The bulwark
claim of the anthropogenic global warm (AGW) hypothesis and the objective of the stick are that current global annual average temperatures are the warmest ever.
«I have been involved in climate change science since 1988 and by 1992 I realized there was very little science to back up
the claims of anthropogenic global warming.
The bulwark
claim of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis and the objective of the stick are that current global annual average temperatures are the warmest ever.
Not exact matches
One
of his reasons to
claim that «the risk
of catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.
This is similar to how the denier
claims of no
global warming, or
of no
anthropogenic influence upon
warming, or
of low climate sensitivity, depend on all observational data being wrong in the same direction.
The two kinds
of climate change are sometimes confounded by non-experts — e.g., when it is
claimed that DO events represent a much larger and more rapid climate change than
anthropogenic global warming.
One
of his reasons to
claim that «the risk
of catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it» is that he uses a very low value for the climate sensitivity based on non-reviewed «studies», while ignoring the peer - reviewed work.
Surely you have more to present than that to support your
claim, ``... the duration
of the current positve phase
of the PDO over the last 30 years... can very much be linked (albeit not with absolute certainty) to
anthropogenic global warming.»
It
claims to be the first
of its kind, but there have been one or two others like it, such as the now universally - discredited Stern Report, which used the same unscientific rhetoric
of «market failure» together with overstatements
of the imagined consequences
of anthropogenic «
global warming» as a substitute for rigorous economic analysis.
One might first note, as The New American has reported before, that «consensus» itself is often manipulated, a good example being the debunked
claim that «97 percent
of scientists affirm
anthropogenic global warming.»
A paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013
claimed that
of the 4,000 peer - reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on
anthropogenic global warming, «97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing
global warming».
The new report — the first
of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one
of the strongest
claims yet in support
of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as
anthropogenic global warming.
Speaking
of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to
claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding
anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever the charlatans now call it: «Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy
of the truth» Albert Einstein.
By Noel Sheppard One
of the world's leading promoters
of the
anthropogenic global warming myth
claimed Monday he is convinced the e-mail messages involved in the growing international scandal ClimateGate «are genuine,» and he's «dismayed and deeply shaken by them.»
A graph we posted back in April shows the danger
of looking at ENO to substantiate
claims made about
anthropogenic global warming.
Despite his views on
anthropogenic global warming and dislike
of environmentalists, Watts
claims to be a «green» who drives an electric car and has installed solar panels on his house.
Now that the US has greatly increased sources
of oil and natural gas thanks to drilling using new technology (thus obviating the need for depending on the Middle East), renewable energy advocates have fallen back on their
claims that fossil fuel use must be reduced to avoid catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming.
Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when
claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact
of anthropogenic C02 emissions on
global warming.
But to top it all off, they made a
claim of Anthropogenic (man made)
Global Warming caused by C02.
and which said
claims of CO2 causing
Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change (CAGW) makes no mention of the «warming» associated with the IP
Warming Climate Change (CAGW) makes no mention
of the «
warming» associated with the IP
warming» associated with the IPGW,....
In the Comment by Nuccitelli et al., they make many false and invalid criticisms
of the CFC -
warming theory in my recent paper, and
claim that their
anthropogenic forcings including CO2 would provide a better explanation
of the observed
global mean surface temperature (GMST) data over the past 50 years.
The public is receptive to an expose
of the many mythologies and false
claims associated with
anthropogenic global warming and are welcoming an authoritative description
of planet Earth and its ever - changing climate in readable language.
The latest attack on
global warming consensus comes from Dennis Avery and Fred Singer who
claim to have found 500 peer reviewed papers refuting that the last few decades
of global warming are primarily
anthropogenic.
In early 2008, the Oregon Institute
of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list
of names from people who all
claimed to be scientists and who rejected the science behind the theory
of anthropogenic (human - caused)
global warming (AGW).
A key
claim of the hypothesis known as
anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is that human activities (particularly industry) are producing CO2 that is causing
warming and climate change.
Senator Kaine
claims that 70 %
of Virginians agree with the «scientific consensus» that catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming is real and that «it is urgent that we do something about it.»
Climate alarmists
claim the rises in OHC, SST and TLT anomaly data are overwhelming proof
of anthropogenic global warming.
Some
of them deny it is even
warming, others
claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others
claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no
warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent;)
It is my contention (and that
of many others) that in fact this is the default null hypothesis and until proponents
of the
anthropogenic global warming hyothesis come up with some better evidence to back up their
claims of imminent dangerous
warming driven by co2 and a water vapour feedback to its increasing levels, the null hypothesis is the best one we have.
A second
claim was low - lying inhabited Pacific islands are «being inundated because
of anthropogenic global warming» and evacuations were occurring.
In attempts to counteract the temperature decrease from 1940 to 1970 while CO2 from human sources increased proponents
of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
claimed it was due to human addition
of sulfate aerosols.
Unhappily, this is a public issue that encompasses a huge amount
of falsehoods by people who are either ignorant or dishonest
claiming it is «settled science» that
anthropogenic global warming will be catastrophic.
American Thinker have published an article The AGW Smoking Gun by Gary Thompson who
claims to disprove a key component
of anthropogenic global warming.
Peiser has long opposed mainstream science's conclusions about
anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine,
claiming 100 %
of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus
of global warming.
Fortunately, those
of us in the ever - growing «denier» community are skeptical
of every
claim, including those supported by data and results which debunk the crippled conjecture
of anthropogenic global warming.
But, the «Original Sin» associated with the heterogeneous mess
of the surface temperature record was perpetrated by James Hansen et el in the early 1980's when they decided to use the surface temperature record to prove and / or justify their «junk science»
claims of CO2 causing
Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change.
Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate
warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude
of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role
of the increase in the atmospheric concentration
of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the
global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because
of large uncertainties in the mechanisms
of natural factors and
anthropogenic activities and in the sources
of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
With headlines such as «The final nail in the coffin
of anthropogenic global warming» and «The worst scientific scandal
of our generation ``, libelous
claims and wild extrapolations were published mere days after the emails were distributed.
Their work challenged attempts to get rid
of the MWP because it contradicted the
claim by the proponents
of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
'' -LSB-...] the
claims of carbon - driven
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are unproven and are, in fact, contested by over 31,000 scientists -LSB-...]»
Climatologists might not think that is the case in their filed, too, but nearly every part
of it is contended by some major part
of its adherents — regardless
of the
claim to «consensus» on
anthropogenic global warming.
In making this
claim he was no doubt alluding to research, since discredited, funded by the Australian Research Council, that attempted to draw a link between scepticism
of anthropogenic global warming and believing in conspiracies.
And if 93 %
of the heat from «
global warming» can not be attributed to humans with any degree
of confidence, then there is necessarily no such conceptualization
of anthropogenic global warming that could be
claimed to have been affirmed scientifically.
According to the IPCC (2013), 93 %
of the heat energy in the climate system
claimed to be due to
anthropogenic global warming is found in the oceans (AR5, Chapter 3).