Watch Now: Princeton U. Physicist Dr. Will Happer on CNBC on benefits of rising CO2: ‘1,000 ppm of CO2 would be beneficial for the productivity of agriculture’
…‘The 97% consensus claim – a lie of epic proportions’ – Warmist John Cook’s study exposed
…Gore rips GOP ‘deniers’: ‘Sooner or later, climate deniers in the GOP will have to confront their willful blindness to the climate crisis’
…Australian Telegraph features Climate Depot’s 400 ppm CO2 report
DOOM MOOVED
Tim Blair
Thursday, May 16, 2013 (4:43am)
Climate wailer John Connor believes I’ve misrepresented his religion over last week’s announcement that we’d hit atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 400 parts per million:
Classic Straw Man – Tele’s Blair pretends ppl made 400ppm a mark of dooooom – predictable, reckless
My apologies, John. The mark of doom is in fact 350 parts per million. Further dooming developments from Marc (of doom) Morano.
UN scientists laughing at Hansen! UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Mocks NASA’s retired James Hansen’s really bad spin: ‘Global warming has not stalled, insists world’s best-known climate scientist — [It] has stalled, insist his data’
…Pittsburgh Tribune-Review features editorial based on Climate Depot’s 400 ppm of CO2 report: ‘Countering their politically driven alarmism with cold, hard scientific facts that show why CO2 at 400 ppm is a nonissue is ClimateDepot.com ‘s Marc Morano’
An inconvenient truth: The CO2 scare — By Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, May 16, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
As atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels verge on 400 parts per million (ppm), climate cluckers are aflutter over what Chicken-Little-in-chief Al Gore has called “A sad milestone. A call to action.” But this alarm is as baseless as any sounded by the blame-mankind crowd.
Countering their politically driven alarmism with cold, hard scientific facts that show why CO2 at 400 ppm is a nonissue is ClimateDepot.com ‘s Marc Morano. He notes that:
• CO2 is just one of hundreds of factors governing temperature and climate.
• From geology’s long-view perspective, current CO2 levels are remarkably low.
• Peer-reviewed studies have shown that ice ages occurred when CO2 levels ranged from 2,000 ppm all the way up to 8,000 ppm; that temperatures comparable to today’s prevailed even with CO2 levels 20 times higher; and that CO2 rose as high as 425 ppm nearly 13,000 years ago — when humanity couldn’t possibly have influenced climate.
• Ice-core data show temperatures rise hundreds or thousands of years before CO2 levels rise.
• And there’s considerable evidence that climate drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.
That the Chicken Littles cluck so loudly over 400-ppm CO2 levels despite such damning evidence against their case reveals them for the science-twisting, anti-growth political opportunists they are. Experts at doctoring evidence to fit their preordained conclusions, they’re now simply ignoring the inconvenient scientific truth about CO2.
Related Link:
…
NASA’s retired ex-con James Hansen’s ‘scandalous interview’: Hansen opened with the most astonishing claim about global temperatures: ‘In the last decade it’s warmed only about a tenth of a degrees as compared to about two tenths of a degree in the preceding decade. A claim which completely contradicts Hansen’s own GISTEMP dataset’
…New ‘97% Consensus’ study goes belly up: ‘This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the U.S., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming (78) than say humans are primarily to blame for it’ (65)
Cook’s unreported finding
I really have been struggling to summon up much enthusiasm for the inanities of John Cook’s paper, but Brandon Schollenberger has written an extraordinary analysis of the data, which really has to be seen to be believed. Readers are no doubt aware that the paper involves rating abstracts of a whole bunch of research papers to see where they stand on the global warming question.
The guidelines for rating [the] abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:
that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.
I’m speechless.
Related Links:
Barack Obama: ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous’ (Note: The other 3% get an IRS audit)
Analysis: Warmist John Cook’s fallacy ’97% consensus’ study is a marketing ploy — ‘Cook’s …
Latest ‘97% consensus’ study collapses: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it!
Related Links:
Barack Obama: ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous’ (Note: The other 3% get an IRS audit)
Analysis: Warmist John Cook’s fallacy ’97% consensus’ study is a marketing ploy — ‘Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming Cook calls this ‘an overwhelming consensus’ — ‘What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process…New paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable’ — ‘The number of papers is a proxy for funding’: ‘As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned’
Nonsensus: Warmists proclaim bogus survey proves 97% ‘consensus’ — ‘It truly is a CONsensus’
Media ignores fatal flaw of study: ‘‘There were almost 12,000 studies — two-thirds of which (i.e, 8,000) expressed no opinion. What consensus?‘