Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of scepticism

[jem]

its 41 papers out of more than 11,000 which support the idea that man made co2 causes global warming.

I have linked to some of that database... of the 41 papers many are based on speculation from now failed models.

There is no science showing man made co2 warms are earth.
you and you 97% is just lying bullshit.
if it were not you could link to hundreds of papers showing man made co2 causes warming.

 

[futurecurrents]

its 41 papers out of more than 11,000 which support the idea that man made co2 causes global warming.

I have linked to some of that database... of the 41 papers many are based on speculation from now failed models.

There is no science showing man made co2 warms are earth.
you and you 97% is just lying bullshit.
if it were not you could link to hundreds of papers showing man made co2 causes warming.

jerm, really, it's 97%. Give it up nitwit.

 

[Trader666]

The earth's temperature level is controlled by CO2 levels... CO2 can both lead or lag...

ROFL. So whatever happens -- lead or lag -- you AGW chicken littles can blame CO2 like you blame heat waves AND extreme winters on global warming. Oh I forgot it's climate change now. Sorry but the historical record is clear that CO2 and temp can be remain uncoupled for hundreds of years. Which in part explains why the models have failed so spectacularly. P.S. piezoe is correct about water vapor. Even NASA admits it when they're not doing Muslim outreach.

Second, we have not stopped warming.

Nonsense. There's been no significant warming in 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2 which is more than a third of the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

That the sun is not responsible? That the earth is warming at a steady and unusual rate?

It's all about the sun and projections of solar activity for the next few decades imply there might be global cooling despite the CO2. Also, even if we do warm another 2 degrees C it would be well within the the bounds of natural fluctuations.

So right off the bat your attempt to speak intelligently has gone wrong. Strike one. You are wrong about this also. Strike two. Just how ignorant are you? Strike three, you're out.

No, YOU'RE out, ignoranus. Go drink more yellow koolaid and play with your inflatable Obama boyfriend.

 

[Catoosa]

All this gloom and doom about global warming when it is the next ice-age like the ones 12000 and 20000 years ago that will kill off more the half the planets population by starvation. I live on the Tennessee Georgia border where the entire landscape is carved out from glacier flows during the past ice ages.

 

[piezoe]

When results go bad

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

From the article

You can see that, as Professor Karlen said, this does not show what the “Northern Europe” part of the IPCC graph shows. It is exactly as Professor Karlen stated, in the NORDKLIM data it rises until 1930, there is a drop from 1930 to 1970, followed by an increase after the 1970s to a temperature slightly lower than the 1930s. (In fact, the rise from 1880 until 1930 dwarfs the recent rise since the 1970′s). Here, for comparison, is a blowup of the “Northern Europe” graph from Fig. 9.12 above:

With time, we are being reminded just how unreliable correlation, even a very strong one, can be when looking for cause and effect. The data we have today is far better than what was available in the 1980s, when this CO2-global warming hypothesis was first proposed by Hansen. Meanwhile politics and emotions have made dispassionate science quite difficult. Recently there has been a deluge of hard data and sharp analysis that is inconsistent with the original Hansen hypothesis. It seems most of it is being ignored. Ultimately there will be great embarrassment and ruined careers. It's a pity, because had this issue not been politicized and made into a media circus, the inevitable negative fallout could have been avoided.

If a single observation is inconsistent with an hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected. Ultimately the Hansen hypothesis will have to be either considerably modified or rejected altogether. In the meantime, how much time and money will be wasted following the wrong road?

 

[futurecurrents]

Yes CO2 can be cause or result. Lead or lag

Yes the earth has not stopped or even slowed warming. Remember the oceans nitwit?

Yes, it is not the sun. Level of output has been going down for the last forty years. Solar output changes have NEVER had a large influence on the earth's climate cycles. It has been orbital variations.

These are some of the reasons the world's science community is in overwhelming consensus about it.

ROFL. So whatever happens -- lead or lag -- you AGW chicken littles can blame CO2 like you blame heat waves AND extreme winters on global warming. Oh I forgot it's climate change now. Sorry but the historical record is clear that CO2 and temp can be remain uncoupled for hundreds of years. Which in part explains why the models have failed so spectacularly. P.S. piezoe is correct about water vapor. Even NASA admits it when they're not doing Muslim outreach.


Nonsense. There's been no significant warming in 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2 which is more than a third of the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

It's all about the sun and projections of solar activity for the next few decades imply there might be global cooling despite the CO2. Also, even if we do warm another 2 degrees C it would be well within the the bounds of natural fluctuations.

No, YOU'RE out, ignoranus. Go drink more yellow koolaid and play with your inflatable Obama boyfriend.

 

[futurecurrents]

So what percent of the earth's greenhouse effect is from CO2?

With time, we are being reminded just how unreliable correlation, even a very strong one, can be when looking for cause and effect. The data we have today is far better than what was available in the 1980s, when this CO2-global warming hypothesis was first proposed by Hansen. Meanwhile politics and emotions have made dispassionate science quite difficult. Recently there has been a deluge of hard data and sharp analysis that is inconsistent with the original Hansen hypothesis. It seems most of it is being ignored. Ultimately there will be great embarrassment and ruined careers. It's a pity, because had this issue not been politicized and made into a media circus, the inevitable negative fallout could have been avoided.

If a single observation is inconsistent with an hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected. Ultimately the Hansen hypothesis will have to be either considerably modified or rejected altogether. In the meantime, how much time and money will be wasted following the wrong road?

 

[piezoe]

FC, Completely apart from the Hansen hypothesis is the question of whether the Earth will undergo a preventable, disastrous warming. At this point there is no individual or body, such as the IPCC, that can give us the answer to that question that we can, or should, rely on. The media, politicians, industry lobbyists, and various activist spokespersons could do us all a great favor by stepping aside and letting the science play out, as it will, without interference.

 

[Trader666]

Yes CO2 can be cause or result. Lead or lag

My point was, it contradicts your implication that there's a simple and clear relationship between CO2 levels and temps. In reality it's extremely complex and "climate scientists" don't understand it well enough to (accurately) model.

Yes the earth has not stopped or even slowed warming.

NASA Data: Global Warming Still on “Pause,” Sea Ice Hit Record
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...bal-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record
Excuse #9: NASA scientist says pause in global warming just a ‘coincidence’
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/28/e...bal-warming-just-a-coincidence/#ixzz32SVI4rpN

Yes, it is not the sun. Level of output has been going down for the last forty years. Solar output changes have NEVER had a large influence on the earth's climate cycles. It has been orbital variations.

Yet again you show how clueless you are. Google Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum. And if that's not enough, maybe you'll believe the Muslim outreachers at NASA:

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny [solar] variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

[futurecurrents]

FC, Completely apart from the Hansen hypothesis is the question of whether the Earth will undergo a preventable, disastrous warming. At this point there is no individual or body, such as the IPCC, that can give us the answer to that question that we can, or should, rely on. The media, politicians, industry lobbyists, and various activist spokespersons could do us all a great favor by stepping aside and letting the science play out, as it will, without interference.

Not that you have to, or can, but you did not the question. What percent of the earth's greenhoue effect is from CO2?