So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?
What about the 97% consensus? What about the fact that no science org in the world denies it and nearly of them agree with the 97% consensus?
Heat goes on: Earth headed for warmest year on record
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?
What about the 97% consensus? What about the fact that no science org in the world denies it and nearly of them agree with the 97% consensus?
About John Cook
Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.
He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.
He is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change. He is also developing a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course), Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, to be released in April 2015.
There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.
Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.
He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.
He is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change. He is also developing a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course), Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, to be released in April 2015.
There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.
Why would a solar physicist embrace the non-rationality of religion?
Writing about climate change can be dispiriting, to say the least. Even George Monbiot admits to occasional bouts of despair: "There is no point in denying it: we're losing ..." he opined in a Guardian article at the end of last year.
What can one man achieve in a world dominated by governments whose contradictory policies are often the product of their venal self-interest, by vast media empires sporting a host of vicious and deceitful pundits, and contrarians stuffing endless blogs with their bilious disaffection?
The site is based on a simple premise: take each sceptical argument, and rebut it with actual science. Each rebuttal is carefully explained, and every assertion is backed up with a reference to the peer-reviewed primary science. It becomes clear in a matter of minutes that what you are reading is a digest of the research, not opinion stated as fact – unlike most sceptic arguments, I regret to say.
As to what motivated him, his first concern was to ensure he could look his 10-year-old daughter in the eye when she grew up. "I want to be able to say 'I did my best to communicate the scientific reality to people,'" explained Cook. But Cook's second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.
"I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25", he wrote. "... I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable."
Talk about unexpected – faith is hardly the de rigueur mindset in scientific circles, particularly when it is so frequently associated with US right-wing Fox punditry, anti-science rhetoric, creationism and – bizarrely, in the case of climate change – the Rapture. But in Cook's case, it made sense. If I had a model in my head of what a proper Christian ought to be like, John Cook would fit the template pretty well.
read more......
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...icist-religion
Writing about climate change can be dispiriting, to say the least. Even George Monbiot admits to occasional bouts of despair: "There is no point in denying it: we're losing ..." he opined in a Guardian article at the end of last year.
What can one man achieve in a world dominated by governments whose contradictory policies are often the product of their venal self-interest, by vast media empires sporting a host of vicious and deceitful pundits, and contrarians stuffing endless blogs with their bilious disaffection?
The site is based on a simple premise: take each sceptical argument, and rebut it with actual science. Each rebuttal is carefully explained, and every assertion is backed up with a reference to the peer-reviewed primary science. It becomes clear in a matter of minutes that what you are reading is a digest of the research, not opinion stated as fact – unlike most sceptic arguments, I regret to say.
As to what motivated him, his first concern was to ensure he could look his 10-year-old daughter in the eye when she grew up. "I want to be able to say 'I did my best to communicate the scientific reality to people,'" explained Cook. But Cook's second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.
"I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25", he wrote. "... I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable."
Talk about unexpected – faith is hardly the de rigueur mindset in scientific circles, particularly when it is so frequently associated with US right-wing Fox punditry, anti-science rhetoric, creationism and – bizarrely, in the case of climate change – the Rapture. But in Cook's case, it made sense. If I had a model in my head of what a proper Christian ought to be like, John Cook would fit the template pretty well.
read more......
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...icist-religion
I have followed this thread with interest, but now i'm done.My only comment is that one should follow the money. A political discussion of a scientific process still incomplete only serves to distribute political money and control. After all scientists need money too.Political creatures (active or retired) for the most part are in it for gain or power.
More up-chuck from FC with his cut & paste from the never ending supply of watermelons.
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? We have raised it's levels by 40%. How can that not cause warming?
What is with this "watermelon" stuff? You mean science? Why do you hate science so much? Does it confuse you? Of course it does.
Typical dumb-ass righty.
First, watermelon refers to the true nature of today's environmentalist....... Green on the Out Side...RED on the Inside.
Second, you were overdue for some name calling potty mouth, mustn't get out of form.
The glaciers of the Canadian West could shrink by 70 percent by 2100, according to new research that has implications for predicting glacier loss around the world.
The loss of mountain glaciers contributes to the rise in sea levels. As glaciers dwindle there could be also be pronounced effects on availability of water for aquatic creatures and for agriculture as well as water quality issues.
Under the calculations in the paper, glaciers in Western Canada will shrink to less than 10 percent of the area they covered in 2005, and glaciers in the coastal regions will be reduced to about 30 percent of their 2005 size.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/s...ule=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine
The loss of mountain glaciers contributes to the rise in sea levels. As glaciers dwindle there could be also be pronounced effects on availability of water for aquatic creatures and for agriculture as well as water quality issues.
Under the calculations in the paper, glaciers in Western Canada will shrink to less than 10 percent of the area they covered in 2005, and glaciers in the coastal regions will be reduced to about 30 percent of their 2005 size.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/s...ule=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine