All papers on the list support a skeptic argument against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism. Your comments are addressed in the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list. Criticism: Some papers on the list do not argue against AGW. Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument, as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UAH. Criticism: Some papers on the list are old. Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list. The handful of papers in the Historic section (pre-1970) are not counted but included to demonstrate that skepticism has been around for a long time.
How is linking papers from the 70's and 80's which had no data disprove 'alarmism' or 'AGW' The link is nothing but gish gallup. It is relevant because they do not have the facts that we have now, some of the papers dont actually have any data on AGW - they are just asking questions on unrelated topics.
What price are Californians paying to fight climate change? Californians pay about 15 cents a gallon extra at the pump to fight climate change. Here’s what they’re getting for their money: continued progress in the effort to curb carbon. Greenhouse gas emissions fell by 1.5 million tons in California in 2015, state officials said. The reduction was the equivalent of pulling 300,000 cars off the road for a year. (Sacramento Bee)
The list is a bibliographic resource of papers that support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism. The list does not "disprove" anything other than the false claim that these papers do not exist.. What paper on the list does not have any data? Incorrect the list is a bibliographic resource of papers and has nothing to do with creationism. Is Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper no longer relevant? What part of papers on the list support skeptic arguments against alarmism and not just AGW do you not understand? Which paper is asking questions on unrelated topics?
World Coal Production Just Had Its Biggest Drop on Record https://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-coal-production-just-had-133000647.html It’s the end of an era for coal. Production of the fossil fuel dropped by a record amount in 2016, according to BP Plc’s annual review of global energy trends. China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, burned the least coal in six years and use dropped in the U.S to a level last seen in the 1970s, the company’s data show. (More at above url)
Trump said he will bring coal back.I'll be fair with him it is still early so I'll give Trump time to make good on that promise.
Actually I think the part of coal that Trump will bring back will be the hard coal used for steel manufacturing. Which will help a lot of people in West Virginia and nearby areas. However soft coal used for power plants is never coming back with natural gas prices so low due to fracking.
That's hilarious. Thanks for this post. At this rate we should be able to wade from the U.S. to China in about 15 years.
Still humorous but it came from a parody account... http://www.snopes.com/maxine-waters-climate-change-tide-receding-photo/
Here you go: (look in the last paragraph for the phrase "his hypothesis" that I have underlined and put in bold faced type just for you benefit. Another name for the "Hansen Hypothesis" is the "AGW hypothesis." They are one and the same. But I know you will agree that we should always give credit where credit is due; hence, we call it the "Hansen Hypothesis") wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/03/did-james-hansen-unwittingly-prove-the-null-hypothesis-of-agw/ Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW? Guest Blogger / October 3, 2015 Guest Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is central to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. If incorrect, failure of this assumption alone should guarantee rejection of the hypothesis. In proper scientific procedure if the hypothesis is rejected the null hypothesis is considered. In this case, the null hypothesis is that CO2 is not causing global warming. The IPCC never considered the null hypothesis. Ironically and unwittingly, James Hansen proved the null hypothesis in his first major attempt to push his agenda that CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. Background The first IPCC Report appeared in 1990, but the more orchestrated push of the AGW hypothesis occurred with the 1995 Report. Four years later an Antarctic ice core record produced by Petit et al., was published in Nature. The article included a graphic that juxtaposed temperature, CO2, methane, and insolation (Figure 1). Figure 1 It appeared to provide support for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. It looked like temperature increase preceded CO2 increase. I recall one of the authors, Jean Jouzel, warning in an interview not to rush to judgment. He noted it was 420,000 years plotted on a 10 cm long graph, complicated by a 70-year smoothing average that masked much detail. He was prescient. AGW advocates ignored the warning and used the graph as support for their hypothesis. It effectively became the forerunner to the ‘hockey stick’ in grabbing media and public attention. However, in proper scientific tradition Hubertus Fischer, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography was already questioning the cause and effect relationship with a 1999 paper. In 2001, Manfred Mudelsee published another paper that challenged the relationship in Quaternary Science Review. Lowell Stott followed with a 2007 paper in Science titled, Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming. Sherwood and Craig Idso maintain the best website on all issues related to CO2. They provide a list of papers that yield further evidence that the relationship is opposite to the IPCC assumption. None of this ever received mainstream media attention. Failed predictions, which began with the 1990 IPCC Report, were one of the first signs of problems. Instead of revisiting the assumptions and science of their hypothesis they made the first political adjustment by creating projections to replace predictions. They compounded their duplicity by allowing the media and public to believe they were predictions. Hansen et al, produced a forerunner of the projection scenarios in 1988, the same year he appeared before the US Senate committee to kick-start the entire AGW deception. Figure 2 shows the original graph from that article. Figure 2 In an incisive article on Hansen’s model Anthony Watts provided a modified version of Figure 2 with actual temperatures added (Figure 3). Figure 3 Hansen et al, postulated three scenarios, A: increase in CO2 emissions by 1.5% per year B: constant increase in CO2 emissions after 2000 C: No increase in CO2 emissions after 2000 Naturally, the mainstream media focused on the temperature projections of scenario A. Some of us knew Scenarios A and B were unrealistic, and now we know how wrong they were. I had many discussions in the 1990s with Canadian ice core expert Fritz Koerner about his Arctic Island cores. He told me they showed temperature increasing before CO2. In retrospect, scenario C is more interesting and more telling. Hansen presents it as the ideal scenario. He is telling political leaders and media what will happen if humans stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Salvation! Temperatures will stop increasing. Ironically, this is equivalent to running the model as if CO2 was not causing warming. In doing so, it effectively presents the null hypothesis to the AGW hypothesis. It shows what would happen if CO2 was not the cause of warming. It approximates reality. Figure 4 shows similar scenario projections from the IPCC AR4 2007 Report overlain with actual CO2 increases. The difference with Hansen is in the low scenario. The IPCC say in AR4, Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. Figure 4 Figure 4 appears to show that the “Best” and “High” projections are primarily a function of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Even the “Low” projection diverges from the actual temperature trend shown for the surface (HadCrut) and satellite (UAH) records. Besides confirming the null hypothesis the results show that the IPCC claim of continued increase because of slow ocean response is also incorrect. Hansen limited his research and climate models to human causes of climate change. He produced two projections that argued CO2 would continue to increase. In doing so, he predetermined the outcome. He confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. It produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years. This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming. Thanks, Jim, enjoy your retirement.