Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 Next
Comments 64701 to 64750:
-
Composer99 at 15:55 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
My HTML-fu apparently is weak just around midnight.Moderator Response: [DB] Your HTML-fu is restored to its former glory. -
Composer99 at 15:54 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Ian: I think my reply to Carbon500 effectively addresses your objection to the Trenberth et al letter, so I will reiterate it here:With regards to the two Wall Street Journal letters, what is important is that the letter written by Trenberth et al is in line with the overwhelming body of empirical evidence, and it is this conformance to the evidence which grants Trenberth and company their authority. By contrast, the letter/editorial written by Lindzen et al consists mainly of a series of rehashed, long-refuted contrarian claims which are out of line with what the evidence shows. This lack of evidentiary support negates the implicit claim to authority that Lindzen et al appeal to through highlighting their credentials.
With regards to non-scientists such as Gore or Flannery, such authority as they possess in communicating climate science comes from the degree to which their claims are based upon the available evidence - just as is the case with Trenberth et al and with the contrarian 16. The more one's statements are based on the evidence, the more authority with which one can make them. By this standard even the likes of Gore come off looking favourable in comparison with the contrarian 16 Wall Street Journal signatories. As such, I feel your suggestion that Trenberth is setting up a double standard is unreasonable.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html-fu. -
chirhophoros at 15:51 PM on 4 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I must say that over the last week and a half, comments on other threads have been vastly more measured in tone - keep it up :-) CC -
JMykos at 15:50 PM on 4 February 2012More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
I am implying that coal seams are indicators of high plant growth with low sedimentation and low oxidation. But back to the topic, which was that high co2 was detrimental to plant growth, and my point was that the breadth of the investigation into soya bean, and only investigating some narrow aspects of the plants issues is way too narrow to disprove that higher co2 overall would be detrimental to the planets overall plant growth. It's some aspects of 1 plant and didn't even mention if the soya grew better or not. It's too narrow to prove or disprove. -
Composer99 at 15:37 PM on 4 February 2012It's a natural cycle
Cross-post from this thread with my inquiry of Eric (skeptic) where it is on topic. -
Composer99 at 15:36 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic): This is not the thread for further back-and-forth, but what I'm hoping for is a reference to the existence of any natural variations & cycles not already widely known to climate scientists. As far as I can see, you have not provided any reason to conclude that any such cycle exists. I propose if you have any further comments specifically relating to cycles that you follow them up here.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html-fu. -
Steve L at 15:27 PM on 4 February 2012New research from last week 4/2012
Because of some research I've got myself tangled up in, I'm interested in the recent Carbon isotope papers. The first one suggests high 14C in the northern hemisphere in summer and fall -- wouldn't that be from plant life contemporaneously taking up 12C in northern hemisphere summer? The second abstract listed indicates some interaction with the ocean. Is there much trend in Carbon isotopes in ocean surface waters? I don't know enough of this stuff to contribute properly to a joint research project and really would like to learn. Good links appreciated! -
Jose_X at 14:29 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Robert S, I went over to William's site and followed links to http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4368#comments but was not able to comment. This is what I wanted to say and perhaps you want to address the comment here: **** If our goal is to find the average of all of those points, I did not see a rationalization (or math) here showing that the tighter interval isn't a good fit ("good" meaning say that 95% of the time we should expect the average of those points to fall within these bounds). In fact, the example you give suggests that the average of those points does in fact lie in the narrow bound. So if you are after a set of yearly averages in order to try and identify trends and make predictions, why should be ignore a tight bound that appears to be correct a high percentage of the time? For example, as a way to answer my question, can you show that the tight bound does not identify the average of those points a large number of the times. If you can't prove this, then I don't see why you would be confident that the wide bound is needed for that 95% prediction level. Note that I am not ever suggesting that 95% of the points lie within the band but rather that the average of the points lies in that band. Why are yearly average global surface temperature values useful to know? I am not sure, but those with more experience in climate, biology, etc, likely have reasons to believe that is a useful metric (eg, to help identify trends useful in improving models or making predictions). FWIW, I arrived at this page from climate change discussion taking place elsewhere, and I want to know what math you use to rationalize that the BEST plot of yearly temp values and similar such plots (1850-present) require drastically wider error margins. Let me say that I understand that a temp of 100 C here and 0 C over there won't lead to the same exact effect as 50 C everywhere, but that is an issue for relevant scientists to debate and outside the purview of a statistician determining whether the values they are using in their debate can be reasonably trusted to lie within the given calculated error bounds. **** -
Phila at 14:25 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Ian, You use of the vague term "climate matters" may be what's making it hard for you to grasp this rather simple point. Dr. Trenberth's analogy more properly has to do with collecting and interpreting data. As "skeptics" demonstrate in these threads almost every day, people who don't understand statistics do a poor job of interpreting and understanding statistical data. Therefore, it's reasonable to expect them to defer to people who actually know what they're talking about -- or failing that, to withhold judgment until they've acquired the knowledge they need to have an informed dissenting opinion. Dr. Trenberth's point isn't that no one but a climate scientists is allowed to discuss AGW; it's that the starting point for the discussion should be what the best available science is telling us. Obviously, climate scientists are in a better position to know this than anyone else. What people like Gore and Flannery are doing is reporting on the scientific consensus and advising people to take it seriously. That's very different from gathering or interpreting data. Of course, not being experts, they may make the occasional error. But if you're capable of looking honestly at these errors, you'll find a) that "skeptics" make far more; and b) that they tend to get corrected much more quickly than the errors of "skeptics." -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:22 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
KR, I agree global warming has not stopped, I said so here a year ago and nothing significant has changed since then. Thanks for the clarifying post on acceleration which I basically agree with. -
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic) - My apologies, an incomplete answer in my last post. Acceleration: 10-25 year trends, in the presence of noise, are not going to have the statistical significance to clearly identify acceleration. They are sufficient to identify linear trends, but more questionable for more complex fits. However, based upon the physics, based upon the greater than exponential growth of CO2 levels - we have a great deal of evidence supporting a greater than linear warming. We also have a huge amount of evidence for greater than linear cryosphere melt (as just one example). There a great deal of evidence supporting > linear warming, very little otherwise. If you have such evidence, please point to it so it may be considered. -
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic) - No, Eric, I cannot agree that the claim (of continued anthropogenic global warming) should be withdrawn. Why? Look at Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, or Lean and Rind 2008. There are attributable short term variations in the solar cycle and the ENSO - accounting for those clearly shows that the global warming trend has not stopped. -
RyanStarr at 14:02 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
That final step could have been lengthened to 14 years and still have been -neg or flat, which would make it the longest such period in that whole chart. Obviously longer is more significant. It could stay flat for the next 100 years and the linear overlay would still be positive. Question is: how long does the final step need to be flat before we conclude global warming has not lived up to modelled expectations? And as with cricket where the required run rate is not met it further blows out. (I expect most of us can deduce the relevance)Response:[dana1981] I don't think your assertion is true. Even cherrypicking the peak of the 1997-1998 El Niño, the trend through December 2011 is positive.
To conclude that global warming has not lived up to modeled expectations, we would first have to see evidence supporting that conclusion. Thus far there is no such evidence. The rate of warming is consistent with model projections.
-
DSL at 13:46 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Ian, that's not really a fair comparison. Trenberth's analogy is one of expertise. In his analogy, Al Gore and Tim Flannery would be the people (nurses or technicians) who call you and tell you what the test results were. Gore would say, "the doctor says we need to continue to run tests to get a better understanding of the disease." A guy like Monckton would say, "The doctor says you need more tests, but he's full of it. I listened to his diagnosis of you through the keyhole, and in my professional opinion, you're going to be fine -- peachy even. Tests cost a lot of money, and so do the drugs that might 'allegedly' cure you. Indeed, someone stole some emails from the doctor, and if you read them in just the right way, they are evidence that the doctor is a fraud! I know! If I were you, I'd ignore the odd aches and pains, and the rapidly declining hair extent. These things are natural." -
tmac57 at 13:33 PM on 4 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
I stumbled on to that article this morning just by chance,and I wondered if John Cook had seen it. Despite their claim to not tolerate ad hominems in their comment policy,I noticed that one comment referred to him as John 'Crook'. Apparently that is OK there.And why are they so quick to advocate suing people?What's up with that? -
oamoe at 13:32 PM on 4 February 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
I realize this is late, but perhaps it can be answered. In the graph in the moderator response to comment #1, we see a sharp rise in OHC700 and OHC2000 from roughly 2002-2005. That time period was one of a lengthy El Nino. Seem odd. Any explanation? Also, how was OHC2000 measured before ARGO in the year 2000? Thanks. -
Ian at 13:24 PM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Dr Trenberth suggests only climate scientists are qualified to comment on climate matters comparing this with medical and dental consultations. He conveniently omits to note that although none of Nicholas Stern, Al Gore, Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery are climate scientists their pronouncements in support of AGW are given wide publicity. This suggests Dr Trenberth has one rule for proponents of AGW and another for those who are less convinced -
tmac57 at 13:20 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Aha!!! So you admit that climate is cool! ;) signed, I. Dennai -
Stephen Baines at 13:17 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric, statistically insignificant differences cannot be said to disprove the existence of an increasing trend in warming, or anything else for that matter. They simply tell you you can't detect a difference that may or may not exist. If you go a step further, you could do a power analysis and determine the probability that an accelaration parameter is >0, or you can say that the acceleration is not likely to be above or below a certain value, given a specific model. That's about it. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:09 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
KR, thanks for the link to wood for trees. Sorry about the accusatory tone, but it is clear that the assumption that warming is accelerating has been disproven, at least based on 25 year linear trends: (wood for trees graph) Do you think that the claim made in the FAQ should be withdrawn? -
r.pauli at 13:06 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Thanks so much for this excellent list and links. Nice to note that so many are free of cost - and those behind paywall offer abstracts for free. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:04 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Composer99, the latest 25 year linear trend (1985 - 2010) is not significantly different from 1975 - 2000. See (wood from trees graph). Your second question can be answered without a citation. Imagine a sinusoid of period 1000 time units; a linear trend of 100 units or even 10 units may be statistically significant in the linear portion of the sinusoid curve. Thus it all depends on what we are testing for. A linear temperature response to CO2 is reasonable in 25 years considering weather such as ENSO, but may not be sufficient in the presence of long term natural fluctuations. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:02 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Ari, I appreciate your posts here and I keep your site open in a tab in Firefox. It's just that there is soooo much info on your site, it is hard to know where to start - or to stop once I get going. You are doing valuable work. Please keep it up. -
Composer99 at 12:59 PM on 4 February 2012Cool climate papers 2011
Very nifty post. Obviously, I need to spend more time on your blog as well as here at SkS. -
Composer99 at 12:42 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic): But that also begs the question of why a 25 year linear fit is significant in the context of long term natural variations and cycles.[Citation required] -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:42 PM on 4 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
MangoChutney @ 18 You just spoiled my morning. I followed your link, partly to see what all the fuss is about concerning WUWT. I read Christopher Monckton's article and the thread of comments following it. The comments thread had very few entries challenging the article, or even asking for clarification, contrary to the case at SkS where challenging and questioning is actively encouraged. My conclusion is that following WUWT results in diminished ability to critically assess the scientific evidence. As a true sceptic, seeking evidence-based conclusions, I have found SkS to be an excellent learning resource. Several comments on the WUWT thread claimed that John Cook would not post Christopher's article on SkS, because John's arguments had been 'eviscerated' by Chris's calm and 'scientific' deconstruction. Some urged that he take John to court for slander. I am hoping that John can find the time to respond to Chris in an appropriate manner. -
Stephen Baines at 12:41 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
mc @ 47 I agree that more uncertainty in observations leads to more uncertainty in estimates. But I don't see how Brigg's can use this basic observation to critique analyses (like Dana's) showing increasing temp as naïve and misleading. In fact, I think taking account of observational uncertainty it would cut the other way. Let me explain. First, the prediction of individual points is really not of interest to us, so that's a red herring. No one in their right mind would use a simple linear extrapolation to predict temperature for other than heuristic reasons- that's what physics is for. What is of interest in this case is the slope parameter that allows us to make the best predictions of the data in hand. If we have confidence that the slope parameter is positive, we can say confidently that temperature has increased. Second, the error in estimation of yearly means is already implicit in the spread of the data. That error was not removed when the means were calculated. In the simplest model one can imagine, the variance around the predicted line should be equal to the sum of the variance associated with the central tendency (intercept and slope) and the variance in the yearly means associated with observational uncertainty. Suggesting that the existence of variance about the yearly means adds to variance already observed in the data is a form of double-counting, as far as I can see. Now often one does not often have the wherewithal to decompose the variance about a trend line into separate components related to the line parameters themselves, and the observation error. But in this case, the information to do so exists...and in spades. A fully Bayesian model would use the observed errors around individual yearly means to estimate a probability density function (pdf) for the measurement error...and would use this information and the residual errors to estimate pdfs for the slope and intercept parameters. Those parameters pdfs would be constrained to have less variance than would be inferred simply from the total variance of the residuals. The only way that wouldn't be true is if there were some strange positive correlation between the parameter and the observation error pdfs. -
Composer99 at 12:37 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic): On what evidentiary basis do you make this claim?the periods that IPCC are showing in the graphic you posted in #68 imply acceleration which has now ended. The chart should be updated to reflect the fact that the acceleration has ended or it should be withdrawn.
-
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric (skeptic) - If you follow the links I gave here you can take a look at the 125 and 75 year trends as well. But since you didn't make that effort, here it is. The trends for 125 and 75 are closer to 150 and 100 years (respectively), but the trend increases for each shorter time period. "The chart should be updated to reflect the fact that the acceleration has ended or it should be withdrawn. Where is the 75 year trend line and why was it left out of the original chart? Same question for 125?" Eric, I hope I'm incorrect, but are you implying that there is some deception here? Note that the statistically significant 17 year trend (as per Santer 2011) is also 0.16C/decade, almost identical to the 25 year trend - and that's with the late '90's El Nino and 2000's La Nina's. There is no statistical support for claiming that acceleration has now ended - and unless you're willing to also include insignificant periods like the 2x "acceleration" in the late 90's (which I quite frankly hear very little mention of by skeptics), I think your rather accusatory tone is unwarranted.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link and text per request. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:31 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Dana, sorry I didn't see your last post. I basically agree that a longer term trend is not a good linear fit. But that also begs the question of why a 25 year linear fit is significant in the context of long term natural variations and cycles. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:28 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Dana, the caption says "(Top) Annual global mean observed temperatures1 (black dots) along with simple fits to the data. The left hand axis shows anomalies relative to the 1961 to 1990 average and the right hand axis shows the estimated actual temperature (°C). Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981 to 2005, 1956 to 2005, 1906 to 2005, and 1856 to 2005, respectively. Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming." in http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf -
dana1981 at 12:26 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
The figure caption, among many other statements, says "Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming." I don't particularly like fitting linear trends to the longer-term data which clearly isn't linear. Some sort of exponential fit would be preferable, but of course that would also support the 'accelerated warming' conclusion. I fail to see what the issue is with this graphic. Eric claims the acceleration has stopped - based on what? The short-term data in the 'skeptic' Escalator view? -
dana1981 at 12:14 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eric @73: what is your basis for claiming what the graphic in question "implies"? What is the context in which it's presented? I take serious issue with these assumptions (started by Monckton) about what the IPCC graphic is meant to "imply". The IPCC is not responsible for (mis)interpretations of its graphics. -
Stephen Baines at 12:07 PM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
RobertS @62 and 67 So basically, Briggs criticism rests on an obvious confusion of regression intervals (uncertainty around central tendency) and prediction intervals (uncertainty around individual point)? If so, I fail to see what relevance this point has to do with detection of temperature change. That's a first year stats mistake. To imply it is a common mistake among those doing analyses of temperature patterns is downright puzzling. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:59 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Rob Honeycutt, the periods that IPCC are showing in the graphic you posted in #68 imply acceleration which has now ended. The chart should be updated to reflect the fact that the acceleration has ended or it should be withdrawn. Where is the 75 year trend line and why was it left out of the original chart? Same question for 125? -
Bob Lacatena at 10:55 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
66, barry, Yeah, jeeze... I never knew being a "skeptic" was so hard! I guess I'm just not cut out for it. :) -
keithpickering at 10:52 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Dana, I don't have your email address, but I have uploaded my spreadsheet to google docs: Spreadsheet -
Phila at 10:46 AM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Carbon500: According to the internet IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has a Ph.D. in industrial engineering. I believe he also has a Ph.D in economics with a focus on energy and resources. Of course, this hardly matters since the IPCC doesn't conduct climate research and as DrTsk notes, Dr. Pachauri is basically an administrator. Beyond that, the CVs of "skeptics" tend to deserve heightened scrutiny for the simple reason that they're the ones making extraordinary claims. When an industrial engineer accepts the expert consensus on climate, things are pretty much as they should be. When a weatherman or a petroleum geologist compares the experts to Lysenko, it's quite reasonable to take a closer look at his credentials. (Especially if he's making arguments that are demonstrably wrong.) -
iceshelves at 10:43 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Re the IPCC graph above, it's worth noting that the IPCC gives error bars on the figure showing that each of these trends is statistically positive. Maybe the "escalator" graph could come with error envelopes on the "cooling" trends? -
michael sweet at 10:31 AM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
John at 84, I love the tiger graphic. Skeptical Science should develop a similar graphic or ask permission to use it. -
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
A trend over 25 years is statistically significant, and 50, 100, and 150 years are likewise. Here's the same 150, 100, 50, and 25 year trends display for: HadCRUT3: 0.049, 0.076, 0.13, 0.16C/decade BEST: 0.071, 0.097, 0.22, 0.30 C/decade GISTEMP: (from 1880) 0.06, 0.073, 0.14, 0.18C/decade So: steadily increasing trends as time goes on when looking at sufficient data for statistical significance. As opposed, of course, to 'selected' 10 year time periods, where variability is such that you can find almost any slope you want to... -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:56 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Okay... This is really silly. Skepticsville is claiming the IPCC is doing the same as Dana's escalator graph. Only every trend picked by the IPCC is a statistically significant trend and the shortest is 25 years. Fake skeptics create the escalator effect by choosing short trends that are NOT statistically significant. Trends that are rarely more than 10-12 years long. If they can't see the difference I would suggest it's due to willful blindness.
-
RobertS at 09:55 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Let me rephrase the first paragraph of my post @62 since Briggs did use confusing terminology here. When he used the term "classical parametric prediction interval" he means the confidence interval for the regression. He chose to use the former because this interval often (improperly) conflated with the predictive interval, and views the confidence interval as far less informative of the actual error in "predicting" unobservables. -
barry at 09:29 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Sphaerica, 1987 to 1997 is a positive slope in your RSS Escalator graph. You can get a negative slope to December 2011 starting from 1998 and 2001, too. Here's my bash at getting a clean looking Escalator.Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. -
Steve L at 09:22 AM on 4 February 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Hi John, I watched the whole thing and really liked how you kept bringing things back to "Let's look at the full picture." I'm going to try that more generally in more discussions of my own. I think it worked really well. I don't think you went into too much detail in your answers. But regarding word choice (groan), I think you could have been more incisive! I'm hoping next time somebody asks about "Global Warming" versus "Climate Change", the presenter will ask the questioner when/where he thinks those terms were thought up. If they have an interesting answer, so much the better, but in general I think they're just trying to make a glib comment to make them seem smart, and I think it is useful for them to have it dumped back in their lap to let them struggle with it for a short while. Then the presenter comes in and saves them: "Do you know when the first IPCC report was published? Do you know what IPCC stands for?" Back to your approach regarding the full picture, though, "carbon" versus "carbon dioxide" was a new one for me. It would be difficult to come back with this on the spot, but I believe Arrhenius used the term "carbonic acid". Would the questioner prefer that scientists stick to the original in that case? -
DSL at 09:16 AM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
And Tarcisio, Estoy casi seguro de que Google Translate ha destruido mi respuesta a usted. -
DSL at 09:15 AM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Tarcisio: "To explain the global warming we see the physical as meteorologists study the atmosphere of up to two meters and global warming is linked to the lack of soil water to evaporate and take heat beyond 500mb." ¿Su teoría de la humedad del suelo explicar el enfriamiento estratosférico observado? "This proves that the atmosphere is opaque to long wave emissions, and therefore does not help reduce CO2 emissions." Traductor Google ha destruido todo lo que estábamos tratando de decir. Supongo que no quería decir que debido a que la atmósfera es opaca a ciertas frecuencias ampliado a la presión de la radiación infrarroja, las emisiones de CO2 se reducen. Eso sería un non sequitur. -
Robert Murphy at 09:07 AM on 4 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
@64 Oops. My apologies. I completely misread what he was saying. And I can't even use lack of caffeine as an excuse. <<< smacks head. -
Composer99 at 08:49 AM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Carbon500: Dr Pachauri's PhD does not "make or break" the IPCC AR4. The great quantity of scientific literature to which the AR4 refers, and which no critic or contrarian has yet satsifactorily deconstructed, is what gives the IPCC its authority as a reference for policymakers and the public on the subject of climate change. With regards to the two Wall Street Journal letters, what is important is that the letter written by Trenberth et al is in line with the overwhelming body of empirical evidence, and it is this conformance to the evidence which grants Trenberth and company their authority. By contrast, the letter/editorial written by Lindzen et al consists mainly of a series of rehashed, long-refuted contrarian claims which are out of line with what the evidence shows. This lack of evidentiary support negates the implicit claim to authority that Lindzen et al appeal to through highlighting their credentials. -
muoncounter at 08:44 AM on 4 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Carbon500: That would be interesting if Dr. Pachauri was a sole author. As the IPCC is an agency that reviews current research, it makes no difference whatsoever what Dr. Pachauri does for a living.
Prev 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 Next
