Its actually .03% ----- read the last sentence of my quote this peer reviewed paper. then read the link. David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley http://link.springer.com/article/10....191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
Meteorologist Says Climate Alarmists Used âMcCarthyâ Tactics Against Him When the federal government fearmongers over climate change, you can expect a collective media gasp. But not when alarmists are accused of pressuring and attacking skeptical scientists. Meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims that after he joined a non-profit which expressed doubt in the global warming alarmist movement, he suffered a persistent campaign of hate and vitriol from alarmist scientists. He resigned from the group on May 14, citing fears for his health and safety. Broadcast news networks ignored Bengtsson and his claims while continuing to report on climate change. Bengtsson said that the meteorology community âhas been transformedâ to exert âenormous group pressureâ on skeptics like himself. While the networks ignored this alleged scandal, the networks aired climate alarmism stories only weeks before. Bengtsson is a professor of meteorology who has authored over 200 papers since 1963 and won numerous awards throughout his career. Bengtsson is also the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, which Der Spiegel called âone of the worldâs leading climate research centers.â Bengtsson was also once part of the U.N.âs IPCC, according to Climate Depot. He joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) on May 7. The GWPFâs goal is to â[restore] balance and trust to the climate debateâ and said that the climate debate âis not yet settled,â ... http://mrc.org/articles/meterologist-says-climate-alarmists-used-mccarthy-tactics-against-him
Richter, you are one of the few who's point of view makes sense to me and are capable of understanding mine -- which is something apart from all the other views expressed here. Neither "climate change" nor the reality that we have been in a net warming period is debatable. Climate change has always been with us and we can measure the amount of warming. What is debatable are the details of all the many factors that affect our climate. It is an extraordinary challenge to sort this out. We have some, many actually, like FC, that recognize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore jump to the conclusion that the warming is caused by an observed increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. They are, after all, correlated! The obvious questions immediately raised by such a simpleminded conclusion is: a) If CO2 is the cause of the warming why does the integrated temperature increase lead CO2 concentration increase? One would logically think it would be the other way around. b) Is it reasonable to ignore the other roles of CO2, such as increasing the rate of photosynthesis and CO2 scavenging and the cooling role it plays in the outer atmosphere; c) How long does human-sourced newly introduced CO2 remain in the atmosphere before it exchanges with natural-sourced CO2. This is one key to the reliability of isotopic CO2 measurements as a marker for anthropomorphic CO2. Using Bomb test C-14 CO2 as a marker has shown that the rate of exchange of atmospheric CO is far greater (two orders) than was assumed in applying the Bern model. This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to questions yet to be answered. Especially important is the role of water and water vapor. Water vapor is the most important green house gas. Does it make sense to ignore it and simply assume that CO2 is the most important cause of global warming? What about solar activity? No one questions that there is climate change, that would be like questioning whether the Sun comes up in the East. No one questions that one of the starring roles played by CO2 is as a greenhouse gas, and in that role it acts to reduce the rate of heat dissipation from the lower biosphere. But sadly our understanding of climate and temperature on Earth is rudimentary at this point. And now that CO2 is still increasing a little, but the temperature is not currently increasing, how do we explain that? We can note that this current pattern is entirely consistent with other periods of increasing CO2 and stable or decreasing temperature in the distant past, and also amazingly consistent with temperature leading and CO2 concentration lagging! . My position can be summarized thus: there is no convincing evidence so far that our currently observed climate changes occurring since industrialization are not easily incorporated with the range of climate changes evidenced by the historical record that goes back well beyond any possibility of industrialization or man's fossil fuel burning having anything whatsoever to do with those climate changes. It is possible that man is affecting his own climate, it is somewhat less likely, but still possible, that his affect on climate is due to anthropomorphic CO2 emissions. It is even less likely that the effect of anthropomorphic CO2, so far, is significant. We currently do not have a very good quantitative understanding of how all the factors that affect climate interplay and our ability to predict changes in these factors and their ensuing effect is rudimentary at best.. Without a correct quantitative understanding, our models will be useless in making predictions.
It is possible that man is affecting his own climate, it is somewhat less likely, but still possible, that his affect on climate is due to anthropomorphic CO2 emissions. It is even less likely that the effect of anthropomorphic CO2, so far, is significant So, according to you, man's burning of fossil fuels which has caused the 40% rise in CO2, CO2 being a dominant greenhouse gas, basically responsible for the temperature setpoint of the earth, is unlikely to have caused the global warming we are seeing. Keeping in mind that the sun is not responsible. We know that because we have satellites and stuff. I'll tell you where there is a lot of hot air...... So which do you deny.... That CO2 is GHG? That we have raised it's levels by 40%? That the sun is not responsible? That the earth is warming at a steady and unusual rate? Just what is your major malfunction? Righty?
no troll. 1. science does not know what adding more co2 right now is doing. we need to understand clouds and co2's impact on them. The sun and water vapor most likely have far more impact on temps than co2. But science is learning about clouds right now. 2. while prior to the last almost 18 years...the earth had been warming... it was supposed to be warming because we warming out of ice ages and little ice ages. Using the best statistical methods... we can not tell if we are warming outside natural variability.
No jerm. Not only are you insane, you are also wrong. It IS possible to be insane and be right. But you are not right. And you're not right. LOL I crack myself up.
If you want to discuss this issue intelligently you have to start with facts. Water vapor, not CO2 , is the Dominant Greehouse gas. Secondly. we have, for this blink in the eye of geological time, stopped warming. Thirdly, we must explain why it is that temperature change leads CO2 concentration change, if indeed CO2 concentration is primarily responsible for our most recently observed increase in temperature.
No, water vapor is not the greenhouse gas that acts as a the setting on the earth's thermostat. CO2 is. Water vapor is self-limiting and short term and only acts to accentuate the effect of CO2. The earth's temperature level is controlled by CO2 levels, not water vapor. So right off the bat your attempt to speak intelligently has gone wrong. Strike one. Second, we have not stopped warming. You are wrong about this also. Strike two. If you don't know why temp lead CO2 in the past but is now is leading temps and that CO2 can both lead or lag, you are even more ignorant than I thought. Do we have to review how outgassing and greenhouse gasses work again? Just how ignorant are you? Strike three, you're out. Next batty. You totally avoided the questions.. So which do you deny.... That CO2 is a GHG? That we have raised it's levels by 40%? That the sun is not responsible? That the earth is warming at a steady and unusual rate?
Would you like to rephrase that? The sun is responsible for everything. Factors in the atmosphere and magnetic fields may influence the suns effect on our planet, but the sun itself is the primary driver. Ergo, it's cycles and surface activity have much more cause and effect. You can spout all the CO2 crap you want, if the sun goes into a dormant phase the earth cools, period. History proves to us that the earth can warm and cool itself to a much greater extreme than we are currently experiencing, all by natural means without the help of mankind.