I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isnt real and theres an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that were heating up compared to those that dont. What did he find? This:
The thin red wedge.
Image credit: James Lawrence Powell
Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?
Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.
Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: Thats bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.
So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they dont publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what theyre doing isnt science.
Its nonsense. And worse, its dangerous nonsense. Because theyre fiddling with the data while the world burns.
Here's over 1,100+ peer reviewed papers that disagree with the global warming meme. Whewww that was tough to prove Powell a lying asshole.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Feel free to read Dr. Judith Curry's article about no consensus on the consensus.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
Here's over 1,100+ peer reviewed papers that disagree with the global warming meme. Whewww that was tough to prove Powell a lying asshole.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Feel free to read Dr. Judith Curry's article about no consensus on the consensus.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
Ha Ha.
Here's what the website says it is:
"Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology"
And yet this "impartial" website is hundreds of articles every single one of which is about global warmin attempts to debunk global warming. Every one.
Here's a list:
Resources
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Censored Global Warming Videos
Climategate Resource
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm
NASA Astronaut Legends Skeptical of AGW Alarm
Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Green" Energy
Prominent Climatologists Skeptical of AGW Alarm
Real Temperatures
The Anti "Green" Energy Resource
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
The Anti Marijuana Resource
The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
The Truth about Greenfyre
The Truth About "Jon Stewart"
The Truth about Judith Curry
The Truth about RealClimate.org
The Truth about Richard Muller
The Truth about Skeptical Science
The Truth about SourceWatch
Who is Deep Climate?
So, who the f*ck believes this is an impartial website? Who the f*ck would believe anything it says? Its 100 percent propaganda.
Wow I'm convinced now. A climatologist who endorse openness and transparency.
Many of those links do not disprove anything. They call in to question the need for more analysis.
Thanks for playing!
I think I know who. :sneaky:
Your guy made the claim that there were only 24 peer reviewed papers disagreeing with the global warming claim. In about 5 minutes I proved your guy is a lying piece of shit. You got played, you were gullible, next time do your research.
Your guy made the claim that there were only 24 peer reviewed papers disagreeing with the global warming claim. In about 5 minutes I proved your guy is a lying piece of shit. You got played, you were gullible, next time do your research.
Here's a little internet clue.
Just because someone puts up a website and claims he has proof doesn't mean he has proof.
Just because you're ignorant doesn't make you right.
I'll stick with the real scientists and scientific websites like, I don't know, Scientific American.
It was so easy to debunk that guys lie. A couple of clicks and anyone can see that his whole article was a lie and that a couple of poseur posters fell for it hook, line and sinker. Make the clicks, read some of the articles and admit you clowns got played.
Here's over 1,100+ peer reviewed papers that disagree with the global warming meme. Whewww that was tough to prove Powell a lying asshole.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Feel free to read Dr. Judith Curry's article about no consensus on the consensus.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
Here's over 1,100+ peer reviewed papers that disagree with the global warming meme. Whewww that was tough to prove Powell a lying asshole.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Feel free to read Dr. Judith Curry's article about no consensus on the consensus.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
Here's over 1,100+ peer reviewed papers that disagree with the global warming meme. Whewww that was tough to prove Powell a lying asshole.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Feel free to read Dr. Judith Curry's article about no consensus on the consensus.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
I randomly clicked on one of those peer reviewed articles.
Here's something it said...
"Readings in that hemisphere show a relative warming."
Hmmm....
I wonder if that means there's no such thing as global warming?????
Feel free to know that Curry is an evangelical Christian who bases her theories on climate on the bible.
Didn't know that, did ya?
GENERAL INFORMATION
Education
1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography
Professional Experience
2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Awards/Honors
2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society"
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor
Professional Activities (last five years)
World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme
Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004 )
GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004 )
Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004 )
Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)
Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)
Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003- )
American Meteorological Society
Executive Committee of the Council (1998-2000)
Councillor (1997-2000)
Awards Committee (1995-1997)
Editor, Journal of Applied Meteorology (1993-1996)
National Science Foundation
Panel to review NCAR (2002)
Co-Chair, Science Working Group, Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic (SHEBA) (1993-1996)
Atmospheric Sciences Observing Facilities Advisory Panel (1994-1997)
Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Steering Committee (1993-1995)
Department of Energy
Executive Committee, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program (93-96) Chair (1997-2000) and Member (1993-2000), Science Steering Committee, ARM Alaska site
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Lead Mission Scientist, FIRE Arctic Cloud Experiment (1996-1999)
Technology Subcommittee of the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee (1997-2003)
Review Team, Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (1998-1999)
NAS/NRC
Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
Space Studies Board (2004-2007)
NOAA
Steering Committee for the Postdoc Program in Climate and Global Change, 1994-1998
Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring 2002-2004
Climate Working Group 2004-2008
Other
Executive Committee for AGU Board of Heads and Chairs (2004-)
External Review Committee, Environmental Sciences Department, Rutgers University (2000-2001)
External Review Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ (2003)
Nominating Committee, AGU Atmospheric Science Division (2004-)
RESEARCH GRANTS
Current Research Grants
Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI)
Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI)
Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI)
UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI)
Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI)
Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI)
TEACHING
Courses Taught
Hurricanes (Georgia Tech, grad/undergrad)
Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Georgia Tech, graduate)
Thermodynamics of the Earth System (Georgia Tech, undergraduate)
Preparing Future Faculty (University of Colorado; graduate)
Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (University of Colorado; graduate)Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Ocean (University of Colorado; graduate)
Aircraft Probing of the Lower Atmosphere (University of Colorado; graduate)
Future Faculty Training (University of Colorado; graduate)
Engineering Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer (University of Colorado; undergraduate)
Engineering Senior Design Lab (University of Colorado; undergraduate)
Survey of Meteorology (Purdue University; undergraduate)
Atmospheric Thermodynamics (Purdue University, Penn State University; undergraduate)
Atmospheric Physics (Purdue University, Penn State University; graduate) Cloud and Precipitation Physics (Purdue University; graduate)
OMG....I randomly clicked on another supposedly "anti-global-warming" article from monovillage's link.
It said:
"Current data indicate a trend of change that is substantially severe"
Hahahahaaaa.
I love it.
This is fun.
I randomly clicked on one of those peer reviewed articles.
Here's something it said...
"Readings in that hemisphere show a relative warming."
Hmmm....
I wonder if that means there's no such thing as global warming?????
It's science, it's not faith based, it's not political, it's not consensus, it's science. Sorry if it isn't as cut and dried and you would like it. Feel free to provide links and/or papers refuting other scientific papers along with evidence and proof.
People are going to have to come up with a way to handle the fact that the conservative brain defect is going to kill us all if left untreated. Conservatives have gone completely insane.
And here's the full synopsis of another randomly-chosen, supposedly anti-MMCC article:OMG....I randomly clicked on another supposedly "anti-global-warming" article from monovillage's link.
It said:
"Current data indicate a trend of change that is substantially severe"
Hahahahaaaa.
I love it.
This is fun.
A 199596 aeromagnetic survey over part of the Sinuous Ridge (SR) beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) divide shows a 70‐km diameter circular pattern of 4001200‐nT anomalies suggesting one of the largest volcanic caldera(?) complexes on earth. Radar‐ice‐sounding (RIS) shows the northern part of this pattern overlies the SR, and extends south over the Bentley Subglacial Trench (BST). Modeled sources of all but one the caldera(?) anomalies are at the base of <12‐km thick ice and their volcanic edifices have been glacially removed. The exception is a 700‐m high, 15‐km wide "volcano" producing an 800‐nT anomaly over the BST. Intrusion of this volcano beneath 3 km of ice probably resulted in pillow basalt rather than easily removed hyaloclastite erupted beneath thinner ice. The background area (−300 to −500‐nT) surrounding the caldera(?) is possibly caused by a shallow Curie isotherm. We suggest uplift of the SR forced the advance of the WAIS.
Indirect evidence suggests that volcanic activity occurring beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet influences ice flow and sheet stability1, 2, 3. However, only volcanoes that protrude through the ice sheet4 and those inferred from geophysical techniques1, 2 have been mapped so far. Here we analyse radar data from the Hudson Mountains, West Antarctica5, that contain reflections from within the ice that had previously been interpreted erroneously as the ice-sheet bed. We show that the reflections are present within an elliptical area of about 23,000 km2 that contains tephra from an explosive volcanic eruption. The tephra layer is thickest at a subglacial topographic high, which we term the Hudson Mountains Subglacial Volcano. The layer depth dates the eruption at 207 BC±240 years, which matches exceptionally strong but previously unattributed conductivity signals in nearby ice cores. The layer contains 0.0190.31 km3 of tephra, which implies a volcanic explosive index of 34. Production and episodic release of water from the volcano probably affected ice flow at the time of the eruption. Ongoing volcanic heat production may have implications for contemporary ice dynamics in this glacial system.
Climate models and paleoclimatic evidence suggest that the earth's polar regions are particularly responsive to global scale climatic forcing. Empirical climatological evidence of the last century has thus far failed to confirm conclusively this regional sensitivity. We conduct an empirical study of polar sensitivity to climate forcing by comparing a high‐quality, 17‐year satellite‐derived dataset of daily temperatures for 2.5° latitudinal bands to a known external forcing mechanism, the lunar phase cycle. The earth's polar regions display a temperature range of greater than 0.55°C over the course of a synodic (29.53 day) month. This lunar‐influenced range in temperature is 25 times larger than a similarly computed range in aggregated global temperatures over a synodic month. Temperature variations between the polar and non‐polar regions also produce a pronounced temporal shift in sensible heat transfer. Strong poleward transfer of heat dominates near the full moon but the transfer substantially weakens near the new moon. It is unlikely that this sensitivity can be explained by the type of polar forcing previously identified in GCM simulations and paleoclimatic reconstructions, because of the short duration of the lunar cycle. However, it does demonstrate a new and potentially important external influence on the polar regions' climates.