REALLY dead hurricane season, Global warming alarmist predictions WRONG yet again

Dano, it was rejected by a technical journal known to be friendly to global warming skeptics. I think we can rule out personal vendettas as a reason.

Anyone can do research and write a draft paper claiming that they "found" 300 examples of scientists refuting global warming. But, when that draft is submitted for publication at a technical journal, and the editors and peer reviewers reject it, it means that the author of the draft used poor methodology, the accuracy was flawed, it was biased, or it was downright wrong.
 
Dano, it was rejected by a technical journal known to be friendly to global warming skeptics. I think we can rule out personal vendettas as a reason.

Anyone can do research and write a draft paper claiming that they "found" 300 examples of scientists refuting global warming. But, when that draft is submitted for publication at a technical journal, and the editors and peer reviewers reject it, it means that the author of the draft used poor methodology, the accuracy was flawed, it was biased, or it was downright wrong.

You are deceiving again cypriss, the article your link shows as rejected was something completely different written by
Naomi Oreskes.
This is what I am talking about
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml
Deal with MY link, not some debunked other irrelevant one that you went searching for.
 
This is from a report at http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d87f58c3-be16-4959-88e2-906b7c291fd6 from August 29, 2007. The whole article is way to long to post here so I just posted the beginning.

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on Aug. 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

Climate fears reduced to children’s games

Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,” Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post.

“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained.

“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,” Motl concluded.
 
50 % of the polar ice cap vanishing is nothing to worry about.
Go back to your Gameboys and spectator sports.
 
And Guess what Dano ? I don't personally give a rats ass. My life will be gone before it really gets to suck too bad. I am fixed pretty good for the rest of my life.
You younger folks are the ones who need to get your heads out of your asses.
 
And Guess what Dano ? I don't personally give a rats ass. My life will be gone before it really gets to suck too bad. I am fixed pretty good for the rest of my life.
You younger folks are the ones who need to get your heads out of your asses.
Of course you care or you wouldn't bother to respond and as if Kentucky has anything to fear from global warming.

I sure hope you are "fixed" pretty good, at least someone got that right...
 
Umm we did just drop from the highest level of drought to the next to the highest level of drought Dano. GW related ? Quite possibly.
 
Okay Dano. I've challenged you to this before, and you've ignored it. Once again, you are trying to pretend that there is SERIOUS doubt when it comes to Man Made Climate Change.

You are simply presenting one logical fallacy after another.

Once again, I challenge you to try to refute what is colloquially known as "Global Warming".

I will EASILY, and with great detail, tear apart everything you try to present as a "reasoned argument"

Bring it.
 
"Of course you care or you wouldn't bother to respond and as if Kentucky has anything to fear from global warming.

I sure hope you are "fixed" pretty good, at least someone got that right..."


Hmm, isn't Kentucky part of the region experiencing extreme drought right now?
 
I don't hear Dano denying that global warming is real. What I hear him and lots of scienticists saying is that right now there is little hard evidence that shows that if man just disappeared off the face of the earth that it would slow it much at all. The last article I posted said that the models have been WRONG. That all of this regulation is in an attempt to keep the overall global temp from rising one degree kelvin. If that is the case then it is a lot of regulations and laws for very little effect. Read the article I posted last. Honestly I don't know what the case is because it appears that about equal numbers of scientists have a disagreement on what the HUMAN effect on global warming really is.
 
Last edited:
Okay Dano. I've challenged you to this before, and you've ignored it. Once again, you are trying to pretend that there is SERIOUS doubt when it comes to Man Made Climate Change.

You are simply presenting one logical fallacy after another.

Once again, I challenge you to try to refute what is colloquially known as "Global Warming".

I will EASILY, and with great detail, tear apart everything you try to present as a "reasoned argument"

Bring it.

I am not refuting global warming, I've said from the outset that we are more certain global warming is happening.

This seems to be an increasingly common tactic used by the enviroleft - to always try and morph any scepticism on anything into denial over global warming.
 
Back
Top