timmyJune 24, 2014 at 11:58 AM
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/10/seven-recent-papers-that-disprove-man.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
there ya go all copy and past urls
Response:
The first link provided took me to the Hockey Schtick page, but it said the referenced page no longer existed. I would be glad to address what it was they said there, but I have no idea what it is.
Second link:
I've seen this post before. It is really bad. It claims to show five scientific reasons global warming isn't happening (Where are all the guys that insist no denier says global warming doesn't exist?). Let's review them in order:
1. It has not warmed since 1997. Man, cats should have this many lives. No matter how many times you kill this sucker it keeps coming back. Dracula had nothing on this myth. To recap, nine of the ten hottest years have occurred since 2000, including the three hottest (all three hotter than 1998). Also, they always love to leave out the ocean warming, which is 93% of global warming. "Global" warming means the whole globe and cherry-picking only one part doesn't change the reality. See this article here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
2. This one is a double failure. First, it isn't true. And, second, it isn't scientific evidence and is a red herring that deniers like to use to try and distract the argument. It is a whole lot harder for them to buy off scientists, so they make stuff up. I addressed this issue in this post here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/deniers-confirm-consensus.html
3. So what? One year doesn't establish anything, one way or another. Arctic sea ice is down dramatically since 1980, that is what matters. By the way, the sea ice extent this year has been consistently tracking at levels below last years. The melt season has a long way to go yet, but the trend is not supporting denier claims. See the data here:
https://nsidc.org/
4. Climate models are actually quite good. This is another false denier claim. Analyses of the models shows that the 'pause' was accurately modeled, contrary to denier claims. Look at these sites:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
5. This is a 'So what?' point and not scientific evidence. The predictions made by scientists do not have any effect on what nature is doing. But, the point is also incorrect. Many of the things that were forecasted have turned out to happen as predicted.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/models_are_reliable.asp
Third link:
Solar activity has increased since the 1800s, that is true, but it has also decreased since the 1950s. Take a look at the data here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
Fourth link:
I'm not sure how this helps disprove man made global warming. Solar storms dump energy in the atmosphere all the time and were doing it before global warming started. You would need to show there has been an increase in the total energy input to the atmosphere over time.
Fifth link:
The consensus has not only been shown to be true, but it has been verified by deniers.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/deniers-confirm-consensus.html
But, again, so what? Nature is not going to change what it is doing based on how scientists agree or don't agree. This is not scientific evidence.
Sixth link:
See the my response the fifth link.
Summary:
There was no scientific evidence submitted here. So, it did not come close to proving the point.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
there ya go all copy and past urls
Response:
The first link provided took me to the Hockey Schtick page, but it said the referenced page no longer existed. I would be glad to address what it was they said there, but I have no idea what it is.
Second link:
I've seen this post before. It is really bad. It claims to show five scientific reasons global warming isn't happening (Where are all the guys that insist no denier says global warming doesn't exist?). Let's review them in order:
1. It has not warmed since 1997. Man, cats should have this many lives. No matter how many times you kill this sucker it keeps coming back. Dracula had nothing on this myth. To recap, nine of the ten hottest years have occurred since 2000, including the three hottest (all three hotter than 1998). Also, they always love to leave out the ocean warming, which is 93% of global warming. "Global" warming means the whole globe and cherry-picking only one part doesn't change the reality. See this article here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
2. This one is a double failure. First, it isn't true. And, second, it isn't scientific evidence and is a red herring that deniers like to use to try and distract the argument. It is a whole lot harder for them to buy off scientists, so they make stuff up. I addressed this issue in this post here:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/deniers-confirm-consensus.html
3. So what? One year doesn't establish anything, one way or another. Arctic sea ice is down dramatically since 1980, that is what matters. By the way, the sea ice extent this year has been consistently tracking at levels below last years. The melt season has a long way to go yet, but the trend is not supporting denier claims. See the data here:
https://nsidc.org/
4. Climate models are actually quite good. This is another false denier claim. Analyses of the models shows that the 'pause' was accurately modeled, contrary to denier claims. Look at these sites:
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
5. This is a 'So what?' point and not scientific evidence. The predictions made by scientists do not have any effect on what nature is doing. But, the point is also incorrect. Many of the things that were forecasted have turned out to happen as predicted.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/models_are_reliable.asp
Third link:
Solar activity has increased since the 1800s, that is true, but it has also decreased since the 1950s. Take a look at the data here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
Fourth link:
I'm not sure how this helps disprove man made global warming. Solar storms dump energy in the atmosphere all the time and were doing it before global warming started. You would need to show there has been an increase in the total energy input to the atmosphere over time.
Fifth link:
The consensus has not only been shown to be true, but it has been verified by deniers.
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/deniers-confirm-consensus.html
But, again, so what? Nature is not going to change what it is doing based on how scientists agree or don't agree. This is not scientific evidence.
Sixth link:
See the my response the fifth link.
Summary:
There was no scientific evidence submitted here. So, it did not come close to proving the point.
