Mother Earth: Global Warming Denier

For almost 20 years the IPCC has been making "projections" about what may happen to global temperatures if GHG continue to be emitted. This is good, because every scientific theory should be theoretically falsifiable. So lets look at how Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado compares the IPCC's 1990 projections for temperature increases.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/inde...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Mother
• Earth
• Global
• Warming
• Denier
• Climate
• change
• roger
• Pielke
• Holocaust
• skeptic
• catastrophe
• projection
• theory

[gufpott]

Steve - another year drawing to a close and nothing to contradict what you say in your vids.

Congratulations on calling it right. At least so far.

[SteveWrathall]

More and more people are realising that catastrophic GW is not happening, and countries the world over are reneging left right and centre on emissions reductions.

[minilemur]

no natereiner - I was making fun of you. It was sarcasm.

Polar bears live in the Arctic. There are roughly five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1950s.

Polar bear numbers have declined in 2 Arctic colonies in regions where it has been COOLING, and polar bear numbers have grown or been stable in 12 other areas where temperatures have been stable or warming.

I find it funny that you find the truth alarming.

[rugbyguy59]

Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer

Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell. Wagner concluded the paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".

[SteveWrathall]

If you want to call climate prediction "science" then you have to state a test of falsifiability.

What real-world observation would falsify the theory of catastrophic human-induced climate change.

[shadowcnidarian]

Keyword is "probably" and you are extremely incorrect, and the prediction model is neither as linear as you imply nor are the variables limited to what you seem to consider. I will put assumptions and "probablys" by the wayside and go with empirical evidence and scientific merit.

Now, if you want to believe the science is flawed or that charlatan shills that challenge it have legitimate authority on the subject, so be it. That's all it boils down to.

[SteveWrathall]

Ok take the last 160 years. The warming  (~0.7 deg C) that has accompanied +100 ppm of CO2 is not catastrophic. The extra CO2 that could possibly be emitted with remaining fossil fuel will probably be of the same order.

Catastrophe cancelled.

[shadowcnidarian]

The 21st century is 10 freakin years, idiot. That's no way to calibrate the global warming scenario. Also, your cherry picked graphs mean nothing. I could dig up any old, random thing that would make the point that invisible pink unicorns exist. Stick with the relevant data.

[durizap]

oh, is that so.....why is that temperature rised up till 1945, then fell untill 1975 (while we had an industry boom, increasing CO2 emmitance.) At 1975 we had a more or less global recession, ie, global industry drop. What happened....temperatures increased.

Don't be so bluntly self-righteous about us humans, to think that WE actually control the weather. Don't believe that changes are man-made. Some may be, but by far most, are totally out of our (humaninty's) influence.

[SteveWrathall]

The bars were of course scaled to the appropriate Y axis.

No one denies that the 20th Century saw a warming, however it was not outside the natural variability either in range or rate. So far the 21st century has seen no warming.