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.

PHD

Cibolo, TX

#42 Jan 20, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
**I'M A TROLL BE ALERT**
Yse we know.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#43 Jan 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, these are all too familiar because the deniers in this forum adore 'thony's thrash.
They are known to repeat the same things over and over without relevance or significance.
Oh they also quote liberally from the heartless incorporated.
Agreed.

Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
By David Biello June 22, 2010 37

The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.

"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery-they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

AND,

<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action...

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#44 Jan 21, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
By David Biello June 22, 2010 37
The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.
"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery-they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
AND,
<< There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action...
As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.>>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...
Useless scientific science fiction.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#45 Jan 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Temperatures are within the range of model predictions.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/model11.jpg
End of story.
Are they? Sorry but Realclimate is just as accurate as Junkscience.com and they say it is not. Care to show me that quote from a university or somebody else who is reliable and not propaganda.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#46 Jan 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Temperatures are within the range of model predictions.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/model11.jpg
End of story.
Propaganda site number two declares and end of story. Before you complain about my links just remember that they are just as accurate and unbiased as realclimate. You want to claim end of story then then you need to clean up all the loose ends.

http://junkscience.com/2012/07/17/hockey-scht...

http://junkscience.com/2012/06/18/anthropogen...

http://junkscience.com/2012/07/27/c3-climate-...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#47 Jan 23, 2013
Thanks for your support. Its all scientific science fiction.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#48 Jan 23, 2013
phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
Thanks for your support.
tiny-minded anne can't give you support, even if she gave you her bra........ specially after the long time you hated her.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#49 Jan 23, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they? Sorry but Realclimate is just as accurate as Junkscience.com and they say it is not. Care to show me that quote from a university or somebody else who is reliable and not propaganda.
Realclimate is run by scientists and Junkscience by an industry-paid professional science denier- a man who took money from the tobacco industry for years to deny the link between smoking and cancer.

Only a brain dead political yahoo like you could equate them.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#50 Jan 23, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
tiny-minded anne can't give you support, even if she gave you her bra........ specially after the long time you hated her.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#51 Jan 23, 2013
'phud fetid feces face fiend' wrote:
Thanks for your support.
//////////
litesong wrote:
tiny-minded anne can't give you support, even if she gave you her bra........ specially after the long time you hated her.
//////////
litesong wrote:
'phud fetid feces face fiend' forgot that 'tiny-minded anne' was 'Less than a Box of Rocks'.

Oh, that's why 'phud fetid feces face fiend' now thanks the 'Less than a Box of Rocks' for supporting 'phud fetid feces face fiend'.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#52 Jan 23, 2013
litesong wrote:
'phud fetid feces face fiend' wrote:
Thanks for your support.
//////////
litesong wrote:
tiny-minded anne can't give you support, even if she gave you her bra........ specially after the long time you hated her.
//////////
litesong wrote:
'phud fetid feces face fiend' forgot that 'tiny-minded anne' was 'Less than a Box of Rocks'.
Oh, that's why 'phud fetid feces face fiend' now thanks the 'Less than a Box of Rocks' for supporting 'phud fetid feces face fiend'.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#53 Jan 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Realclimate is run by scientists and Junkscience by an industry-paid professional science denier- a man who took money from the tobacco industry for years to deny the link between smoking and cancer.
Only a brain dead political yahoo like you could equate them.
Is it, or is it like skepticalscience run by someone who could not get a job as a scientist. Or like the AAAS, run by a lobbying group who just has a few sceintist with political agendas.

Looking at who is on it and it seems that they have just as many non scientist running it as scientist. I notice Mann and Connonelly, one being sued for being a little loose with the data and the other has a documented history of editing things to fit a certain view. Neither what one could call an unbiased view of climate change.

In other words it is just as reliable as junkscience.com . Funny thing is junkscience is also run by a scientist and relies on donations. They even accept paypal. I donated $20 in your honor to them.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#54 Jan 23, 2013
Its run by scientific science fiction. They really really don't know.
SpaceBlues

United States

#55 Jan 23, 2013
LOL, is tina now making more than $20 in posting denier material? She must be because she's usually complaining she has other responsibilities.

That explains the new denier alliances in the forum.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#56 Jan 23, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL, is tina now making more than $20 in posting denier material? She must be because she's usually complaining she has other responsibilities.
That explains the new denier alliances in the forum.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#57 Jan 24, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it, or is it like skepticalscience run by someone who could not get a job as a scientist. Or like the AAAS, run by a lobbying group who just has a few sceintist with political agendas.
Liar on both accounts.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#58 Jan 25, 2013
More words of wisdom from the commander of scientific science fiction.Will they ever end their useless babble?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#59 Jan 25, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar on both accounts.
What that skepticalscience is run by a physics major who cannot get a job in that field or that AAAS has more people in DC on the hill than in the lab.

Both of which are confirmed facts. In fact, take a look at the Skepicalscience team and notice how few people on it are only two who actually work in the climate field out of 25. One was Organic Chemistry and a couple have a similar background to mine. A couple of others were students which means they are working on a degree.

Looks like I was right again.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#60 Jan 25, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL, is tina now making more than $20 in posting denier material? She must be because she's usually complaining she has other responsibilities.
That explains the new denier alliances in the forum.
And of course the fact that we are normally right has nothing to do with it. We must be paid because we do not have the ideological purity of your beliefs.

Of course you have no proof that anyone is paying me other than your claims. You might claim that my posts are proof but consider that I could claim that your posts are proof that you are being paid to post what you post.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#61 Jan 25, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
What that skepticalscience is run by a physics major who cannot get a job in that field or that AAAS has more people in DC on the hill than in the lab.
Both of which are confirmed facts. In fact, take a look at the Skepicalscience team and notice how few people on it are only two who actually work in the climate field out of 25. One was Organic Chemistry and a couple have a similar background to mine. A couple of others were students which means they are working on a degree.
Looks like I was right again.
Why don't you show me.
Since everything I've checked out from you so far HAS been a lie, that gives me to comfort when you speak.

You say you have a degree? In what. I can't fathom it could be science because you make even simple mistakes, including ones that can easily be checked out.

REally, it doesn't bother you being proven WRONG all the time. You seem to take it with PRIDE. And I am sad to say that, of anyone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Conservative Political News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump's "Obama had my 'wires tapped'" claim sti... 20 hr Smarter 2
News Dem Senator Suggests RUSSIA To Blame For DREAMe... Tue Wildchild 1
News Tucker Carlson UNLEASHES on Illegal Alien: 'You... Tue tomin cali 2
News Van Full Of Illegal Immigrants Tries Wrong-Way ... Mon genese 1
News Hillary Clinton Disses Trump 'Nostalgia' As She... Sep 17 discocrisco 1
News NRA Fact Checks The Washington Post Sep 15 Get Out 1
News Obama to bring civic leaders Chicago in October Sep 13 Trump s Birtherex... 3
More from around the web