Now if this isn't a hypocritical post I don't know what is. The are really two different camps that comprise a great majority concerning AGW: 1) AGW is real and is a significant factor in climate change that will radically change the environment for humankind. AGW is a significant threat to humankind going forward. 2) AGW is real, but it has a modest contribution to climate change. John Christy of Univ. of Alabama is proponent of the 2nd camp, for example. A very small minority comprises the 3rd camp, about 7%. 3) AGW is not happening. In this camp there are two subgroups: 3A) There is no appreciable AGW. The warming, the change in climate over the past 50-100 years is attributable to natural forces. 3B) AGW is a hoax. There is no warming of the planet, any data indicating otherwise is suspect at best and most likely fraudulent.
that was the old data... in the last two years... the models have been recognized to be failing and far more scientists are now in the there is no proof of man made co2 causing significant or even detectable warming. .
I've always believed that pollution contributes negatively to the atmosphere. I've also believed that nature is bigger than man. That's why I've been opposed to political agenda driven solutions. I live on the gulf coast and it's going into the mid 40's tomorrow night and into the weekend. Where I live, that's quite uncommon for May. Possible snow in N. MS and AL., as well as parts of MO and AR. Some would say that's because of global warming. Geological history suggests that it could be early signs of an approaching ice age or mini ice age. Sunspot activity is currently a factor to some. no doubt, there are many other factors. I'm content to let the experts who create models make that determination (not so much those who manipulate data to skew their models, but those who don't). Hopefully, the correct models (primarily those that haven't been manipulated to provide a specific outcome) will prevail.
I'm not being hypocritical. You just didn't do your homework and look at the links to the data that verified the fact that data was being manipulated. It is quite obvious to the objective reader. It's also nice of you to just make up numbers about who is in your camps. But that doesn't make it true. I would say that the majority of climate scientist now discount the effect of CO2 on climate. You can read my other thread that clearly states why there is a vocal minority that are clinging to AGW because their reputations and livelihoods hinge upon it being true. They are too far out on the limb to be able to climb back now. Anyone who believes in AGW today has a serious denial problem with the facts.
You are reading your own propaganda. You simply have no rational connection to or grasp of the discourse among climate scientists. You're position is inherently political, it is founded upon a hatred of a bogeyman - the liberal. Your credibility is zero, it is ...pisspoor.
I think you are looking in the mirror as you are typing. I'm not the one who published the articles and showed the proof that NOAA and NASA are manipulating data so it has nothing to do with my credibility. I'm just pointing out sources of the facts. You asked for the information and I pointed it out for you. If you can't understand what is being said and documented, that is your problem. And, I see you've stooped to being the first to start name calling. All the trademarks of a loser. Maybe you should go spend more time playing basketball and less time arguing with people more knowledgeable than yourself on the Internet.
people are confusing degrees with intelligence and knowledge. (by the way I have a degrees so I am not anti degrees) First of all there is no science that can currently accurately model weather more than a few days out. And even then they get it wrong. So after that its all guess work and feel. Same with CO2 forcing. Because there are no models which are currently working its always charlatans and posers who make bold proclamations... whereas the scientists with integrity would never make claims which can't be verified. Hence any of these guys making any claims are science whores. Now... in fairness to the scientists... it has been the editors of UN reports who have been lying about what the scientists actually conclude.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html 2.Very Unreliable Climate Forecasts - Modelling. The entire IPCC - Al Gore CAGW paradigm relies on the forecast of dangerous 21st century warming based on the projections (not, modellers are careful to say,predictions) of climate models. The outcome of models is not empirical data .The science is in the inputs i.e our knowledge ( often guesses and assumptions ) of the initial conditions and the physical processes at work on the initial state of the system as we can best establish it. Science section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes: "Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed" What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said that we dont even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. This quoted statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given âwith high confidence.â in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty. A glance at this Figure 2-20 From AR4 WGI shows immediately that the IPCC models are structurally obviously highly implausible. The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is anthropogenic. For example under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch orbital cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents and all the Solar activity data time series - eg Solar and Earth magnetic field strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.