New Study Finds No Significant Human-...

New Study Finds No Significant Human-Induced Warming

There are 87 comments on the Power Line story from Jan 5, 2013, titled New Study Finds No Significant Human-Induced Warming. In it, Power Line reports that:

At the journal Earth System Dynamics , M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled "Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming" which Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Power Line.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#1 Jan 5, 2013
"Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell?" WOW, this is fun.

This is the third time as news and maybe five times with posts alltogether. What a waste of time!

Hey 'thony, give it up for the potential you live for. It won't happen.
litesong

Everett, WA

#2 Jan 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
"Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell?" WOW, this is fun.
This is the third time as news and maybe five times with posts alltogether. What a waste of time!
Hey 'thony, give it up for the potential you live for. It won't happen.
He knows he can never write a science paper, so he'll stay where he is........ a conservative henchman for exxon re-pubic-lick-un business suits with a PR boardroom propaganda line to spit up & spread over the media.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#3 Jan 6, 2013
Whack-a-Mole.
Fair Game wrote:
Wattatwat
"Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem"
Experts on physics and climatology, I'm sure.
Anthony Watts is a fool. Or maybe a smart con-man with pockets full of oil industry cash.
His readers are certainly fools.
Fair Game wrote:
If you can't find a statistically significant relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, then you're missing the elephant in the room. Statistics, when applied wrongly, allows you to find evidence for the possible non-existence of the elephant in the room. As physics tells us there is an elephant in the room, this is pretty dumb.(The physical properties of CO2 tell us it must cause warming.)
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
Probably what they're doing wrong is looking for a relationship between short term variation and CO2, which is something AGW science never said should exist- a straw man.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#4 Jan 6, 2013
Yes it is a false statement that (No Significant Human-Induced Warming ) they forgot to calculate all that hot air and vacuum created by the "pinheadlitesout and spacedoutblues when the two butt buddies get together for their roasty toasty meetings.
litesong

Everett, WA

#5 Jan 6, 2013
phud feces face wrote:
.....the two butt buddies get together for their roasty toasty meetings.
"phud feces face" named itself, because it's anally oriented. See, its polarity hasn't changed. If "phud feces face" joined our get-together, the smell would immediately adjourn the meeting.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7 Jan 7, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
"pinheadliteout" named myself, because I'm anally oriented. See, MY polarity hasn't changed. If I"pinheadlitesout" joined spacedoutblues the smell would immediately adjourn the meeting.
You got that one correct. See no need to make your usual correction here.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#8 Jan 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
"Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell?" WOW, this is fun.
This is the third time as news and maybe five times with posts alltogether. What a waste of time!
Hey 'thony, give it up for the potential you live for. It won't happen.
Funny thing is that M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor, managed to write it and so far it seems to be very well written. Then again if any climate scientist was writing something like this they better make sure that they found every possible mistake.

Then again, I doubt you have bothered to read it in the first place. After all, after reading it you may discover that you would have to admit you were wrong and you are incapable of admitting you were wrong. Even if your life was at stake your ego would not allow you to admit you were wrong.

But, at least try to read it before making silly claims. I know it is full of big words you are going to have problems with and it is lacking in those pictures you so love.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/es...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#9 Jan 8, 2013
An expert on silly claims calls another expert on silly claims. Can't you experts on silly claims get along?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#10 Jan 9, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing is that M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor, managed to write it and so far it seems to be very well written.
LOL.

tina is impressed that the words are spelt right and the grammar is correct- something she has big problems with.

Never mind that the statistics and physics are as bad as her spelling and grammar.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#11 Jan 9, 2013
More useless babble form the useless babble king and queens

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#12 Jan 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
tina is impressed that the words are spelt right and the grammar is correct- something she has big problems with.
Never mind that the statistics and physics are as bad as her spelling and grammar.
Actually, I am worse at spelling and grammer than at statistics and physics. Then again no one is good at everything. By the way, even I know that the first word of a sentence is always capitalized. Funny, how you are complaining about my grammer and breaking such a simple rule all in the same sentence.

As for what inpressed me about the paper was how well researched and thought out is was. Which is what you hate most about it.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#13 Jan 10, 2013
More useless babble form the useless babble king and queens

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#14 Jan 11, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I am worse at spelling and grammer [sic] than at statistics and physics. Then again no one is good at everything. By the way, even I know that the first word of a sentence is always capitalized. Funny, how you are complaining about my grammer [sic] and breaking such a simple rule all in the same sentence.
As for what inpressed [sic] me about the paper was how well researched and thought out is was. Which is what you hate most about it.
It was deliberate.

What "inpressed" you about the paper is that it says AGW is not real.

You would know the difference between a "well researched and thought out" science paper and the instruction manual for a portable toilet.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#15 Jan 11, 2013
Yes the difference is that the manual for a portable toilet wouldn't say in my opinion like a well researched science paper.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#16 Jan 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It was deliberate.
What "inpressed" you about the paper is that it says AGW is not real.
You would know the difference between a "well researched and thought out" science paper and the instruction manual for a portable toilet.
Actually, I would and have seen both. What upsets people like you is that this study is one of many that now publically states that there is no link. That someone actually did the math, ran the numbers and discovered that AGW just didn't add up.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#17 Jan 11, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I would and have seen both. What upsets people like you is that this study is one of many that now publically states that there is no link.
Complete fantasy.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#18 Jan 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete fantasy.
Now thatÂ’s a viable answer. Please give us more of the same.

Since: Aug 08

Everett, WA

#19 Jan 11, 2013
N. Paldor was one of Inhofe's cohorts in 2007. It took 5+ years for him to find an Economics college & some other cohorts to foist off a 'science paper' about AGW.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#20 Jan 12, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
N. Paldor was one of Inhofe's cohorts in 2007. It took 5+ years for him to find an Economics college & some other cohorts to foist off a 'science paper' about AGW.
Well do show us your work “pinheadlitesout" to support your accusations.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#21 Jan 15, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete fantasy.
Like AGW is?

Oh wait, AGW was a theory that turned out to be nothing.

Then again, you are an expert on fantasy to the point where you have problems telling fantasy and reality apart.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 21 min Into The Night 9,812
News Climate change implicated in France floods 37 min IB DaMann 10
News Hundreds of Scientists Urge Obama to Halt Arcti... 3 hr Brian_G 3
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Earthling-1 60,034
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 4 hr Still above ground 3,159
Some extreme weather event to consider 6 hr Earthling-1 2
Terrible News: The Greenland Ice Sheet is Growing 6 hr Earthling-1 60
More from around the web