http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-who-are-the-deniers-now/ Checkmate, globalists. Stop denying the science. There is no man made climate change.
Tip: Never get your science from a scammy financial website selling snakeoil The scientists wrote a followup to all the dumb Cons lying about their study So after reasonably accurate initial reporting, suddenly our paper was about a downgrading of the threat of climate change, when it was actually nothing of the kind: our predictions for warming rates over the coming decades are identical to those of the IPCC, and we do not assess the impacts of climate change for any warming level. And then, of course, these ideas were picked up by sympathetic editors all over the world. Who really loses from all this? While Delingpole and Stringer were making out that our paper was about something it wasn’t, it seems to have prompted much more interesting conversations among scientists around the world about what the true level of human-induced warming really is, and what the Paris goal actually means. These are important questions. For such a tight target, the actual remaining carbon budget is sensitive to a number of assumptions, including even how we define global average temperature. Significant uncertainties remain, and while we believe our paper improves on previous estimates, it is by no means the last word. But debating the current level of human-induced warming and how it relates to the 1.5C goal feels a bit like discussing how best to steer a spacecraft into orbit around Saturn while Delingpole and Stringer are urging their readers to question whether the Earth goes round the Sun. https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...resent-our-climate-research-we-must-speak-out
More from the scientist that was at NASA GISS for 7 years. He work for Hansen and Schmidt. He has been confirming what us deniers have been saying for years. http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/Principles/index.html Why Global Warming Is Not Irrefutable It really is as easy as 1-2-3. There are 3 main arguments alarmists/opportunists use for global warming: climate models predict it, records of past climate show it was globally cooler, and scientific consensus. All 3 arguments are fundamentally flawed. 1. It is fundamentally mathematically impossible for climate models to predict climate. Chaos Theory's Butterfly Effect is usually described as the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Japan resulting in a hurricane in the Atlantic. This is not artistic hyperbole, this is mathematical reality. Climate is a quintessential example of this phenomenon. Unless climate models do the absolutely impossible and account for even a butterfly's wings flapping, particularly when they are initialized, and then calculate with infinite precision, they can not predict climate. Climate models are just more complex/chaotic weather models, which have a theoretical maximum predictive ability of just 10 days into the future. Predicting climate decades or even just years into the future is a lie, albeit a useful one for publication and funding. Qualified climate modelers know all this but almost all won't publically admit it out of fear for their careers. See More Reasons To Doubt Climate Models Can Predict Climate. Corrupt German Climate Science)Scientific revolutions are called revolutions because before a wrong theory was overthrown there was a scientific consensus that it was right. 2. Climate proxies are far too inaccurate, unreliable, and sparse to prove anything about past global climate, e.g. that it was colder. Climate proxies are things like tree rings and ice cores. Given old methods and instruments, even historical climate measurements have to be considered climate proxies. They are called climate "proxies" because they are substitutes for real climate measurements. Obviously, there are no instruments in these climate proxies so how is it done? The climate measurements have to be inferred from loosely-related characteristics of the proxy, e.g. temperature from tree ring widths. This usually involves primitive modeling or misuse of statistics. It is thus inaccurate and unreliable well beyond what is required for the conclusions drawn. Climate proxies are very sparse. A single measurement often has to represent thousands of square miles or more, particularly in remote ocean regions, and is usually not representative of that area (e.g. sampled trees are not chosen randomly) or doesn't even have a knowable bias. A single temperature for the Earth averaged from these measurements is meaningless and absurd. The reason for using climate proxies is that there is nothing else, which is not a good reason ... unless you have to get published or funded. 3. Scientific consensus is not proof of global warming, just publication and funding bias, and has often been used as proof of theories later shown to be wrong. Scientific consensus = all published research shows global warming. Climate model/proxy research that does not show global warming will not get published or funded because of: Non-publication of negative results (no global warming found) Fearful self-censorship Conflict of interest (a need to get results, regardless of validity, that further careers) Corrupt and/or unqualified scientists Censorship by consensus scientists in a fundamentally-flawed peer review process Corruption of climate science overall (e.g., see Corrupt German Climate Science) Scientific revolutions are called revolutions because before a wrong theory was overthrown there was a scientific consensus that it was right.
I didn't link to any news, it linked to a post by the scientists who rebutted the lies being spread in their name.
More crap from paid shills of oil companies Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry, and Dr. Roy Spencer Can you find someone who is NOT paid to spout this crap? And Lindzen is a creationist, this is the guy you rely on for your science?????
Always funny to see Trump supporters calling others' liars Read the top of the link "Our climate paper underlined that strong action towards the 1.5C Paris goal is perhaps more valid than ever, but reading some of the media coverage you might think the opposite was true" If the link was reporting news, why would it start like that? Can you read Trump U cuck? Why would a news start off with 'OUR PAPER' if it was a news link?