I hope these four climate scientists understand what they are in for. The climahysterics will assail them, calling them all sorts of bad names, demanding that their accredidations be pulled, and that they be terminated from their teaching positions (Canada Free Press and Science & Environment Policy Project)
An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.â€
I am going to have to get a copy of the Journal to read the whole thing.
You wanted climatologists to comment on anthropogenic climate change, and there you have them. Peer reviewed. Now you climahysterics can cite your IPCC reports, with their deep scientific conclusions like “likely” and “very likely,” and say they are being paid by Big Oil and Big Coal.
BTW, the entire title of the magazine is International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.
Over at CNS News
But Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, told Cybercast News Service, that the study is “radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus.”
Hendricks is not a climatologist, and, consensus is not necessarily reality. At one time, the consensus was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that women should stay at home cooking and cleaning.
Hendricks, however, said because of the IPCC report, “the assertion that this is caused by increased solar activity or these sorts of things is out of step with the vast consensus.”
In other words, shut the hell up, how dare you actual do scientific research that counteracts The Goracle making money and our attempts to institute socialism on a global scale!
Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Surely you jest good sir. How could it be possible that something this serious is not man caused?
Yarrr… now that’s a story that’ll be buried pretty darn deep.
You see, if all this is natural, then they’ll have to figure out a new way of controlling what other people do.
Teach said: At one time, the consensus was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that women should stay at home cooking and cleaning.
Comparing Greek astronomy to the scientific consensus of today is absurd (not to mention inaccurate since Eratosthenes knew the Earth was a sphere and had calculated its circumference over 2,000 years ago). The geocentric model took a little longer to disprove, but again that was almost 400 years ago. Science has come a long way since then and the consensus of people unaware of the science is not the same thing as scientific consensus. The last part of your statement about women staying home to cook and clean has absolutely nothing to do with science.
It’s unfortunate when you make these kinds of remarks because the main point of your post is actually quite interesting.
He’s pointing out a general consensus, it does fit into the post. I take it as him pointing out the stupidity of an archaic idea. You know, like the Earth being flat.
Exactly, Stacy. Unfortunately, those who believe Man is all at fault for todays climate change are more worried about consensus, rather then reality.
And they still have not changed their lifestyles to match their rhetoric!
Teach’s statement about the consensus on climate change came right after a quote on the scientific consensus in a post that discusses a peer-reviewed study. It seemed reasonable to assume that’s what he was talking about.
However, if his point is that people in general have been wrong about things in the past, that doesn’t seem like a very good way to support his own argument. Just a thought.
Web Reconnaissance for 12/12/2007…
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
After last week’s successful BIG 50 colonoscopy… I had enough gas emissions to fill up the Goodyear blimp! I drank Lowenbrau beers to expedite the process…..