Heat goes on: Earth headed for warmest year on record

There are virtually no publishing climate scientists that dispute AGW. No science org at all. Only two peer reviewed papers out of 10,000 disputes it.

The consensus is overwhelming among those who best understand the science. Essentially unanimous.

Anybody saying otherwise is simply lying.
 
wow... how can you split from reality so far.

We have a produced a list of over a thousand in the past.. below is a link to hundreds of skeptical papers.

Many if not most of the recent papers find that the sun and the tides have a very strong influence on warming.

You f/c are just now lying your ass off.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers/



Reference: 450 skeptical peer reviewed papers
Anthony Watts / November 15, 2009
Andrew at Popular Technology has taken the time (quite a bit of it) to compile a list of papers that have skeptical views. It is reproduced in full here. My thanks to him for doing this. – Anthony

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of AGW caused Global Warming



A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle


- Reply To: Comments on Loehle, “correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies”
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
– Craig Loehle


A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp. 213, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.


A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer


A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
– Heinz Hug


A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
– Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov


A scientific agenda for climate policy? (PDF)
(Nature, Volume 372, Issue 6505, pp. 400-402, December 1994)
– Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen


A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


- Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


- A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels


Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer


* An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider


An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney


Analysis of trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature measurements (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)
– Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr, Russell S. Vose, Paul C. Knappenberger


Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski


Are Climate Model Projections Reliable Enough For Climate Policy?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 521-525, July 2004)
– Madhav L. Khandekar


Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas


Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 253, Issues 3-4, pp. 328-339, January 2007)
– Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey


- Response to comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007″ by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007 (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 265, Issues 1-2, pp. 308-311, January 2008)
– Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey


Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review (PDF)
(Norwegian Polar Institute Letters, Volume 119, May 1992)
– Zbigniew Jaworowski, Tom V. Segalstad, V. Hisdal


Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen


Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
(Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
– Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens


Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
(Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
– J. Barkāns, D. Žalostība


Climate Change – A Natural Hazard
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232, May 2003)
– William Kininmonth


Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
– Adrian K. Kerton


Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard


- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard


Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
– Tim F. Ball


Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
– Craig Loehle



more papers at the link above
 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to asurvey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
 
More like over 99%.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]


Gee, what percentage is that jerm? You lying piece of shit lawyer. Just like the scum that got OJ off and that fought the science showing tobacco is harmful. No morals. No conscience. Real great Christian YOU are.
 
we already covered this less than 1% of the papers supported agw also.

I have given you the link to his database... you can see the title for yourself.

It is a ridiculous state your are citing... plus he left out the hundreds of papers we cited earlier.





More like over 99%.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]


Gee, what percentage is that jerm? You lying piece of shit lawyer. Just like the scum that got OJ off and that fought the science showing tobacco is harmful. No morals. No conscience. Real great Christian YOU are.
 
NASA is in on the conspiracy, too.

"14.11.2014 12:32 Age: 7 days

"NASA data shows October 2014 as the warmest October in its record following the record September and record August earlier this year and putting 2014 on course to be the hottest year in the history of global surface temperature measurement which date back to 1880."

On a geologic time scale, 134 years is equivalent to the blink of an eye, or less. To say that the temperature is the highest on record is of course misleading and false, and is dependent on only one specific kind of very short record that ignores all the proxy records available which cover a much greater period of time. It is an absurdity to draw wide ranging, specific conclusions from a brief record with such large variance. The only reasonable conclusion that one can draw from such limited observation is that we have barely scratched the surface in our attempts to understand natural climate change. Perhaps in another few centuries or millennia we will begin to understand.
 
Last edited:
we already covered this less than 1% of the papers supported agw also.

I have given you the link to his database... you can see the title for yourself.

It is a ridiculous state your are citing... plus he left out the hundreds of papers we cited earlier.


Yes we went through this a hundred times. AGW is now an accepted fact in the climate science community. It does not to have to be reasserted with every paper. Just as biology papers do not reassert evolution.

Why can't you get that through your thick demented skull?

You're trying to play slimey lawyerly bullshit talk. I call it a fucking lie. Your essential argument as presented is a fucking lie. By repeating it you are a liar .

Denial of AGW is a big deal in the climate community. If a paper was written from that standpoint it would be quite obvious. It would scream denial.

Only ONE author out of 9000 authors denied AGW.
 
On a geologic time scale, 134 years is equivalent to the blink of an eye, or less. To say that the temperature is the highest on record is of course misleading and false, and is dependent on only one specific kind of very short record that ignores all the proxy records available which cover a much greater period of time. It is an absurdity to draw wide ranging, specific conclusions from a brief record with such large variance. The only reasonable conclusion that one can draw from such limited observation is that we have barely scratched the surface in our attempts to understand natural climate change. Perhaps in another few centuries or millennia we will begin to understand.

To say that the temperature is the highest on record is of course misleading and false


Once again, (I've lost count as to how many times now) YOU ARE WRONG. We can say with very high confidence that it is the highest on record. We can say this because the "the record" is the instrumental record. Granted it is not a long time period and not, by itself, very informative from a paleo climate perspective. But to say that it is false is well..... false.

You just love trying to point out how little they know about climate science. You have surely convinced us about how little YOU know. Good job.
 
You are lying again... link us to papers which prove man made co2 causes warming?
AGW is not an accepted fact in the papers and evolution from non life to life is not an accepted issue.
There is not even a plausible pathway from life to non life at the moment.

That is what a great many scientists are working on right now.


For instance these scientists just released a paper hoping to show that part of the pathway from non life to life may have been through the oceans...


http://www.embo.org/news/research-n...cean-reveals-secrets-about-the-origin-of-life







Yes we went through this a hundred times. AGW is now an accepted fact in the climate science community. It does not to have to be reasserted with every paper. Just as biology papers do not reassert evolution.

Why can't you get that through your thick demented skull?

You're trying to play slimey lawyerly bullshit talk. I call it a fucking lie. Your essential argument as presented is a fucking lie. By repeating it you are a liar .

Denial of AGW is a big deal in the climate community. If a paper was written from that standpoint it would be quite obvious. It would scream denial.

Only ONE author out of 9000 authors denied AGW.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top