Search results

So, again, you are quoting information about the UPPER atmosphere, not the lower atmosphere which is what is affected by greenhouse gases and where AGW occurs. Additionally, while the "atmosphere is complex with built in negative feedbacks," there are limits to what these feedback mechanisms...

So we are in agreement that the government should be doing more to make the grid amenable to renewable energies, and that money spent on tech such as green buildings, more efficient cars, and improving renewable energy is money well spent.

Thank you for the analysis of the power grid situation and how that inhibits the growth of local renewables. I agree 100% that that is something the government should be throwing a great deal of support behind. Do you think that the political power of the utilities and fossil fuel industries has...

Yes, CO2 has a cooling effect in the UPPER atmosphere (thermosphere) by reflecting heat out. However, in the LOWER atmosphere (where emissions from Earth end up) it has the opposite effect, reflecting heat back to earth. This is the crucial and oft misunderstood difference...

Clearly the numbers can be looked at from many angles. One thing shines through: MOST (well over half) of the scientists in this particular survey (and many others) are pretty darn sure that AGW is happening. Do we need 100% certainty to act?

I'm glad you are civil, thank you for hearing my feedback. On with the discussion...

I am not interested in who started it. Like I tell my kids when they fight, they each have the opportunity and responsibility to stop the fight and turn things around. I am an idealist, for sure, and I hold on to the hope that we can have adult discussions about weighty issues like this one and...

I get that, but if you wish to have an elevated discussion, you have a responsibility to not engage on that level. Believe me, I've been tempted a time or two during various online discussions, but have opted to avoid such tactics. We can only be responsible for our own behavior.

With all due respect, sir, you have engaged on this same level with, for example, the "stupidity level" meter you posted. Did you start it? Maybe not, but that doesn't excuse it or leave you any moral high ground.

Thank you for the polite and organized response. 1. Where do you get the 300 number? Seriously, I keep looking, and the articles keep coming back to the same few scientists. Do you have a link for the 300? This could potentially settle this particular question. 2. I am having trouble finding...

1. You made a specific claim earlier, that "hundreds of scientists" stated that their papers were misclassified, misquoted, etc. Every link you provide ends up quoting the same 8 or so scientists, nowhere near the "hundreds" you asserted earlier. Please source this number. 2. Regarding the...

Well, I performed the Google search you suggested, and checked every result on the first page. Every single one of those hits referred back to the same Popular Technology page and the same 8 or so scientists. I can't find the "hundreds" of scientists you referred to. Please provide another source.

Thank you for posting the link, it facilitates the conversation. I am a little confused; you said before that hundreds of scientists stated that Cook falsified their papers, yet the article you posted only references about 8 scientists. Maybe I missed something?

It is actually a paper about a survey of over 12,000 peer reviewed papers, and these papers showing a very strong trend of opinion among climate scientists in agreement around AGW. So, you're right, it is not a single paper on direct climate science, but a review of the literature, which itself...

No. If you are making an assertion, it is your responsibility to source it. If you can't, I (and anyone else reading this) can only assume that you do not have a legitimate source to back your claim.

That is interesting. Can you cite a source for this report from hundreds of scientists?

Check your sources: "In fact, the Legate et al. paper seems to actually be a comment on an entirely different paper (Bedford & Cook, 2013) but then veers into a discussion of the Cook et al. consensus study. As a basic summary, the Legates et al. paper appears to essentially redefine the Cook et...

"We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2)...

Actually, no. The study found that 97% of the papers which expressed an opinion on the cause of Climate Change stated that the causes were anthropogenic. That is far beyond "not explicitly rejecting," it is actually a direct agreement.

And this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart