“and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk. “
Scientists who disagree are no longer working, perhaps?
I missed the barf alert. ;-)
The article reminds me of the article written earlier this month defending Dan Rather on the forged documents. It LITERALLY dug up the same lame arguments from 2004 that were categorically debunked.
And the evidence today blows all the AGW models out of the water. It’s not happening like they thought it would. It is THEM, not the deniers, that are in trouble.
And Europe and the NYT are pissed.
BS they do...
Stopped reading right there. Obvious, outright bias on display and not even a paragraph into the piece!
Mr. Gillis needs to go back to journalism school to be reminded how to reports the FACTS. This is a puff piece.
There is absolutely ZERO prevailing science propping up AGW. I bet if you asked where he got his facts, one reference would be "An Inconvenient Truth."
“Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working scientists now see that the Sun orbits the Earth.” - New York Times Editorial in Response to Geocentric Deniers such as Galileo Galilei, 1615.
“Clouds Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters”
There are no skeptics on climate change. Everybody acknowledges that climate has changed in the past and it will continue to change.
The skepticism is over the human contribution to global warming, if it is even occurring, and if it what the consequences (good and bad) are, and how quickly they would occur.
Now it’s been about twenty years or more since they’ve been making all types of catastrophic predictions with none of them coming true, even though the amount of CO2 in the air has increased significantly with the industrialization of India, China, Brazil etc. THAT is the warmists biggest problem. Even Lovelock (the founder of Gaia) has come to accept that reality.
How long before the knuckleheads of the NYT come to that realization? I won’t hold my breath, because for the NYT it’s about politics not science.
Forget the clouds for a moment. What about the ice cores that debunked the CO2 increases predates global temperature increases? No. Not good enough to spur doubt?
How about we go back to the climate models from the 1980s and 1990s that Hanson presented to Congress. The global temperatures, ocean temperatures and sea levels are all WAY below his “Best case scenario” if we would have taken draconian measures to counter global warming back then.
We now have 30 years of data post the invention of “climate modeling.” Every single prediction of 10, 20 and 30 years dating back to 2000 is proved horrifically wrong. They are all off by more than 100%. Still not enough to say there is reason for debate?
The global temperatures measure by satellites put in orbit in the 1980s to measure global temperatures have been recording some pretty significant and consistent data. I would ask Hanson and corp to provide me a report of this data and an explanation for why the earth has almost completely stopped warming while the CO2 emissions have gone up even more than they predicted back when the satellites were put in orbit to monitor the global temperatures.
There is a simple case to be made for challenging the science. There is a strong case that their computer modeling schemes are false. There is absolute empirical proof that more money, regulation and taxation will not affect or prevent the warming of our planet.
“...Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence...”
Bull Obama, craven, idiot journalists.
Show me the math.
They can’t, and you mere writers can barely count page numbers.
Shove it up your collective Obamas.
They say Climate Change now because Global Warming is inoperative.
Would that be the tampered with East Anglia evidence?
Or the real historical data that East Anglia destroyed?
Or the falsified NASA evidence?
Or the faulty NOAA evidence?
Or the fabricated "hide the decline" Penn State statistical evidence?
The issue has never been whether climate changes. It changes all the time.
The issue has been whether man created CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate heating.
The preponderance of evidence is that CO2 is coincidental but not causal to global warming. Rather the drivers are primarily solar activity and sometimes volcanic activity.
it’s irrelavent. We were warned 10 years ago at the climate conference that was our VERY last chance to do anything and now it is too late.
All we can do now is sit and wait four more years until the world burns up on the date Al Gore predicted.
The propagandists at NYT grazed tangentially upon one point - referring to the cloud cover - then the carom took them clear away.
What are clouds? Water vapor. What is water vapor? Only the single vastly most important “greenhouse” gas in our atmosphere, anywhere from 30 to 100 times as important as carbon dioxide, which lacks one very important characteristic compared to water vapor - under normal atmospheric conditions, CO2 exists only as a gas, while H2O can exist simultaneously in a gas, a solid, and a liquid state.
The effect of clouds is two-fold, both as a reflective surface that sends at least a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum back into space, and also as a heat-transfer medium from the earth’s surface, as the liquid form, water, evaporates, or the solid form, ice, sublimates, absorbing huge amounts of heat from the surroundings. Upon rising in the atmosphere, the water vapor gives up all this heat energy, either becoming water droplets, or very fine ice crystals. The heat energy is radiated off to space on the side of the earth turned away from the sun during the 24-hour day cycle.
After cooling, the now heavier-than-air liquid water or solid ice fall back to earth as precipitation, rain, snow, or in special conditions, hail or sleet.
This was all explained in my sixth-grade science class. Don’t know how all these highly trained atmospheric scientists missed that, but then, the quality of education has fallen off in the past sixty years or so.
Gee, I thought the last 15 years of global temperature stasis in the face of continuously increasing CO2 was a pretty good bastion.
Look at the data. 30 years of cooling, then 30 years of warming, then thirty years of cooling, then thirty years of warming. Any guesses as to what the next phase is going to be?
That simply means that if a climate scientist went against the progressive agenda, they lost their job.
Progressives see their political bias as a character attribute, not a limiting character flaw.
So when Stalin purged all his generals, he actually thought he was improving his military.
Not this 97% BS again.
For those that haven't seen it this is how the 97% was arrived at:
There's a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists denying that there is a clear link between AGW and "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming"
1 - Define “climate scientist”
2 - Why would anyone claiming to represent “science” present a “poll” rather than scientific data to defend their position?
3 - The reason “skeptics” use clouds to disprove the claims of CO2 “causing” climate change, is because water vapor is the most significant variable, with regard to temperature change. It is both the most significant variable and the most difficult to model. This makes the study of any CO2 impact, almost impossible to measure.