American Doomsday: Climate Change?

[James Kovacich]

More good news...

Sea Level Rises Are an Insignificant Problem to Which We Can Easily Adapt, Says New Report

Good news we can adapt to the rising sea level. Please tell that to Miami!

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

Good news we can adapt to the rising sea level. Please tell that to Miami!

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Bangladesh and the Maldives....

 

[billc]

You mean the Maldives...that aren't sinking...

Articles: Sinking Islands or Stinking Islands?

In 2004, Stockholm University professor Nils-Axel Mörner, of Sweden, published a paper in Global and Planetary Change (hardly a bastion for global warming deniers) regarding his extensive research of the ocean around the Maldives. He noted, "In our study of the coastal dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise. On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications of a recent fall in sea level."

Dr. Mörner's research indicates that sea level about the Maldives has fallen approximately 11 inches in the past 50 years. In fact, additional researchindicates that about the time the leaders of Tuvalu created headlines in 2001, the sea-level surrounding the nine atoll islands of their country had recentlyfallen 2.5 inches.

A study by honest experts at Tuvalu's own Meteorological Service also reported similar sea level falls had been recorded in the nearby Nauru and the Solomon Islands. Professor Patrick Nunn, who researches sea level rise at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, admitted to the London Telegraph, "...A lot of these sea gauges have been slowly falling over the last five years..."

So what's really behind the complaints? In the case of the Maldives, the problem is idiotic development.

The Maldivian islands are relatively flat atolls, composed of coral. Tourism was only introduced to Maldives in 1972 with the opening of the plush Kurumba Village Resort on the North Malé Atoll. Now there are 87 beach resorts scattered primarily on three islands: the North and South Malé Atolls and the Ari Atoll. Tourism has become the largest industry in the Maldives and the primary construction material used to build the expansive resorts is locally mined coral. Digging up the local coral to build plush hotels and large conference centers is as stupid sucking the air out of your lifeboat to breathe. The mining has severely compromised the atolls, creating the impression that the islands are sinking, when in fact they're being dug up. The problem the Maldives faces is engineering lunacy -- not a rising sea.

Likewise, the Tuvalu problem is not climate change, nor tourism; they only receive about 1000 tourists each year. Tuvalu's bugaboo is that the island was never meant for modern inhabitation. The country's primary indigenous vegetable crop, taro, has been seriously over-farmed. There is no fresh water available -- only what can be cached from rain. Much of the population uses the island's lagoon for bathing and toilet facilities. The country has to ship its commercial waste to landfills in Fiji and New Zealand. Tuvalu is a tropical island mess being run by fools whose only remedy is evacuation.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Billc the above post doesn't jive with a recent visit to the Maldives by a journalistic team covering rising sea levels. It looked based on their information and talking with the locals very grim for the Maldives and the rising sea level there. Very grim!

 

[ballen0351]

Hey Billc the above post doesn't jive with a recent visit to the Maldives by a journalistic team covering rising sea levels. It looked based on their information and talking with the locals very grim for the Maldives and the rising sea level there. Very grim!

However, a new study has found that sea levels have since fallen by nearly 2.5in and experts at Tuvalu's Meteorological Service in Funafuti, the islands' administrative centre, said this meant they would survive for another 100 years.
Falling sea level upsets theory of global warming - Telegraph

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

However, a new study has found that sea levels have since fallen by nearly 2.5in and experts at Tuvalu's Meteorological Service in Funafuti, the islands' administrative centre, said this meant they would survive for another 100 years.
Falling sea level upsets theory of global warming - Telegraph

Did you read the whole article there? I will summarize it: pretty much, it says water rising, okay we had a short break, now the water is going to rise again and we are in deep ****!

 

[James Kovacich]

Miami won't "ADAPT" to the rising sea!

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

So...if we switch to solar...the manufacture of all the solar cells and batteries is not going to have a negative environmental impact?

When it comes to the OMG WORST WINTER EVAH! Hype....people see what they want to see. I've lived through worse back when the new ice age and acid rain were the doomsday tropes that science was trying to scare us with.

I tire of the non-stop end of days "science"...ever since grade school its been nothing but...meteors are gonna kill us...comet strikes...death of the sun...gama ray death when a nearby star goes pulsar...

http://jcconwell.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/top-10-ways-the-universe-could-kill-us/

Acid rain...ozone depletion (if you really think we "fixed" that...pffffftttt....)...the next pandemic is coming (I remember being scared of dying of Swine flu as a kid)...death...destruction...the end of days!

**** it all. If I'm gonna die I'm gonna die with my boots on.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Those who don't see this latest push by O as being 100% political are rubes.....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

Did you read the whole article there? I will summarize it: pretty much, it says water rising, okay we had a short break, now the water is going to rise again and we are in deep ****!

Yep did you read it? It always been rising but no where near as fast as they claim.

Ice melts thats kinda what happens when we come out of an Ice Age. Naturally by the way.


Also sea levels rise and fall naturally as well

These low-lying islands are between 2,000 and 3,000 years old. They only formed because sea levels fell, allowing a build up of sand and gravel. Now it could go the other way."

 

[ballen0351]

Miami won't "ADAPT" to the rising sea!

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Oh well

 

[billc]

A look at Tuvalu...

Is Tuvalu sinking yet? | Eyes on Browne

And on the Maldives...and he mentions Bangladesh as well

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2009/12/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking/

I have been on no fewer than six different field expeditions to the Maldives. We worked in the lagoon, we drilled in the sea, we drilled in lakes, we looked at the shore morphology — many different environments. We have always found the same thing: a total stability for the last 30 years, preceded by a 20cm drop in sea level in the 1970s.

We have presented a detailed documentation of the sea level changes in the Maldives over the past 4,000 years. The record of the last 500 years may be of special interest to the situation of your islanders.

It shows:

The people of the Maldives had no problems surviving the 17th century, which was 50cm higher than now. Nor the last century, where it rose by 20cm. This bodes well for their prospects of surviving the next change.

I recently visited Bangladesh, a country cursed by floods. In the Sundarban delta, I documented very strong coastal erosion despite zero changes in sea level. So, even here, there is no global sea level rise going on today — just as in the Maldives, in Tuvalu and in Vanuatu, to mention a few famous sites claimed already to be in the process of becoming flooded.

By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively.

So why the scare-mongering? Could it be because there is money involved? If you inhabit a tiny island and can convince the world that its very existence is under threat because of the polluting policies of the West, the industrialised nations will certainly respond. The money is likely to flow in more quickly than the ocean will rise.

This is the fourth time I have written to you. Unfortunately, I think there is a problem with your email service because so far I have not received an acknowledgement. For this reason, I have decided to write this open letter in the pages of The Spectator.
So, Mr President, you and your ministers in the Maldives really don’t need to worry about a future life beneath the waves. You should pass on this message to the people of the Maldives. It is high time to release them from this terrible psychological burden.
Yours,
Nils-Axel Mörner

​

Who is Dr. Morner...

from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner#Views_on_sea_level_change

Views on sea level change[edit]

Mörner disagrees with the view of future rise in sea level caused by global warming.[SUP][5][/SUP] Mörner's self-published 2007 20-page booklet The Greatest Lie Ever Told,[SUP][6][/SUP] refers to his belief that observational records of sea levels for the past 300 years that show variations - ups and downs, but no significant trend.[SUP][7][/SUP] This contrasts with the usual view that sea level rise has been occurring at 2–3 mm/yr over the last century.[SUP][8][/SUP] Mörner asserts that satellite altimetry data indicate a mean rise in the order of 1.0 mm/yr from 1986 to 1996,[SUP][9][/SUP] whereas most studies find a value around 3 mm/yr.

this is a thread from a while ago on Tuvalu...it isn't sinking...they got better measuring tools...

And about the incredible sinking island nation called Tuvalu...not so much...

http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...f-c2397d155a32


"We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.

"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, includingTuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.
"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."
Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."


http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...id=14&Itemid=1


But Tuvalu reminds me of a comic song I used to sing of Gracie Fields called "He's dead but he won't lie down". Tuvalu persistently refuses to subside .
A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly's website: http://www.john-daly.com>www.john-daly.com Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it.

So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly "adjusted" the Tuvalureadings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of "around" 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .

Since all this seems biased, or politically influenced, Dr John Church of the CSIRO at Hobart, Tasmania, a lead author of the IPCC Chapter on "Sea Level", plus his colleague Dr Neil White, have sought to reverse actual measured trends by "combining records from tide gauges from all over the world with satellite altimeter data to assess regional variation". Unsurprisingly, and equally miraculously, they reach the same conclusion as Greenpeace and the IPCC. All this has to be imposed on poor little Tuvalu to "prove" global warming.and speed emigration .


The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC .


And more about the Island that isn't sinking...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...global-warming


Australia’s National Tidal Facility (NTF), based at Flinders University in Adelaide, has installed and maintained eight sophisticated tide gauges at South Pacific sites, including Tuvalu. Since the instrumentation was installed in 1993, average sea level increase at Tuvalu has been 0.5 mm/yr, being a rate of 5 cm per century.
A similar analysis of 27 data-sets for the Pacific (longest record, 92 years at Honolulu) yields a rise of 8 cm per century. Crucially, “... visually at least, and at this stage, there is no clear evidence for an acceleration in sea level trends over the course of the last century.”

Why are these reports of sinking Islands wrong...

The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships,

More on why Tuvalu isn't sinking...

You mean this Tuvalu...

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/ar...2002-02-01.htm


Check the Science
Well, rather than rely on Brown's "sense" of sea level rise, let's check the instruments. As it turns out, estimates of globally averaged sea level rise in the 20th century are irrelevant since Tuvalu's local sea level change is very different from the globally averaged change. There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat. "One definitive statement we can make," states Scherer, "is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating." Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches.

All these measurements show that Tuvalu has suffered, at worst, no sea level rise. So much for Brown's sense of sea level trends for Tuvalu.

Like most of the "man made," global warming hysteria, it is motivated by politics, and economics, of the scientists and the countries pushing hardest for this theory to be believed...elders Tuvalu for example is an example of a shakedown stunt...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...inking_is.html


Likewise, the Tuvalu problem is not climate change, nor tourism; they only receive about 1000 tourists each year. Tuvalu's bugaboo is that the island was never meant for modern inhabitation. The country's primary indigenous vegetable crop, taro, has been seriously over-farmed. There is no fresh water available -- only what can be cached from rain. Much of the population uses the island's lagoon for bathing and toilet facilities. The country has to ship its commercial waste to landfills in Fiji and New Zealand. Tuvalu is a tropical island mess being run by fools whose only remedy is evacuation.

Tuvalu's complaints of global warming are designed to be a shake-down operation, the likes of which would make a Chicago community organizer proud. In a 2007 press release, the Tuvalu government said:

he Deputy Prime Minister of Tuvalu, the Hon Tavau Teii, said that major greenhouse polluters should pay Tuvalu for the impacts of climate change. This claim was made during his speech to the United Nations High Level Meeting on Climate Change held at the UN headquarters in New York.

"Tuvalu is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change so we are seeking new funding arrangements to protect us from the impacts of climate change," Mr. Teii said. "Rather than relying on aid money we believe that the major greenhouse polluters should pay for the impacts they are causing."​

So, while Mr. Gore conveniently lifted certain facts from the record when creating his film, he will no doubt champion the recent evacuations as prophetic vindication. Tuvalu is being decamped while New Zealand is being played like a cheap ukulele.



Money and politics, not "science," is the main motivator of the theory of man made global warming.​

​

 

[billc]

Yeah, about that glacier in the Antarctic...you were saying...

Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels ? in about 1,000 years « Hot Air

This is not new stuff either. This story has been popping up since 2008. I wrote about it here and here. As noted in 2008, a fairly simple discovery, not mentioned in any of these articles, proffered an explanation of why the ocean water was warming and the ice shelf in question then was melting.


“Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that “creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea”. That could include the Wilkins Ice Sheet as well (the article cited talks about the Larson A and B sheets.

Ok. Well, let’s look at a couple of pictures then. The first is from the 2008 post I did on the volcano:

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/volcano.jpg



http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/glacier.jpeg




The second picture, from the Guardian article, shows the area of the study. The red dot is the glacier in question:

Does anyone notice anything interesting? Yes, that’s right, the glacier in question, is in the vicinity of the volcano in question. And I don’t think anyone would argue that a undersea volcano can’t heat up the sea in the vicinity to a little higher temperature than it would be normally. Has it had an effect? Who knows … it doesn’t appear to have been mentioned at all in the study. But, if you go to the Guardian article you’ll see an embedded 17 second video that attempts to explain the effect of the warmer water on the glacier. It shows less dense (and therefore lighter) warm water somehow flowing under much denser and therefore heavier cold water to destabilize the glacier. The only reasonable explanation for such a flow would be if the heat source were somewhere near the bottom of the ocean, no? Otherwise its hard to explain how that warm water got below the cold water and stayed there.


But if you question things like this, you’re an ignorant nincompoop. A “denier”, which, by the way is akin to being a member of the KKK and a Holocaust denier all in one. However, I’m certainly not denying that something is happening in Antarctica. I am questioning the purported cause though. It isn’t at all unimaginable that the side of Antarctica most exposed to warmer South Pacific sea currents and experiencing volcanic activity might see some melting due to causes unrelated to CO2 put in the atmosphere by man.

 

[K-man]

Yeah, about that glacier in the Antarctic...you were saying...

Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels ? in about 1,000 years « Hot Air

Mmm! Maybe not quite accurate reporting.

In January 2008 the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientists, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan, reported that 2,200 years ago a volcano erupted under the Antarctic ice sheet. This was the biggest Antarctic eruption in the last 10,000 years. The volcano is situated in the Hudson Mountains, close to Pine Island Glacier. The eruption spread a layer of volcanic ash (or tephra) over the surface of the ice sheet. This ash was then buried under the snow and ice. Corr and Vaughan were able to map this ash layer using an airborne radar system and calculate the date of the eruption from the depth of burial of the ash. This method uses dates calculated from nearby ice cores. The presence of the volcano raises the possibility that volcanic activity could have contributed, or may contribute in the future, to increases in the flow of the glacier.

So where is the active volcano?

 

[billc]

This story mentions an active volcano...

Newly-discovered volcano in Antarctica could erupt and add to global warming | Mail Online

A newly-discovered active volcano could erupt underneath Antarctica, melting the ice from below and compounding the effects of global warming, according to scientists.
Researchers discovered the volcano underneath the ice after setting up devices to measure tectonic activity across Marie Byrd Land in the west of the continent.
Scientists had intended to use the seismograph machines to help in their efforts to weight the ice sheet - only to find that a volcano was in fact forming underneath the ice.

Volcanic activity was discovered around 30 miles from Antarctica's highest volcano, Mount Sidley, and although an eruption would be unlikely to breach the ice - the accompanying heat could have an effect on the landscape.

Even a sub-glacial eruption would still be able to melt ice, creating huge amounts of water which could flow beneath the ice and towards the sea - hastening the flow of the overlying ice and potentially speed up the rate of ice sheet loss.

Software that might detect anything unusual beneath the ice surface was deployed, and in January 2010 and March 2011 this recorded two bursts of seismic activity.
When the scientists looked into what might have caused this activity they discovered what they believe to be a new volcano, forming around half a mile below the ice.
Ms Lough added: 'Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.'

I don't remember seeing this volcano mentioned when they reported on the ice sheet last week...

Why is this a new discovery?

Seismologists had set up two crossing lines of seismographs across Marie Byrd Land in 2010 - the first time such instruments able to withstand the cold temperatures year-round had been used.

See, this is the problem, they don't have access to all the information they need, as per just getting equipment that can deal with the cold of the Antarctic, yet they say the science is settled and tell us melting glaciers are a sign of global warming...when they just discovered a new volcano under the glacier...this is why you can't trust them...

In the reports last week of the ice sheet falling away...did they mention the volcanos at all...? I don't remember that in any of the reporting...doesn't that make you a little wary of their doom and gloom predictions?

 

[granfire]

John Oliver Does Science Communication Right | I lovely Love Science

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."​

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."​

Here is a look at this from Forbes magazine...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”


“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

 

[K-man]

Hmmmm...

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Here is a look at this from Forbes magazine...

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes

I think you are as guilty as Cook if it is as they say.

You start with the position you want and work backwards to support your position. That is as bad as any of the people you are criticising.

All I want to know is the truth. What are the real risks of climate change and can we do anything to reduce those risks? You and people like you are doing your very best to hide or obfuscate the truth, mostly for pecuniary reasons.

 

[billc]

You and people like you are doing your very best to hide or obfuscate the truth, mostly for pecuniary reasons.

First, it isn't my side of the debate that is keeping others from publishing their work, hiding relevant information and destroying other information so the skeptics can't see it, and it isn't my side that is trying to get editors fired for publishing the work of skeptics...

mostly for pecuniary reasons.

And the billions that the supporters of man made global warming get from their activity...that doesn't count?

K-man, last week they announce that Antarctic glaciers are calving ice...and announcing it with doom and gloom in their announcement and not once do they mention the volcanoes under the ice...active volcanoes as a possible reason for this...and they blame it all on man made global warming....

And that doesn't seem even slightly dishonest to you...really?

And the information I post...you can check it yourself, read the papers linked to in the articles I cite and make up your own mind....and yet you say I'm the problem?

 

[billc]

a further look at the global warming thugs and the now doubtful 97% "consensus...

Climate McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows

The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."
John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.
But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.
Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.