As the earth dies screaming

You won't accept what's in links I post. You haven't so far.

Minus the spin. The site below DOES have an agenda. 3,146 is NOT all scientists, no matter how you spin it.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- surveyed scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146) and asked: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes to this question.

Climate change skeptics have their own petition, commonly called the Oregon petition, that has been endorsed by 31,000 signers opposing restrictions on carbon emissions. But that petition has been criticized for not checking the credentials of its signatories or proving that the signatories exist.

To be clear, we’re not saying that no scientists dispute man-made climate change.

 

https://www.city-journal.org/html/truth-just-detail-15316.html

As if on cue, New York published a cover story on Monday entitled, “The Uninhabitable Earth,” with this grim subtitle: “Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak—sooner than you think.” David Wallace-Wells’s 7,000-word article is so disconnected from reality that debunking loses its thrill within a few paragraphs. Even Michael Mann, among the most strident climate scientists, wrote on Facebook that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article fails to produce it.”

Mann notes that, in his first section alone, Wallace-Wells “exaggerates” the threat of melting permafrost, while his claim about satellite data is “just not true.” The story next intones ominously about “a crack in an ice shelf [that] grew 11 miles in six days, then kept going.” But the Guardian (no climate-change denier), covering the ice-shelf crack last month, explained it differently: “What looks like an enormous loss is just ordinary housekeeping for this part of Antarctica.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ng-is-antarctica-falling-apart-climate-change

Antarctica boasts a great many superlatives: it is the driest continent, the coldest, the remotest, the windiest and the highest on average. Right now, during midwinter, it is also the darkest. As a rift on the continent’s Larsen C ice shelf lengthens and gets closer to the ice front, we are anticipating the detachment of a large tabular iceberg within the next few weeks.

This comes after observations of a waterfall on another ice shelf last summer, reports of extensive surface melting on several ice shelves and, in a report last week, indications of a widespread surface-melting event, which included rainfall as far as 82° south, during the 2015-16 El Niño. Are glaciologists shocked by any of this? Is Antarctica going to melt away? Is Larsen C about to collapse?

The answer to these questions is no. Glaciologists are not alarmed about most of these processes; they are examples of Antarctica simply doing what we know Antarctica has done for thousands of years. But because there is a potential link between the ice sheet and climate change, glaciologists are suddenly faced with a situation where the spotlight is on our science on a seemingly daily basis, and every time a crack grows, or a meltstream forms, it becomes news.

 

Only the retired ones who specialized in a different discipline.

barfo

 

Toxic waste produced by one of the world's worst nuclear disasters will be dumped into the sea, according to the head of the Japanese company tasked with cleaning up the radioactive mess, despite protests from local fishermen.

Takashi Kawamura, chairman of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), told foreign media that nearly 777,000 tons of water tainted with tritium, a byproduct of the nuclear process that is notoriously difficult to filter out of water, will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean as part of a multibillion-dollar recovery effort following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.

http://www.newsweek.com/fukushima-nuclear-waste-dumped-ocean-japanese-protests-637108

 

Consensus is a vote, a political process.

Science requires testable evidence that stands up to scrutiny by others, time after time. That's where this whole scam falls down. Prediction after prediction fails to come to pass, and the models used to justify the alarm over warming consistently overstate the effect.

You ask for links then laugh about the "validity" of those without actually addressing the facts they put forth. So be it.

The guardian is not considered a skeptic source. When rasta posts tweets here about big sheets of ice breaking off in the antarctic and blaming global warming and the guardian cites glaciologists saying it's normal/how things work there (not global warming at all), it speaks to the veracity of the bill of goods we're being "sold."

Some of us are "sold" anyway.

I believe in science. I'll believe the scientific truth when it's presented. I'd rather leave consensus to the voters and politicians.

 

Oh my. Just read the bolded line, since the links don't matter.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016920701630053X

Testing the historic tracking of climate models

Abstract

IPCC and others use in-sample correlations to confirm the ability of climate models to track the global surface temperature (GST) historically. However, a high correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for confirmation, because GST is nonstationary. In addition, the tracking errors must also be stationary. Cointegration tests using monthly hindcast data for GST generated by 22 climate change models over the period 1880–2010 are carried out for testing the hypothesis that these hindcasts track GST in the longer run. We show that, although GST and their hindcasts are highly correlated, they unanimously fail to be cointegrated. This means that all 22 models fail to track GST historically in the longer run, because their tracking errors are nonstationary. This juxtaposition of a high correlation and cointegration failure may be explained in terms of the phenomenon of spurious correlation, which occurs when data such as GST embody time trends.

 

Not just retired scientists... but ones who did specialize in climate related disciplines.

There are the statisticians who aren't climatologists but who see the math errors. You think we should ignore them because they don't specialize in climate related disciplines?

 

Statistician:

http://www.statisticsblog.com/2012/12/the-surprisingly-weak-case-for-global-warming/

The surprisingly weak case for global warming

Fast summaries

TL;DR (scientific version): Based solely on year-over-year changes in surface temperatures, the net increase since 1881 is fully explainable as a non-independent random walk with no trend.

TL;DR (simple version): Statistician does a test, fails to find evidence of global warming.

 

The scientists who are in charge of gathering the data do not agree. So much for consensus.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/...isty-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/



(barfo's idiotic statement to the contrary, he's not retired, neither is Cristy)

TEAM LEADER FOR THE ADVANCED MICROWAVE SCANNING RADIOMETER ON NASA'S AQUA SATELLITE (the satellite that gathers climate temperature measurements)

 

rasta and friends are the boy who cried wolf.

If and when they actually find something legit, people will be skeptical because of all the lies perpetuated beforehand.

That is the moral to that story.

 

Roy Spencer also believes evolution is bull shit.