Your link gives 38 scientists who claim or believe that GW is not Anthropogenic. That is people, not papers, but for it to be 5% of people, the implication would be that there are only 760 climate scientists. 30,000 is a better estimate. As it is, 38 is 0.1%, or to the implied accuracy of the number of figures given in my 0% estimate, it would be 0%.
You think biodiversity and climate haven't changed radically in the last 4.5 billion years? You think the earth is static state? Have sea levels fallen and risen before?
No, I think that the current warming is primarily caused by human activity, and that this is putting extinction pressure on great swathes of a wide range of ecosystems, is responsible for the observed acceleration in sea level rise.
Forbes is using NOAAs data.
They're not understanding that the increase in CO2 is responded to my a warming over the following decades though. Scientific sources are better, and Forbes' opinion pieces are appallingly unscientific when it comes to climate change.
The economist reported the 25% number
So they did. A well researched and intellectual publication. Not scientific as such, but educated. It gets a pass.
Yet, still no warming during that time
Not quite true. There has been warming.
That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
Not even close to correct. Completely wrong.
Every time you decompose global warming into the response to natural and anthropogenic forcing it looks something like this. Most or all of the observed warming is anthropogenic. Every time you look at what is applying radiative forcing it looks like this. Anthropogenic forcing dominates, and of the anthropogenic forcings, CO2 forcing is the largest part.
There is no question in the scientific literature that most of the current warming is likely anthropogenic. About 0% of scientific organisations and 0% of scholarly papers refute this fact. We know it better than we know an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs.
But adding the "trapped in ice" doesn't really make sense, if there's a constant exchange between water and ice, and each having the same concentration of plastic.
The article looks at ice cores containing plastic, so "trapped in ice" is what they found.
They don't speculate on mechanism, but bits of plastic are lighter than ice and larger than water molecules. It's plausible that they would have a tendency to remain right against the underside of the sea ice if they are in the water, and would get caught up early in the freeze. It's also plausible that they would be caught in the ice by one or both ends when the saltwater rivulets form, and not tend to flush into the sea in the same proportion as the water, just because the water is smaller. And it's even plausible that they would work their way up into the ice rather than down if a freshwater bubble comes passing though (unless it is flowing fast), or if they find themselves melted into from above by fresh meltwater.
I don't find it implausible that the constant exchange between water and ice favours uptake of the plastic into the ice.
That's disingenuous. The colonies failed once the ocean froze over again.
More related to the Vikings having depleted the soil fertility, I suspect. But regional climate change may have played a part.
Our recent observations amount to jack in the long history of the earth.
Right, but the current climate change affects the planet since the industrial revolution, not since the history of the earth.
Warmer too, for instance forests growing faster in northern climes in the past and plant life that can't grow there right now existing in the past.
It's possible regionally. Where are you talking about? Globally we're probably warming than any time since the peak of the interglacial before last one, and possibly all times in the last 2-5 million years.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.
No. Theories get lots of hits on google scholar, because scientists have written about them. Quantum Field Theory is a Theory. It gets nearly half a million hits on google scholar.
When you say something like observed conditions, how much of the earths history do those "observed" conditions cover.
It depends on context. Can you point out which time I said "something like observed conditions" that you are referring to? Sometimes observations of ice go back nearly a million years, by ice core histories. Some Ice observations go back to 1978, the satellite histories.
Do Flora and Fauna records bear out periods warmer and colder than now?
Certainly colder. Warmer is uncertain globally within the past couple or few million years. Central Greenland regionally has probably been warming in the past few hundred years, judging from Ice cores.
Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?
No. Global warming is what happens when you warm the globe. It's not a theory. The relevant theories are probably optics and thermodynamics. There are no observations that suggest the globe isn't currently warming. Energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere measurements, and sea level measurements are probably the most irrefutable signs that the globe is warming, as a globe. But surface temperature measurements are also strongly indicative.
Wait...as it melts?? It melts every year, then freezes again. It's not like some barrage of plastic that's been sequestered in ice for billions of years is suddenly going to be dumped into the ocean because of the Arctic sea ice "melting", a thinly veiled reference to global warming as if the melting isn't happening every summer. And if it was created in 2012, then gets released, then a little bit freezes in the ice next year...it doesn't sound like this is even a story!
The loss of the Northern Summer Sea Ice will change ocean dynamics. The released plastic could make its way to other oceans.
Zook is right about that. Older sea ice has been decimated in the last decade.
The evidence is that his imagination regarding plastic trapped in the sea ice is lacking, but he's right about the age of Arctic sea ice.
But I wonder if you have misinterpreted projections of Mann and Hansen.
I notice Mann was an author on a paper about the Antarctic Ice Sheet, but I can't find the one about the Arctic Ice that your refer to. Do you have a citation?
The current that comes up past Europe from the Atlantic sinks and flows back beneath the surface. Plastic that floats will accumulate at the surface around Greenland, and may spread around the Arctic Ocean.
Untold billions and billions of plants and animals went extinct long before man ever appeared on the planet (thank you Neil Degrase-Tyson & Cosmos) - just because a particular plant that exists today is having problems as the climate changes doesn't mean anything, really.
The time scales involved are difficult to comprehend.
The problem is that the mean extinction rate is probably about one species every five years, and it is currently probably about 1 species every hour.
So we are seeing a reduction in biodiversity, and that means a reduction in intellectual resources, and a risk of knocking out parts entire groups upon which entire ecosystems depend on. Including the risk of making staying alive as a human very difficult and expensive.
Why won't species that feed on the eucalyptus plants "evolve" and start eating something else?
It works that they go extinct, and then there is an ecological niche that can be filled at some point in the coming millions of years. But probably not until something else replaces the extinct trees.
But the problem for humanity is that we won't be here in this form in the million years or so it takes for that to happen. So we have to live in a world with a lower biodiversity, and that imposes limits on our physical in intellectual resources that have a cost.
OK, so the planet is getting warmer - maybe it is supposed to be warmer?
"Supposed to be?" What does that mean?
Our current temperatures are far from any planetary record.
Not with any of the species that are alive now on it.
So the oceans will rise? And?
And we have a lot of our most expensive infrastructure near the coast, and even if we can gather the resources to rebuild it all, that will dramatically reduce what we can do in terms of new projects.
And this will keep being applied. The sea will keep rolling in for the foreseeable future.
Please explain to me how we "know" that the "proper" temperature of the planet is/should be?
What it was when we built our infrastructure and decided on our land use would be best for us. In terms of biodiversity, changing slowly enough for species to move is very important, but within the range that it has been for the past couple of million years would also be good. Unfortunately we are warming from near the warmest part of the Milankovich Cycle, and so many species won't have the geographical resources that they usually use to adapt to climate change over those cycles. (Meaning they will be pushed off the pole end of continents and islands and/or the tops of mountains). So downwards from here would be better than upwards as well.
Yea, no big news, this is the latest roll out of old news to supplement the new global wierding narrative the administration is pushing.
Which administration are you talking about? You are aware that the authors of the SAM papers are from: (1) British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge CB3 0ET, United Kingdom, (2) Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory , Australia, (3) Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Laboratoire HydroSciences Montpellier et Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France, and (4) Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia?
So unless this is an administration of Australia, France and the UK, you're mistaken.
This was known and predicted in 1999.
There are new findings about the relationship between the Southern Annular Mode (the winds around Antarctica's latitude and speed), and the ice mass loss. And there are new proxy data for this SAM, showing the current effect the strongest in the past 1000 years. So mass loss acceleration is expected.
Yeah, they are in consensus that it's been getting a little warmer
A lot warmer, if you're interested in ecology. Take eucalyptus species for and example. 25% of species have a range that spans less that 1C in mean temperature. That means that a 1C change in temperature puts the new long-term survivable range completely outside their current range. That comes with a significant extinction risk, and where movement is blocked by the edge of continents, tops of mountains, or human land use, it get this think called "committed to extinction"
...and humans contributed a little to that.
The consensus is probably contributed the majority of that.
I think most people would say likely all of it, or slightly more. (We are in the cooling part of the Milankovic cycle, having hit the peak about 8000 years ago, so many reconstructions of natural climate is that it would be in a slow cooling... other things being equal.)
Are each of their opinions independent of one another?
Most of them read the same climatology journals. Much like any other science.
Do any of them have vested interest?
The biggest one is publishing good research that is true. Particularly well regarded is if you're right and most people were mistaken. Much like any other science. And a few will have other conflicts of interest.
The first one is a book. Books are often published without peer review.
The second one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.
The Third one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.
The fourth one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.
The fifth one appears, but only as two citations, both by the Author. I assume is was never published in the scholarly literature.
The sixth one appears in Energy & Environment, a publication that some place amongst scholarly journals and some amongst trade journals. In either case, it is a dumping ground for counter-consensus, and even counter-scientific opinion pieces, and is of no note as a peer reviewed publication.
The seventh was a presentation to the 2009 GSA Annual Meeting. This isn't publication or peer review. And it appears to have been mentioned only three times, twice by the author, and once by Anthony Watts.
The eight is a presentation to a denialist conference, organised by the Heartland institute. This is not peer reviewed, and the organisation is very interested in only presenting a counter-scientific view for its clients in the fossil fuel industry.
The ninth appears to be the abstract for a presentation to the AGU conference in fall 2007. Again, this is not peer reviewed, not has it attracted any interest outside the author and Anthony Watts.
The tenth is another conference paper with no citations except the same publications citing the other conference papers above.
Now how accurate is that "0% of scholarly papers" claim?
"Several papers" that were "published" is a bit of a stretch. Being very generous, and calling E&E "publication", we have 10% published peer reviewed literature. Crudely extrapolating to the list of 25, there are 2.5 papers there.
Google scholar returns about 589,000 publications to the search term "Global climate change", so these (generous) 2.5 represent. This is about 0.004%, which to the implied accuracy by the number of decimal places given in my "0% of scholarly papers" is 0%.
Especially in light of the fact that Dr. Easterbrook's climate model (which does NOT base itself on CO2) accurately matches the past
I think I can see why these papers got no attention then. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing its concentration will increase the greenhouse effect.
AND predicted the current 17 year pause in warming,
17 year pause in the warming? This could be another reason the papers have received no interest.
Since that is what was provided (where do you think the charts come from)
There are many hundreds of thousands of scholarly papers on climate change now. There is no reason to go to resort to counterscientific blogs. For over 20 years about 0% of scholarly papers counter the basic finding that human activity is probably responsible for most of the current climate change.
But Watts has never once reported on any of these papers.
The site is extremely biased.
Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
Sorry?
I said that we should use science-based sources. Your position is that that is a lie?
Kid, the entire advantage that humans have is encompassed by science. It's not your enemy.
They've got the money and the manpower.
Nationalism is the only resource that lack of may stop them. Projects such as these and their moon base plans are money well spent.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the world is kind of concerned about hackers at the moment, but China isn't the source that is of concern.
Yet here we are, published papers disputing man-caused climate change.
Are you counting Energy & Environment as peer reviewed?
If so, I question that classification. If not, which of those papers are published?
A whole bunch more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Appears to be about 5%, not 0%.
Your link gives 38 scientists who claim or believe that GW is not Anthropogenic. That is people, not papers, but for it to be 5% of people, the implication would be that there are only 760 climate scientists. 30,000 is a better estimate. As it is, 38 is 0.1%, or to the implied accuracy of the number of figures given in my 0% estimate, it would be 0%.
You think biodiversity and climate haven't changed radically in the last 4.5 billion years? You think the earth is static state? Have sea levels fallen and risen before?
No, I think that the current warming is primarily caused by human activity, and that this is putting extinction pressure on great swathes of a wide range of ecosystems, is responsible for the observed acceleration in sea level rise.
Forbes is using NOAAs data.
They're not understanding that the increase in CO2 is responded to my a warming over the following decades though. Scientific sources are better, and Forbes' opinion pieces are appallingly unscientific when it comes to climate change.
The economist reported the 25% number
So they did. A well researched and intellectual publication. Not scientific as such, but educated. It gets a pass.
Yet, still no warming during that time
Not quite true. There has been warming.
That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
Not even close to correct. Completely wrong. Every time you decompose global warming into the response to natural and anthropogenic forcing it looks something like this. Most or all of the observed warming is anthropogenic. Every time you look at what is applying radiative forcing it looks like this. Anthropogenic forcing dominates, and of the anthropogenic forcings, CO2 forcing is the largest part.
There is no question in the scientific literature that most of the current warming is likely anthropogenic. About 0% of scientific organisations and 0% of scholarly papers refute this fact. We know it better than we know an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs.
Twenty five percent of human CO2 emissions have been in the past decade and yet no corresponding percentage of warming.
That's a lot. Whose figures are you quoting?
The warming from an increase in CO2 takes 25-50 years for 60% of it to have occurred.
You need to look at the coming 30-40 years for the warming corresponding to emissions in the last decade.
Climate is always regional, that is why droughts come and go and areas see warming and cooling.
There is also global climate. Such as the current warming.
Time is wasted on trying to pretend we can modify things, spending time on overcoming changes is better spent.
No. The economic analysis shows that it is cheaper to reduce emissions.
I'd rather all the plastic be pulled from the sea or all the mercury pulllled out of it then worry about CO2.
Reducing emissions is possible and positive. You should pursue pipe dreams to if you want. That's not mutually exclusive.
I'd worry about the real damage to the planet.
Drop in biodiversity is real damage to the planet. Climate change and sea level rise is real damage to humanity.
But adding the "trapped in ice" doesn't really make sense, if there's a constant exchange between water and ice, and each having the same concentration of plastic.
The article looks at ice cores containing plastic, so "trapped in ice" is what they found.
They don't speculate on mechanism, but bits of plastic are lighter than ice and larger than water molecules. It's plausible that they would have a tendency to remain right against the underside of the sea ice if they are in the water, and would get caught up early in the freeze. It's also plausible that they would be caught in the ice by one or both ends when the saltwater rivulets form, and not tend to flush into the sea in the same proportion as the water, just because the water is smaller. And it's even plausible that they would work their way up into the ice rather than down if a freshwater bubble comes passing though (unless it is flowing fast), or if they find themselves melted into from above by fresh meltwater.
I don't find it implausible that the constant exchange between water and ice favours uptake of the plastic into the ice.
That's disingenuous. The colonies failed once the ocean froze over again.
More related to the Vikings having depleted the soil fertility, I suspect. But regional climate change may have played a part.
Our recent observations amount to jack in the long history of the earth.
Right, but the current climate change affects the planet since the industrial revolution, not since the history of the earth.
Warmer too, for instance forests growing faster in northern climes in the past and plant life that can't grow there right now existing in the past.
It's possible regionally. Where are you talking about? Globally we're probably warming than any time since the peak of the interglacial before last one, and possibly all times in the last 2-5 million years.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.
No. Theories get lots of hits on google scholar, because scientists have written about them. Quantum Field Theory is a Theory. It gets nearly half a million hits on google scholar.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is not. It gets less than 100 hits, mostly denialist writings of no scientific note.
The basic theory that explains Anthropogenic Global Warming is optics, which explains how greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effect.
How did the Vikings settle Greenland?
By longboat, I believe.
Was it because a once frozen ocean stayed ice free so that they could make regular trips?
I think Eric the Red's exile was the primary factor that set the timing.
Tell me about the last 6 years.
In Greenland? It's been losing Ice Sheet Mass, because of increased glacial flow outstripping increased precipitation. Recent findings suggest that the ice sheet is much more vulnerable to ocean warming that previously thought.
When you say something like observed conditions, how much of the earths history do those "observed" conditions cover.
It depends on context. Can you point out which time I said "something like observed conditions" that you are referring to? Sometimes observations of ice go back nearly a million years, by ice core histories. Some Ice observations go back to 1978, the satellite histories.
Do Flora and Fauna records bear out periods warmer and colder than now?
Certainly colder. Warmer is uncertain globally within the past couple or few million years. Central Greenland regionally has probably been warming in the past few hundred years, judging from Ice cores.
Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?
No. Global warming is what happens when you warm the globe. It's not a theory. The relevant theories are probably optics and thermodynamics. There are no observations that suggest the globe isn't currently warming. Energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere measurements, and sea level measurements are probably the most irrefutable signs that the globe is warming, as a globe. But surface temperature measurements are also strongly indicative.
Wait...as it melts?? It melts every year, then freezes again. It's not like some barrage of plastic that's been sequestered in ice for billions of years is suddenly going to be dumped into the ocean because of the Arctic sea ice "melting", a thinly veiled reference to global warming as if the melting isn't happening every summer. And if it was created in 2012, then gets released, then a little bit freezes in the ice next year...it doesn't sound like this is even a story!
The loss of the Northern Summer Sea Ice will change ocean dynamics. The released plastic could make its way to other oceans.
Zook is right about that. Older sea ice has been decimated in the last decade.
The evidence is that his imagination regarding plastic trapped in the sea ice is lacking, but he's right about the age of Arctic sea ice.
We shouldn't even have ice in the arctic in summer at this point in time according to Mann, Gore and Hansen.
Northern summer sea ice volume has dropped 60% over the past 35 years.
But I wonder if you have misinterpreted projections of Mann and Hansen.
I notice Mann was an author on a paper about the Antarctic Ice Sheet, but I can't find the one about the Arctic Ice that your refer to. Do you have a citation?
The current that comes up past Europe from the Atlantic sinks and flows back beneath the surface. Plastic that floats will accumulate at the surface around Greenland, and may spread around the Arctic Ocean.
You forgot to say that the collapse has been going on for 22,000 years!
I doubt it. We reached the climatic optimum about 8000 years ago. It would have been growing overall between then and the industrial era.
The link is working for me.
Untold billions and billions of plants and animals went extinct long before man ever appeared on the planet (thank you Neil Degrase-Tyson & Cosmos) - just because a particular plant that exists today is having problems as the climate changes doesn't mean anything, really.
The time scales involved are difficult to comprehend.
The problem is that the mean extinction rate is probably about one species every five years, and it is currently probably about 1 species every hour.
So we are seeing a reduction in biodiversity, and that means a reduction in intellectual resources, and a risk of knocking out parts entire groups upon which entire ecosystems depend on. Including the risk of making staying alive as a human very difficult and expensive.
Why won't species that feed on the eucalyptus plants "evolve" and start eating something else?
It works that they go extinct, and then there is an ecological niche that can be filled at some point in the coming millions of years. But probably not until something else replaces the extinct trees.
But the problem for humanity is that we won't be here in this form in the million years or so it takes for that to happen. So we have to live in a world with a lower biodiversity, and that imposes limits on our physical in intellectual resources that have a cost.
OK, so the planet is getting warmer - maybe it is supposed to be warmer?
"Supposed to be?" What does that mean?
Our current temperatures are far from any planetary record.
Not with any of the species that are alive now on it.
So the oceans will rise? And?
And we have a lot of our most expensive infrastructure near the coast, and even if we can gather the resources to rebuild it all, that will dramatically reduce what we can do in terms of new projects.
And this will keep being applied. The sea will keep rolling in for the foreseeable future.
Please explain to me how we "know" that the "proper" temperature of the planet is/should be?
What it was when we built our infrastructure and decided on our land use would be best for us. In terms of biodiversity, changing slowly enough for species to move is very important, but within the range that it has been for the past couple of million years would also be good. Unfortunately we are warming from near the warmest part of the Milankovich Cycle, and so many species won't have the geographical resources that they usually use to adapt to climate change over those cycles. (Meaning they will be pushed off the pole end of continents and islands and/or the tops of mountains). So downwards from here would be better than upwards as well.
I loosely based it on this: http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/...
Yea, no big news, this is the latest roll out of old news to supplement the new global wierding narrative the administration is pushing.
Which administration are you talking about? You are aware that the authors of the SAM papers are from: (1) British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge CB3 0ET, United Kingdom, (2) Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory , Australia, (3) Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Laboratoire HydroSciences Montpellier et Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France, and (4) Climate Change Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia?
So unless this is an administration of Australia, France and the UK, you're mistaken.
This was known and predicted in 1999.
There are new findings about the relationship between the Southern Annular Mode (the winds around Antarctica's latitude and speed), and the ice mass loss. And there are new proxy data for this SAM, showing the current effect the strongest in the past 1000 years. So mass loss acceleration is expected.
No acceleration in the rise
The acceleration is more visible in the data here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/seale...
Yeah, they are in consensus that it's been getting a little warmer
A lot warmer, if you're interested in ecology. Take eucalyptus species for and example. 25% of species have a range that spans less that 1C in mean temperature. That means that a 1C change in temperature puts the new long-term survivable range completely outside their current range. That comes with a significant extinction risk, and where movement is blocked by the edge of continents, tops of mountains, or human land use, it get this think called "committed to extinction"
...and humans contributed a little to that.
The consensus is probably contributed the majority of that.
... other things being equal.)
I think most people would say likely all of it, or slightly more. (We are in the cooling part of the Milankovic cycle, having hit the peak about 8000 years ago, so many reconstructions of natural climate is that it would be in a slow cooling
And how many people is that?
Probably about 30,000
Are each of their opinions independent of one another?
Most of them read the same climatology journals. Much like any other science.
Do any of them have vested interest?
The biggest one is publishing good research that is true. Particularly well regarded is if you're right and most people were mistaken. Much like any other science. And a few will have other conflicts of interest.
Your wet clothes when you hang them on the line only reach an average of 30C. The water won't be evaporating soon.
The west Antarctic Ice Sheet is past the point of no return and will collapse. Antarctic glacier melt is unstoppable.
That will give you seven feet alone. In time it will give about 13.
But Greenland ice sheet is losing mass too, as are glaciers on the less icy continents.
Here are several papers from just one scientist
The first one is a book. Books are often published without peer review.
The second one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.
The Third one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.
The fourth one gets no hits on google scholar. I assume it was never published in the scholarly literature.
The fifth one appears, but only as two citations, both by the Author. I assume is was never published in the scholarly literature.
The sixth one appears in Energy & Environment, a publication that some place amongst scholarly journals and some amongst trade journals. In either case, it is a dumping ground for counter-consensus, and even counter-scientific opinion pieces, and is of no note as a peer reviewed publication.
The seventh was a presentation to the 2009 GSA Annual Meeting. This isn't publication or peer review. And it appears to have been mentioned only three times, twice by the author, and once by Anthony Watts.
The eight is a presentation to a denialist conference, organised by the Heartland institute. This is not peer reviewed, and the organisation is very interested in only presenting a counter-scientific view for its clients in the fossil fuel industry.
The ninth appears to be the abstract for a presentation to the AGU conference in fall 2007. Again, this is not peer reviewed, not has it attracted any interest outside the author and Anthony Watts.
The tenth is another conference paper with no citations except the same publications citing the other conference papers above.
Now how accurate is that "0% of scholarly papers" claim?
"Several papers" that were "published" is a bit of a stretch. Being very generous, and calling E&E "publication", we have 10% published peer reviewed literature. Crudely extrapolating to the list of 25, there are 2.5 papers there. Google scholar returns about 589,000 publications to the search term "Global climate change", so these (generous) 2.5 represent. This is about 0.004%, which to the implied accuracy by the number of decimal places given in my "0% of scholarly papers" is 0%.
Especially in light of the fact that Dr. Easterbrook's climate model (which does NOT base itself on CO2) accurately matches the past
I think I can see why these papers got no attention then. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing its concentration will increase the greenhouse effect.
AND predicted the current 17 year pause in warming,
17 year pause in the warming? This could be another reason the papers have received no interest.
There has been warming over the past 17 years.
Since that is what was provided (where do you think the charts come from)
There are many hundreds of thousands of scholarly papers on climate change now. There is no reason to go to resort to counterscientific blogs. For over 20 years about 0% of scholarly papers counter the basic finding that human activity is probably responsible for most of the current climate change.
But Watts has never once reported on any of these papers.
The site is extremely biased.
Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
Sorry?
I said that we should use science-based sources. Your position is that that is a lie?
Kid, the entire advantage that humans have is encompassed by science. It's not your enemy.
You may not care to look at facts, but they exist [wattsupwiththat.com]
Most people would think that a better place to look for facts would be the scientific literature.
Watt's is a blog with a clear and counterscientific agenda.
They've got the money and the manpower. Nationalism is the only resource that lack of may stop them. Projects such as these and their moon base plans are money well spent.