still, not a single quote from a publishing climate scientist denying or even questioning the basic truth of man made global warming. because the consensus is not 97% its 100% oh, and shut the fuck up jem
"The water levels haven't changed. Despite the gloom and doom threat of global warming that democrats have been spouting for the last 30 years. The whole coast was suppose to be underwater by 2010." No they never said that. Moron idiot deniers may THINK they said that because they watch Fox News but no, the scientists NEVER predicted that, only a complete idiot would think they did. And sea level certainly has changed. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
Those that are putting the issue of whether man is significantly affecting climate into a political framework are not doing any of us a favor. This is not a political right left issue. For example, we know that man does affect local temperature. There is no question about that. Cities are warmer than the countryside, and we know why. Are we creating enough thermal pollution to cause even the country-side to rise in temperature?, or does our Earths ecosystem dissipate harmlessly this extra heat we add. These are important questions for science to address. Good science must remain devoid of politics.
That leaves you out. You are the stupidest "scientist", that I have ever seen. My dog has more common sense logic. So you acknowledge that no publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming and the consensus is actually 100% What's the matter? Can't find a single quote/paper summary/ anything from one them denying or even questioning the basic truth of it? Huh? You seem to be ignoring this. I wonder why?
You are lying your ass off. There are thousands to peer reviewed papers showing the sun, the tides, the clouds and water vapor impact temperature. I have given you the links many times.. Here is one link... http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html We have presented here on et dozens of more recent papers... yet... You have never produced one peer reviewed paper stating man made co2 causes warming.
still, not a single quote from a publishing climate scientist denying or even questioning the basic truth of man made global warming. because the consensus is not 97% its 100% oh, and shut the fuck up jem
I am certain you will not be able to penetrate these two papers I am going to call your attention to. Let me say that I don't have a position on global warming, I accept the scientific consensus whatever that may be at the time, with regard to the amount of warming and its distribution. What I have currently rejected, as it is clearly not correct, is the Hansen hypothesis which requires that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentration be a primary driver of Global temperature. I don't even question whether man is a significant contributor to increases in CO2 in the last 150 years. This is not a very important question if one is interested in what are the main mechanisms causing our planet to warm or cool. (It would please me if you could make an effort to understand the nuances present in the various current positions of scientists regarding features of our Earths climate system. I don't believe any one is suggesting that CO2 isn't an important atmospheric gas. (By the way, according to our ice core data we are currently near a 15,000 year low in CO2 concentration .) For you, and for the rest of my ET colleagues, I give you references to two (from many I could have chosen) papers that are exceedingly interesting to me. The first, Miscolski's 2010 paper in Energy and Environment has caused quite a stir. It has not been accepted as correct by the climate science community at large; neither has it yet been widely rejected as wrong. Equally important is the Dutch critique of Miscolski's paper published on page 277 of the same Journal. You may be able to read at least the Abstract to the Miscolski paper. You could try. I read an earlier paper of Miscolski that got me very interested in his unique approach to trying to understand what makes our climate change. (This was the paper that caused him to resign his position at GISS when GISS Directors tried to suppress its publication.) I took this paper to a physicist colleague and left it with him. Now the even more interesting paper in "Energy and Environment has appeared" and the important follow up Dutch critique* has been published. I will be meeting soon with my colleague to discuss this work in more detail. You asked for papers in the Peer Reviewed Primary Journal Literature denying Global Warming, or was it denying Man made global warming you wanted? I don't know of any, but I'm sure there must be at least a few, particularly those that reject the idea of man being a major contributor to global warming. (I personally think it is premature to reject outright the possibility of man contributing to significant thermal pollution.) I only know of many papers calling into question various features of the Hansen Hypothesis, and there are indeed many of those. In particular, in the Abstract of the Miscolski paper in Energ Environ 21: 243–263 you will find this statement: The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed." If there is a more direct or clear rejection of the Hansen Hypothesis anywhere in the primary Journal literature, I am unaware of it. If you are not willing to explore on your own, and simply accept, hook line and sinker, what you hear in the popular media and from politicians, you are going to be stuck in this valley of ignorance you have voluntarily placed yourself in. You will go on thinking that virtually all scientists have accepted the Hansen Hypothesis, when nothing could be further from the truth. And of course those of us who have rejected Hansen's hypothesis as quite wrong do not expect any appreciable change in climate to come from limiting anthropological emissions of CO2. But scientists who have rejected Hansen's hypothesis don't necessarily believe it isn't worthwhile to pursue alternatives to fossil fuel as sources of energy. One of the things that separate scientific thinking from that of non-scientists like yourself is a greater reluctance to jump to conclusions on the basis of a little information. So that would explain why, if I should write that curtailing CO2 emissions is not going to change the climate, you will immediately, and wrongly, conclude that I am not in favor of curtailing CO2. Another jump you are prone to take, I guarantee it!, and unjustifiably of course, is that if in the next 10-20 years scientists say that the Earth is now cooling some, you will say "I told you so. See cutting back on CO2 saved us from more heating." You could benefit from less jumping and and more listening. Just some unwelcome friendly advice... ___ * Enter the following as you would a URL: Miskolczi F. (2010) The stable stationary value of the Earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness. Energ Environ 21: 243–263 This will take you to a link to the PDF version of the Miscolski paper.. Once you have the PDF version displayed go to page 277, and you will find a very nicely written critique from the Netherlands. P.S.: For purposes of your personal characterization: Miscolski fits the definition of "Publishing Climate Scientist."