Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

gwb-trading · Sep 6, 2015

futurecurrents said:
Oh, and then the other author of what jem thinks is good science? Willie Soon. Hmmmm, let's see what he is all about.....

In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[23][24]

Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[25][26] They raised three main objections: (1) Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; (2) they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and (3) they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.[25][26] Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these objections.[27]

After disagreement with the publisher and with other members of the editorial board, Hans von Storch, Clare Goodess, and two more members of the journal's ten-member editorial board resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[8][28] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, eventually stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[29]

Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.[30][31][32]

2011: Funding controversy[edit]
In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[33] Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research" and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."[34]

On February 21, publications including The Guardian and the New York Times reported that Soon had failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 papers since 2008, and alleged that Soon had violated ethical guidelines of at least 8 of those journals publishing his work. Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, described the disclosure violations as "inappropriate behavior" that they would "have to handle with Dr. Soon internally".[2][9] On the same day, Nature reported that the CfA had launched an investigation into whether Soon had properly reported the funding arrangements shown in the documents. Alcock said "We want to get the facts straight. If there is evidence of failure to disclose, yes, we have a problem."[38] He said that the contract with Southern preventing disclosure of their funding "was a mistake", and in a later email reply to questions said "We will not permit similar wording in future grant agreements".[42] The Smithsonian announced that its Inspector General would investigate, and in addition there was to be a full review of the Smithsonian's ethics and disclosure policies about sponsored research,[11][43] led by former NSF director Rita R. Colwell.[44]

****************************************************************

^And that is just a sample.

These things have pointed out to jerm multiple times but he continues to use these kind of frauds and fools to support his lies.

In short jem is a fucking liar. Knows he is lying, and continues to do it and yet he thinks he is a good Catholic.

And now he will come back with some fake outrage and call me troll and seem amazed I could be saying this.

POS liar is all he is.
More...

It is interesting that the links to the Skeptical Science hack from 2012 I posted show the deliberately coordinated attacks on Dr. Soon and other scientists who do not support AGW. The intent was to turn "saints into sinners" as per the statement in the SkS material.

So this crowd set about to deliberately impugn the reputation of Dr. Soon. You fail to mention that -- after all the investigations and fabricated material posted to Wikipedia etc. -- none of the assertions by the climate cabal have been found to be factual or true (except in the twisted minds of the AGW advocates).

jem · Sep 7, 2015

for anyone watching.
the fraud will not post links to peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming
the person telling the truth will post papers showing the sun and the tides do contribute to warming and cooling.

futurecurrents said:
So, to sum up, jerm has in the last few pages posted a fraud chart and the fraud paper of two known frauds and cannot, will not acknowledge the obvious glaring lies that are the content of his posts. Even after being shown, in no uncertain terms the lies that they are, he continues to stand behind them.

Because jem is a POS liar. It comes so easily to lawyers.
More...

jem · Sep 7, 2015

here is a post form John Cook... fraudcurrents guy about this site showing 1350 papers doubting the consensus position.

I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."
- John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science

here is the link to the papers...

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

its a great site...

for instance this in the section discussing the impact of clouds.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Clouds

jem · Sep 7, 2015

Fraud currents

how come you can't even link to 10 papers? or 5? or 2?

could it be you have no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.
you lying troll. where is your peer reviewed science?

Log in or Sign up

Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

gwb-trading

jem

jem

jem