Cold cold cold

[pjclarke]

I mean if the scientist who wrote his paper disagrees with the authors that´s pretty much a fail isnt it.

Hardly. Among other possibilities, the scientist obviously knew the whole paper, the raters just the abstract, so some disagreements are to be expected, certainly the handful given here are insignificant among the sample of just under 12,000 studies.

97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scientific denialism | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The level of anguish and desperation to find something - anything wrong with the study are most amusing. Of course, what nobody has yet offered to do is a similar exercise using the considerable readership of the 'climate sceptic' blogs. I wonder why?

[EternalOptimist]

you wonder why ? seriously ?

It's because sceptics are interested in the science and not in popularity contests. There is no anguish or desperation, just indifference.

97% of priests believe in God. Its no suprise
people who get paid grants to find evidence of global warming , find global warming. Its no suprise

[d000hg]

From which I can deduce that you have not read it and prefer to get your 'science' from the classically-trainer Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Benchley, writing on gosh - a blog.

Did you not see the title on the giant pacman?

[pjclarke]

Nobody is paid to 'find' manmade global warming, indeed any researcher who published a falsification of the AGW hypothesis would be in line for a Nobel and the eternal gratitude of Governments and the oil indstry. Trouble is, as this review shows, the vast majority of evidence collected and published reinforces the scientific consensus that the planet is warming, and human activity is responsible for most of it. The hypothesis that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would warm the planet was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, long before it could be detected. The first IPCC report in 1990 observed that effect was not yet distinguishable from natural variability, it is since then that the concensus has emerged.

Of course if you look at professional scientific associations and the National Academies of Science, the percentage that endorse the consensus rises to 100%. No doubt every last one is throwing their integrity away and lying to us about what the science really says ....

[BlasterBates]

Nobody is paid to 'find' manmade global warming, indeed any researcher who published a falsification of the AGW hypothesis would be in line for a Nobel and the eternal gratitude of Governments and the oil indstry. Trouble is, as this review shows, the vast majority of evidence collected and published reinforces the scientific consensus that the planet is warming, and human activity is responsible for most of it. The hypothesis that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would warm the planet was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, long before it could be detected. The first IPCC report in 1990 observed that effect was not yet distinguishable from natural variability, it is since then that the concensus has emerged.

Of course if you look at professional scientific associations and the National Academies of Science, the percentage that endorse the consensus rises to 100%. No doubt every last one is throwing their integrity away and lying to us about what the science really says ....

It´s not falsifiable.

A bit like proving God doesn´t exist.

By the end of the decade it will be hard to believe though.

It´ll be June next week and still plenty of snow all over the alps and the Scottish mountains.

I like your statement...

The first IPCC report in 1990 observed that effect was not yet distinguishable from natural variability

Well we haven´t warmed from 1997 onwards so the whole belief is based on 6 or 7 years of warming beyond natural variability. The downward trend is getting hard to ignore, it won´t be long before the global temp is back to 1990.

[pjclarke]

Scotland and the Alps do not make up the globe.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...s=1200&pol=reg

[BlasterBates]

Scotland and the Alps do not make up the globe.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...s=1200&pol=reg

Add in North America and most Asia.

[Old Hack]

When I read about Global warming, I read it that as, if the ice caps melted due to global warming, then sea temps in the mid Atlantic, would push the Gulfstream south, meaning cooler wetter summers.

Then what’s happening? For I read this morning, in the Times, that the sea temps have dropped 3 degrees, with the met office saying it is why we’re having a colder, wetter start to summer.

So it kind of makes sense, that global warming, will make it colder, and wetter.

[sasguru]

Of course if you look at professional scientific associations and the National Academies of Science, the percentage that endorse the consensus rises to 100%. No doubt every last one is throwing their integrity away and lying to us about what the science really says ....

It's lucky for us we have geniuses of the calibre of EO, BB and DP to expose the hitherto unnoticed global conspiracy of scientists, those evil, manipulative bastards.
Genius seems to have something in common: poor academic and professional achievement.

[DimPrawn]

It's lucky for us we have geniuses of the calibre of EO, BB and DP to expose the hitherto unnoticed global conspiracy of scientists, those evil, manipulative bastards.
Genius seems to have something in common: poor academic and professional achievement.

hang on!