-energy jobs costs an economy jobs.
Now, most of us would stop right there and say, hmm, doesn't make any sense. Of course, smarter people than me have debunked the study. Like the US Government, the Spanish Government, even the Wall Street Journal, not exactly the land of the far-left environmentalists, says, ah, no.
And yet, here is the author in the United States doing media interviews and getting press coverage on the basis of a study that is false. Unfortunately time and time again, the media takes something like this and creates a story when there is none.
That, Mr. Krugman, is also part of the problem.
Follow James Boyce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesboyce
Taylor Marsh: J. Stephen Simon, The Exceptional Oil Man
ExxonMobil has many enemies on the activist side, but J. Stephen Simon was one of the most honorable, decent, dedicated American patriots you'll ever find. Yes, even an oil man can be a patriot.
The next administration will be asked to undertake the tough work of remaking American foreign policy in the post-George Bush era. It's time we take the full measure of the 21st century threats we face.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In 2007, the American Physical Society represented those with a background in physics issued its official statement on climate change...
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.""
http://en.
It is well known that a group of 50 or more prominent physicists, including at least one at Princeton, have petitioned the APS to change its statement regarding global warming. Hopefully there will be a full airing of this issue, and perhaps a full vote of all the members of the APS, as to what position the APS should take on the global warming issue.
Just as with the public at large, and with the readers of the Huffington Post, there is no consensus among physicists regarding so-called global warming.
The consensus among physicist's is stated in their official climate change statement written in 2007 by their representative body the American Physical Union,
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.""
http://www
The consensus among the public at large is irrevalent. Most in America believe in the literalism of the bible. There are still many like you who devote their very existence to misleading the public.
The statement that there is a definite consensus is false. First, there are numerous public opinion polls that indicate that more people do not believe in man-made global warming than believe in it. There may be some polls that indicate that more believe than don't, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no consensus, there is a division of views. Second, we have the HP, where the wide readership has clearly not reached a consensus. The comments and responses to comments are diverse and unpredictable, creative and entertaining.
Third, regarding scientists, we know that a large group of physicists have petitioned the APS to reconsider its current position on AGW. Perhaps a vote by all members of the APS should be taken, to see how the division works out among members of the APS. There are numerous chemists who also are working to change the official positions of the professional group representing chemists.
Again, it isn't clear what a full polling among chemists would show, but the outcome is not likely to be unanimous! The same goes for geologists, astronomers, and others.
Fourth, the position of those who don't agree with AGW has been strengthened by recent scientific research. For example, a group of scientists have hypothesized that the four great ice ages that the earth has experienced were triggered by changes in the shape of the orbit of the earth around the sun, not by any event on our planet.
"For example, a group of scientists have hypothesized that the four great ice ages that the earth has experienced were triggered by changes in the shape of the orbit of the earth around the sun, not by any event on our planet." My God, you are just finding this out now? Did you get any formal schooling? It is something long known, except that most of the heat increase has happened after the initial co2 began to be released! The ice ages have long been understood to be triggered by the earth's elipitical orbit around the sun, the so-called Milankovic cycles. Now, for the next several weeks Richard will pretend like this is new information when it is a basic foundation of climate change.
Public opinion polls have little to do with a scientific consensus.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
-the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend that is beyond the range of natural variability.
-the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2
-the rise in CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning.
-if CO2 continues to rise over the next century the warming will continue
-a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not a scientific consensus, then what in the world would a consensus look like?
http://sci
Deniers are not ony full of misinformation, but are losing all tactical battles in a new, more enlightened administra
"The Environmental Protection Agency took steps Wednesday to control the emissions blamed for global warming from power plants, factories and refineries for the first time."
"The EPA proposal would require polluters to reduce six greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency whenever a facility is significantly changed or built. The rule applies to any industrial plant that emits at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year."
"These large sources are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions – mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels – that are released in the U.S., the EPA said."
""By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said.
"Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced that it would start developing the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Those regulations, which would take effect in 2010, compel the EPA to control greenhouse gases from large smokestacks as well, the agency said."
http://www
I am having trouble replying to questions. Seems to time out when I have tried to reply. I am not deliberately ignoring anyone's questions.
You can see the fruit of Jame's premise all over these comments.
The science is settled. It has been for a while. But no matter what you say, how you frame it, no matter your appeal that deniers try to understand the science - he||, just that they understand how science works - it just makes no difference. They either have a vested interest in keeping things as they are or they have bought the corporate line from years of exposure to the "big lie."
This will have to be like health care reform. It has to be done, over the vociferous wailing of the uninformed minority for their good as well as ours. Our children - or perhaps our grandchildren - will thank us.
r u sure?
Or the deniers may simply react to their observations of the world around them. If they live near the ocean in California, they may remember earlier decades when low-lying coastal areas flooded during storms or high tides. They may have noticed the decrease in the frequency of those flooding events over the past decade.
"While flooding in California's Central Valley is "the next big disaster waiting to happen,"
"The panel pointed out that many of the area's levees, constructed over the past 150 years to protect communities and property in the Central Valley, were poorly built or placed on inadequate foundations. Climate change may increase the likelihood of floods and their resulting destruction. The panel recommends that state and local officials take swift action to reduce the risk to people and the environmen
http://www
"In Greenland, and to a lesser extent, Antarctica, ice sheets and glaciers are melting and more importantly, sliding in rapid bursts. This is caused by moulins, which are holes that melting water form from the top of a glacier to the bottom. The water then lubricates and melts the underside of the glacier, causing them to detach from the bedrock -- and creating a 'slip-n-slide' for glaciers that weigh in the megatons -- some the size of Manhattan.
"Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said in Ilulissat [Greenland] yesterday: "We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at 2 meters an hour on a front 5km [3 miles] long and 1,500 meters deep. That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one year to provide drinking water for a city the size of London for a year." The glacier is now moving at 15km a year into the sea although in surges it moves even faster. He measured one surge at 5km in 90 minutes - an extraordinary event."
http://www
say rp..
would you like to borrow my greenland post?
(just kidding with you)
No, it is a good post though, but remember sea levels were 20 feet higher then when Greenland had much less ice than today.
If this information about melting ice is true, then why isn't it showing up in the sea level measurements at tide stations around the world, from Copenhagen to Los Angeles? Where is all that melted water going?
I am wondering what the science credentials are for the voices being heard here? The laws of Physics are not going to change based on the presumed outcome of a debate, even a "scientific" one. If you accept a false premise, than your conclusions are likely to be somewhat in error.
The hard fact is, there is nothing in the climate of today or in the recent past which falls outside of the normal variability of natural climate change. The globe has been warming for about 12,000 years and will continue until the next 100,000 year ice age ( or longer ). There is no mechanism in the atmosphere which "traps" heat and won't let it escape. The only function the ill-named "greenhouse gases" do is to delay the cooling somewhat after the sun goes down, and the principal mechanism there is water vapor. CO2 is a trace gas, absorbs energy effectively at only 14.77 microns wavelength, and is a rather pitiful candidate at current concentrations of 385PPM more or less, of which the Anthropogenic contribution is but a small fraction compared to natural sources, such as the world's oceans which contain most of the world's supply. Hard truth is, the atomic absorption is non-linear, and at current concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are near saturation and even a doubling of current levels would result in no more than an additional degree of heating due to the "green house effect".
What false premise? There was a time when conditions on earth would not support most modern animals. While you are technically correct that the current climate is not as extreme as some in the past, one should not forget that if we return to some of those past climates, we will all die.
Climate scientists have physics-based models (not correlations as some have claimed here) that do a good job of predicting past climate. The current climate predictions are not accurate unless the CO2 released by human activity is taken into account.
While that is a bit of an oversimplification, it is still a reasonable summary of the current state of the science. Deniers need to address that key idea and they never do.
If you really think scientists have proven that CO2 causes warming, surely you can provide a link to that proof somewhere.
The fact is it has not been proven.
Oversimplication is precisely what is troubling us. Models are useful for supporting a given theory, but a good fit to the data is not sufficient for "proving" (or whatever word you want to use) the theory. Did past IPCC reports predict a leveling off in temps the past 8-10 years? The new data will be added to the old, the model parameters will be tweaked, and new (hopefully less catastrophic) predictions will be published by the IPCC. There are many references that explain the weakness of model argument. My favorite is "Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future (Pilkey, 2007)." Until climate scientists can account for all the unknown contributions (clouds, etc.), they should stop with the scare tactics and concentrate on suggestions for adapting to global warming or cooling whichever the future holds.
Note that a correlation is just one way of stating the goodness of fit of data to an equation. Let's not get caught up in statistical semantics unless that is the issue. I am glad you ask what the false premise is. I think it is that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of the ASSUMED unending global warming. Whether or not the latter is true, the former is most likely false, IPCC models notwithstanding.
great post herkimer..
and i love that mohawk river valley!
Another wheel fell off the Global Warming Bus this week:
The infamous "hockey stick" temperature reconstructions, which erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and make it look like the only warming we've ever had has been just in the past 150 years, have been thoroughly discredited (again).
http://pla
"one of Mann's co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 tree data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal."
"When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result."
This is a blockbuster, but the silence on this over at realclimat
Wow, the tree ring data from Yamal makes the famous hockey stick disappear and you get your information from an article titled "Planet Gore." I noticed some tree ring data from Kurbheibastan that made the hockey stick reappear. Wow, the denier crowd is getting stranger and stranger and half these deniers would not even be here unless getting paid for their posts by some conservative goup!
Lol, that's hardly a rebuttal, but if it suits your taste you can read summaries of the same story at lots of other places on the web.
If you had read the article you would know that the actual work here was done by Steve McIntyre, who has been an IPCC expert panel reviewer, as well as an invited peer reviewer on the original Mann hockey stick papers. If you have a legitimate beef with his work, I suggest you post a comment at his website. I'm sure he'll answer you.
Sorry, first link should be
http://gcm
Well, I'll try aain at a rebuttal. First the IPCC did not contact Steve McIntyre as a reviewer. He contacted them to ask to be a reviewer. I guess he thought he would gain credibility.
Secondly, he has no background at all in climate science. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto and has done undergraduate work at Oxford.
So far he sounds like the typical denier who is way over his head.
Then data on the Yumal forests has been available for years, as the citation below indicates. One can use the following link to get the NOAA data....
http://gcm
http://hol
Jan's post is another example how denier's are rountinely manipulated by far right websites into believing their make believe position has actual merit.
realpolitic, you+others sincerely try to engage denier crowd in rational discussion. One overriding theme in their approach isto steer discussions offcourse by obscure obfuscation. They pick tiny slither of scientific field, on which they can bamboozle the average reader here with mumblejumble, without much fear of being called on it or exposed. They count onfact most people aren't climatescientists.
If OilGasCoal industries offer enough grants+rewards of afew grands to amillion, they can bring out whole sleuth of technicians to massage data and mediocre scientists to publish arcane articles in ways that obfuscate the central issue. They comment here, publish articles there, and when they put enough in circulation, they start quoting each other, and most people wouldn't know difference. So their primary objective designed by OilGasCoal lobbies to sow doubt, confusion and uncertainty in general public's minds is achieved.
But that's amoral sophistry. It's not a moral person's human response to the most devastating problem confronting human existence in next few decades and centuries.
As you've explained, incontrovertible physical evidence and scientific modeling projections have conclusively demonstrated, MASSIVE icefields in Antartica+Greenland started sliding down towards ocean. When billions of tons of glacial ice accelerate in motion, there's no puny human force on earth that could hold them back and reverse the process.
Only chance of longterm human survival isto drastically curtail CO2 emissions that undeniably cause global temperature rise. That MORAL and SPIRITUAL IMPERATIVE is so DAMN OBVIOUS it's beyond squabbling and squawking.
.
The Yamal tree data was released only this month, nine years after the original study was published. Only through the efforts of Steve McIntyre did the Royal Society require the study's author to release this data, nine years late.
Perhaps the Royal Society, and others, will now start requiring other climate researchers to release their detailed data notes and analysis, for replication and verification.
It remains to be seen whether climate researchers are as careful in their detailed scientific work, as professionals in other branches of science.
It's hard to know where to start. Simply stating something is true does not make it true. Everything in this article has already been thoroughly discussed and the criticism shown to be wrong. It's hard to tell what, if anything is new. Additionally, even if all of the "hockey stick publications" were either wrong or fraudulent, it wouldn't change the facts. We have physics-based models and we have measurements neither of which have anything to do with the "Hockey Stick". The two agree.
Well, among deniers stating something makes it true and on Fox News. These are the only two venues where it does!
OK, so that got your attention.
The real point here is the damage that's being done to Climate Science by all of this. It reeks of dishonesty.
Cherry-picked data, fudged results, refusal to share information, evasion ... if any of this is true, and it looks like it is, it taints the integrity of the entire profession. All just to scare people a few weeks before Copenhagen? How does that help the cause in the long run? There is risk of a public backlash, only to be followed by increased apathy and climate burn-out.
Imagine that ... the Hockey Stick, one of the most dramatic scenes (with the elevator) in Al Gore's movie ... and it all hinges on a well-intentioned professor choosing to cherry pick some tree samples. This does not sound like science to me.
But it is not true.
"What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS"?
B-A-S-T-A, pronounced with a manual mudra, basta!
Even if the deniers are right and climate change is not caused by humans, it is STILL a good idea to move to clean energy. Pollution from coal plants is damaging the environment in many ways. There is coal ash and mercury in our water now. Oil is keeping us dependent on Saudi Arabia and other hostile nations. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they will run out in this century under our current level of consumption.
Green, renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other methods gives us the ability to generate nearly unlimited amounts of power with little or no pollution. Those sources will not run out until the Earth is engulfed by the sun.
I'm beginning to agree more with that approach. Those who are "skeptical" about the science are either deciding to take corporate shills at their word, or just not bothering with basic fact- and source-checking. It's like talking to dining room tables. Might as well move onto the national security argument for energy independence, which is perfectly valid in its own right and also leads inexorably to 100% wind and solar power. Heads, I win; tails, coal, nuclear, and petroleum lose.
http://www
As tempting as that might be, I can't agree with the approach. If we don't understand the cause of the problem, we can't effectively evaluate if the solutions will help or will have unintended consequences that will make the problem worse.
There is not only an anti-science trend in this country, but an anti intellectual-trend that puts our survival at risk. As a society need to effectively counter these extremely dangerous ideas.
You're correct. What's the downside to dealing with the mess we're making? Unfortunately, this is not about what's best for the planet. It's about republican vs. democrat. My guess is that not one of the deniers on this site is a democrat/p
Your guess is wrong.
I agree with everything you're saying. Those should be our national goals. That is also why people don't really question the science of the AGW theory. But it should not take everyone accepting the theory of man-made global warming to achieve those goals.
Do we have a consensus in the forecast? Only we can't turn off the oil and coal until the other sources are developed enough to take their place. The current economy cannot handle the shock. We need a strong economy to make these changes. In the mean time nuclear power is the best alternative to coal.
I'm sure the link below will comfort global warming deniers. After all, it's from one of the most respected voices in the field of climatology: The great El Rushmo himself.
Should you not be a Rush fan, you may still find it entertaini
(No doubt this post will flush out the Gore haters but what else in new?)
http://www
I have hated Rush Limbaugh for years, and it gives me no pleasure to have to admit that he may have been right about something. But that is not reason enough to ignore the facts.
"Still, to this day, you will hear that there is debate about global warming, about whether it's happening at all. "
No, James, you are dead wrong on that. There is no doubt the climate is changing. Always has...alwa
What is being debated is the effects of mankind on climate change.
Let's give Reed a chance to shoot this one down, OK.
http://www
"Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship"
http://www
Pretty weak.
The author is not a climate scientist. The author seems to feel climate scientists are ignorant of physics (which is just not true) and shows great disdain for the whole field. He seems to confuse local and global as well as weather and climate ("...that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance." Climate generally deals with 30 year averages so I almost didn't read beyond that part. The rest did not get any better.). His criticisms have all been debunked and that information can easily be found on the Web.
All science comes back to physics. Even chemists will admit this. Everything is physics. That is real science. Climate science as relates to global warming theory is a bunch of dorks that hit the global warming lotto plugging equations into Microsoft Excel, hoping their grant gets renewed. If any of them feel they deserve more respect, they need to prove their theories.
I have asked many times on this board and others for an explanation of the 800 year lag between warming and CO2. Still nothing. That should be an easy one if their science is real.
That provides no predictions of climate; nothing testable, anyway, which is required for climate science.
And it's not published in any peer-reviewed journal, which is not surprising considering that it's nothing but one "back of napkin" computation after another, presented as plausibility arguments against straw man characterizations of real climatologists' models' assumptions.
The real test of a competitive climatologist is, can you adjust current GCMs to make better 10-year predictions than anybody else?
Your guy offers nothing testable. It's just a lot of trash-talking those who do.
I think the article can stand on its own without me having to defend it.
You're still talking around the issue. Climate scientists still have not proved that CO2 is the direct cause and driving mechanism of global warming. They have only proved there is a correlation between the two. But warming causes the rise in CO2, not the other way around.
"They have only proved there is a correlation between the two."
No, they have also worked for decades on general circulation models, whose predictive power -- the gold standard of a scientific Theory -- is better by far than anything else.
http://www
The scientific process does not include debate. It is observation, hypothesis, test, and comparison of results to what the hypothesis predicts. An op-ed which references NO published research and makes no testable prediction is irrelevant. Against decades of diligent science, what you posted has no merits to discuss.
In support of Calinative's position and contrary to Reed and Pharos' assertion that the author is not a climate scientist: The author describe's himself as an atmospheric physicist. He claims to have written a thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere co-published in . . . Journal of Chemical Physics. Like many of us skeptics, he does not consider correlating global temps to CO2 proof of anything. The science is still, shall we say, up in the air.
Har! "The author describe's (sic) himself as an atmospheric physicist.
In reality, James A. Peden's credentials are "shall we say" garbage.
http://mal
"Note that the paper mentioned as his Ph.D. thesis in his biography doesn't list Peden as the first author. The only first author paper he did publish, on something he supposedly developed, has not been cited. Ever.
Is this list of publications enough to qualify someone as an expert scientist in any field, let alone atmospheric radiative transfer?"
If you don't find that humorous, you need your funny bone transplanted, STAT!
Where do you come up with the idea that climate scientists are only correlating CO2 and temperature? They are using physics-based models to explain measurements.
An atmospheric physicist is not the same as a climate scientist.
The author completely fails to address the most basic results of climates science as related to AGW. It's hard to know where to begin explaining what is wrong with the article from a science perspective.
Personally, I have observed a steady increase in the temperature every summer for the last 20 years. It's getting hotter and hotter each summer where I live, and drought conditions are worsening. Trees that have been in our yard for decades are dieing, the kind of wild plants coming up are changing. If that's not Global Warming then I must have been abducted and moved to a different planet. We used to get a couple of days of triple digit temps; now it's weeks and weeks of relentless heat. But of course some people would say we're just imagining all this!
How do you say B.S. in Spanish? Mierda!
I think it's kind of the resident deniers to come on this thread and provide a few examples of the debunked BS that Mr Boyce was refering to. Although some of the examples have a distinctly moldy smell.
Yes, very kind indeed.
Having not yet located Boyce's so-called debunked study by an unnamed author, I hesitate to "pile" on. But I can't resist. I think the argument that global warming, which has been on hold for around 8 years, is caused by CO2 is as moldy as it gets. BS stinks regardless of source.
The Sun is in a lull, which happens about every 11 years, although this cycle has now lasted 13 according to something I read a month ago or more. So a more relevant comparison would be this year to 13 years ago, 1996, or whatever year was exactly the previous solar minimum. Better yet, look at the temperature trend over decades, which my avatar conveniently depicts. It turns out, temperature does follow CO2 up.
http://www
Global warming has not been on hold. The science does not agree with you on that simple fact. You are plain wrong. You can look up the data and plot it yourself.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
