How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Lets start with 2 - Lindzen & Choi 2009 and their corrections in 2011 that show from direct measurements feedbacks from CO2 are likely negative. I linked both papers already and said what they find. What would your response be?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/sc...wanted=3&_r=3&

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”

Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.

[Xzan]

I see the global warming inquisition squad is at works with ol' dear Semaphore headspearing the parade like one-eyed leading the blind. Yet again...

I have told you once already, Semaphore, that you're wrong but apparently you still won't have anybody else's opinion but the one that you chose to like and to believe to be true. You are like a religious fanatic. Impossible to reason and argue with.
Last time I replied to a thread like this you told me to present you with sources of my information which I honestly couldn't be bothered to look up just so you could proceed to find an excuse that would quasi-allow you to ignore them and carry on you rambling and defending of outdatted opinions and theories. So I'm just leaving a few links here, hopefully you'll trip over them, fall and spill some of the dumb outta your head in the process.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.cz/201...-made-co2.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...g-the-climate/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...perature-link/
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/roo...ureKeeling.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../343709a0.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03...ature=youtu.be
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21818112001658

Infracted: Please refrain from personal attacks.

[Deadvolcanoes]

I see the global warming inquisition squad is at works with ol' dear Semaphore headspearing the parade like one-eyed leading the blind. Yet again...

I have told you once already, Semaphore, that you're wrong but apparently you still won't have anybody else's opinion but the one that you chose to like and to believe to be true. You are like a religious fanatic. Impossible to reason and argue with.
Last time I replied to a thread like this you told me to present you with sources of my information which I honestly couldn't be bothered to look up just so you could proceed to find an excuse that would quasi-allow you to ignore them and carry on you rambling and defending of outdatted opinions and theories. So I'm just leaving a few links here, hopefully you'll trip over them, fall and spill some of the dumb outta your head in the process.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.cz/201...-made-co2.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...g-the-climate/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...perature-link/
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/roo...ureKeeling.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../343709a0.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03...ature=youtu.be
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21818112001658

Let me guess....volcanoes release more CO2 in one eruption than humans, its the sun, its actually cooling, there is no consensus, ice age, sun...sun...ice...global...warming...al gore.....

Honestly you're post is both insulting and uninformative. No one is going to click a YouTube video link, or a blogspot, or wattsupwiththat, or any of your other dis proven, debunked links. Refer to the last 43 pages.

[semaphore]

I have told you once already, Semaphore, that you're wrong

And you can say that as many times as you want, but without scientific evidence on your side you're still only making baseless accusations.

So I'm just leaving a few links here, hopefully you'll trip over them, fall and spill some of the dumb outta your head in the process.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.cz/201...-made-co2.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/1...g-the-climate/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...perature-link/
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/roo...ureKeeling.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03...ature=youtu.be

Although this probably comes as a shock to you, blogs and youtube are not actually credible scientific sources.

carry on you rambling and defending of outdatted opinions

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/roo...ureKeeling.pdf <- 23 May 1995

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../343709a0.html <- 22 February 1990

Oh, the irony.

[Renathras]

"Which you are doing without any scientific evidence or valid logical reasoning."

I'm questioning the level because that's what determines whether or not we Humans need to act in any particular way. Also because it is pretty much never addressed by studies at all, even though it's probably the most important thing for us as societies to consider. Are we having a major or negligible impact? Seems like a good question to ask. Do you know of any studies that directly address that question?

"As demonstrated by your immediate attempt to change the subject to "current warming is not unusual". Which, by the way, is irrelevant to whether or not humans are causing the current warming. Fucking logic, how does it work?"

My immediate attempt? First: That wasn't the immediate thing I did. Second, it's irrelevant to whether or not Humans are contributing to the current warming. CONTRIBUTING, not CAUSING.

Fucking logic, how does it work, indeed.

.

"It's not like you stumbled upon some great discovery no other scientist are aware of. All of your regurgitated pseudo-scientific lies have been debunked multiple times, many even in this very thread. "

Sweet, an actual argument (well, link to one). I'll check it out. Though I'm not sure how rigorous a source "skepticalscience.com" is, I'll at least look into their arguments instead of waving it away as "the usual global warming nonsense". You know, like how some people wave away arguments instead of addressing them.

.

"This again? Please, get some new material.

For the last time, it's humanity that we are worried about. It's human civilisation that's under threat. Of course global warming doesn't destroy the planet or all life, that is both incredibly moronic as well as a pathetically transparent strawman. One that has been raised at least a dozen times already in this thread. "

So I come into a thread and need new material when my old material hasn't been addressed. Because that's how healthy debate works. Oh wait...er, health scientific debate? No...that's not right. Oh right, it's how INTERNET debate works. Where people just say they're right over and over instead of addressing arguments like beings of intelligence and reason. That's the one.

Humanity and Human civilization will survive just fine. The worst case scenario of global warming wouldn't destroy our race or civilizations. It might be an inconvenience by having us move around and reduce our reproductive rates to fit in smaller spaces and with more limited resources (as if we didn't really need to consider doing that anyway...), but Human civilization and the Human species is not under threat from global warming. That IS a strawman.

Read what I wrote that in response to. It was a person who didn't actually respond with anything other than basically saying it doesn't matter and I was telling him how it does, not making an argument for polluting the planet. Jeeze. Logic fail.

.

"I like how people think that they can post a wall of text, without sources, without links, that was basically just ctrl+v, and then expect people to go line by line and tell them why they are wrong."

I did that because, instead of actually looking through the article or the graphs or the arguments, the comeback was "it's just denialism". It's not denying things, it's stating things. Which means if you think those things are wrong, you should say why they're wrong. But since it's too hard to click a link and read it, I posted parts of it to save him/her the trouble. And the points are accurate, on top of that...which would mean they aren't wrong.

.

"There's a much easier way of doing this Renathras. Link us a study conducted by a reputable scientific organization that agrees with your hypothesis, and we will take a look at it. Better yet, link us several studies by several reputable scientific organizations that come to the conclusion that AGW is not a threat that should not be acted upon. We will wait."

And herein lies the problem - right now, scientific organizations aren't attempting to disprove global warming. This is mostly due to political reasons. Universities get funding from governments, and governments only want to fund research that points to global warming (not even Human caused). There actually was a study (and I'll see if I can find it) from CERN on this issue that kept getting roadblocked because the implication would be in opposition to climate change science. When the study actually was finally complete, the director told the scientists that they could report their findings but could not comment on or interpret them.

Note that most of what you read in scientific journals IS data that is commented on and interpreted. Without that, most people can look at the data and not really make sense of it. In other words, this was very outside of the normal way scientific studies are reported.

Here, give me a min and I'll google a link for ya...
...well, found some for it, but it's...annoying. Mostly sensationalists. That is, reading them makes my head hurt. The pro-global warming people all saying that it doesn't matter because it's only part of all the things that cause global warming (wait a tick, these are the same people that say CO2, released by Humans, is the driving factor and nothing else matters...why not apply the same logic to their own point of view...?) Meanwhile, the anti-global warming people go on and on about how it disproves everything.

It's CLOUD I'm referring to - the only reputable experiment I'm aware of that actually was able to get funding, even after the guys that came up with it were lambasted and the guy that pulled it off had to work over a decade to even get them to allow him to do it.

Here's a short history of it (WARNING: The article was likely written by an anti-Human caused global warming guy, but read the actual quotes and it's a decent "short history"): http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-change-shock/

From what I'm aware, that would classify as "a reputable scientific organization". At least, I'd classify CERN as that, if nothing else:

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/.../CLOUD-en.html

Though, as was mentioned before, the scientists weren't allowed to expound on what they found, only report it. The gist of the argument is that they're looking into (and their results seem to support) the sun's rays causing different levels of cloud formation, which if true would cause a significant impact on global climate.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/16...1635-2010.html

Of course, skepticalscience had a response to that (which does seem very much like denial): http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern...ming-basic.htm

...where, in what is actually a denial, they say that, while the study may show something, that we shouldn't take it seriously because it only shows one part of something, one step in a process, and until all steps are shown, we shouldn't pay it any mind.

That's like saying until climate change scientists prove that all global climate is caused by CO2, and only by the CO2 that Humans produce, that we shouldn't take it seriously at all.

.

So yeah, there are a lot of issues.

Right now, global warming, specifically Human caused global warming, is the political issue of the day. And as there are many governments and political leaders who lean towards the view, most funding is going to scientists that offer to do studies to support it, with little to none to scientists that want to do studies that would disprove it. Making it VERY difficult to find studies opposing it because the scientists that want to conduct them can't get any financing.

This is why you don't see many, not because of any scientific consensus or lack of scientific arguments opposed to it. It's actually something of a miracle in my mind that CLOUD even got off the ground.

[Grizzly Willy]

The issues I cited were the judgment of the Court after it was determined that those issues had no basis in the science as determined by the IPCC - would you like to now object to their ruling? I assume so - I take it you know better yes?

So, the post that was counter to yours wasn't using the same rulings that you used, albeit including what you left out?
Edit: Perhaps I am mistaken. It is not the issues that you presented that are faulty, but it should be noted that article 17 in the link in question supports the film as being backed by "scientific research and fact."

[Renathras]

I should also note, for the record, my personal view is actually a very balanced one:

The Earth is warming.
Human activities may be having an effect.
We don not know the extent of this effect.

Now, would you point out for me which of these three points is wrong?

Is the Earth not warming?
Can you prove Human activities are not having an effect?
Can you point to a study that indicates the exact or approximate level of the effect that Human activities are having?

The answer to all three of these questions should be no (double negatives). Which means my personal opinion is in line with current scientific data and available facts.

The course of action I would suggest is that Humans attempt to minimize our impact. We do not know if our activities currently are of large or small (or negligible) impact, and so prudence would suggest that we try to minimize them until such time as we do, in fact, know. However, I would suggest doing this in gradual ways with prudence and caution, instead of quick, knee-jerking reactions.

.

Tell me, which part of that is illogical or irresponsible or unscientific to you? Which part is demonstrably false? Which part does science and scientific studies oppose, and can you link some studies that do so?

I'm going to guess not...but maybe you can surprise me.

[Vaengence]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/sc...wanted=3&_r=3&

And what would you then say for this paper?

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...old/mbh99.html

So, the post that was counter to yours wasn't using the same rulings that you used, albeit including what you left out?

I did not leave out anything - I posted the ruling. I will say it once again - I did not claim that there were no scientifically valid facts in that film, nor that the entire film was garbage. Someone asked for a list of errors, I gave a list of errors as determined by the ruling. That same ruling also determined that aside from those errors the rest of the documentary had valid scientific data backing it up - I also never denied that.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Lets start with 2 - Lindzen & Choi 2009 and their corrections in 2011 that show from direct measurements feedbacks from CO2 are likely negative. I linked both papers already and said what they find. What would your response be?

So I posted one article where Lindzen basically debunks herself that you have yet to reply to.

I dont know if you have checked out their skepticalscience profile, but its also worth looking at, as many many other people debunk their findings as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lind...ensitivity.htm

I'm off to bed for now.

---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 01:07 AM ----------

And what would you then say for this paper?

So you're just going to link another paper without acknowledging the flaws in your previous source?

[Vaengence]

So I posted one article where Lindzen basically debunks herself that you have yet to reply to.

I dont know if you have checked out their skepticalscience profile, but its also worth looking at, as many many other people debunk their findings as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lind...ensitivity.htm

I'm off to bed for now.

---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 01:07 AM ----------



So you're just going to link another paper without acknowledging the flaws in your previous source?

You actually missed the point entirely - there was a reason I posted a second paper and I was going to respond appropriately when you responded to it. Unfortunately you didn't though you did respond in ways I was expecting.

For instance, the second paper I posted was not a skeptical paper - it is a paper by Michael Mann. I take it from the attitude that you didn't actually look at the paper before responding snarkily?

The second is that I have been lambasted over and over for linking to sites that are "unscientific" as they are blogs and newspaper articles. Your responses were a newspaper article and a blog - a blog that is the same as wattsupwiththat but for warmists. Can you explain to me then, why I should accept either source as a valid point of view when doing so myself would have you telling me I was posting junk?

Is it not at all hypocritical?

[semaphore]

"Which you are doing without any scientific evidence or valid logical reasoning."

I'm questioning the level because that's what determines whether or not we Humans need to act in any particular way. Also because it is pretty much never addressed by studies at all

Yeah pretty much never addressed, except for all the time.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
"All multi-signal detection and attribution studies attribute more warming to greenhouse gas forcing than to a combination of all other sources considered, including internal variability, with a very high significance. "

This has been explicitly endorsed as an accurate reflection of the scientific consensus on global warming. And just because I also happened to have this study open:

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Thomas J. Crowley, Science 14 July 2000: 289 (5477), 270-277
"The bulk of the 20th-century warming is consistent with that predicted from GHG increases. These twin lines of evidence provide further support for the idea that the greenhouse effect is already here."

Plus numerous studies examining the amount of atmospheric CO2 humans are responsible for, and the climate sensitivity. So yeah, sorry but I can't bring myself to read the rest of your ctrl+c ctrl+v wall of text, when you couldn't go two sentences without an outright lie.

[Aalyy]

So you're taking something you freely admit is NOT science, and yet try to use it as a scientific support to an argument. My admonition was to NOT do this thing. Use science, not "a documentary" which sensationalizes things and makes conclusion jumps that aren't valid or supported.

I'm doing no such thing. This isn't a discussion between myself and my collegues. This is an internet discussion in which the general public is involved so an Inconvenient Truth is fair game. I don't know what part of my posts lead you to believe I'm treating it as science, esp when I said:

Besides, even if this film was actually riddled with errors like a few claim how does that debunk the scientific consensus or the actual scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming? An Inconvenient Truth is based on science. Science isn't based on it.

I never said it was "science". I said it is, for the most part, factually accurate and that all attempts to discredit have themselves been discredited.

For example - prove to me that CO2 causes the global temperature to increase. The two graphs move together, so Gore tells us CO2 causes the temperature increase.

Since you are ignorant of climate science here is some material to educate you. And Gore didn't tell us this. Scientists did and Gore used scientific information in a documentary. He didn't come up with it himself.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../351304a0.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL025044.shtml
http://quercus.igpp.ucla.edu/teachin...tal_nat_00.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...4.01047.x/full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../361140a0.html

The above are each individual peer reviewed studies, just a sliver of what is available. If you would like any of them explained I'd be happy to oblige. Since understanding something as complex as climate change and global warming you need to look at a preponderance of evidence. While each individual study adds to the knowledge base sometimes you have to step back and look at the forest not just the individual trees. Here is an example of that and should provide easier reading without so much scientific jargon. http://www.grida.no/_res/site/file/p...ateInPeril.pdf

That is one conclusion. There are two others off the top of my head. One is that the temperature increase could cause the CO2 increase. The other is that both of these could be effects of some other cause (e.g. there is some underlying thing that happens to cause both of these things to happen.)

In scientific circles, this is know as "correlation does not mean causation."

No, this is known as Feedback Loops. Look it up.

No, there is no scientific consensus on HUMAN CAUSED climate change.

Yes there is!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full#
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html
http://visionprize.com/results?utm_s...phics#findings
http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange-g8+5.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...ate_letter.pdf

Should I post more?

There IS a scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is changing, as it has for the past 4.6 billion years. Billion. As in before Humans even existed on the Earth.

The exact causes and mechanisms are not fully understood.

Just because you do not understand them doesn't mean climate scientists don't. Sure, there is always more to learn but we have a preponderance of evidence that it is anthropogenic use of fossil fuels that is cause the warming we see now.

Besides, if Gore's so right, then surly you can prove your point without using his propaganda. An Inconvenient Truth is that and only that. It's as factually accurate and as much a documentary as the Creationist museums around the country - as in NOT factually accurate or documentary.

Again, you should read more carefully so you don't make blatantly false statements like this.

And it was VERY poorly done.

Facts aside, this is a matter of opinion.

There is little scientific evidence for Human caused global warming. In fact, it is (as I said in my last post) entirely possible that Humans are having an effect, but it is not the bulk of the effect. To say that it is is to ignore the GEOLOGIC RECORD.

Here, take a look: http://essayweb.net/geology/timeline/phanerozoic.shtml

Specifically, take a look at the pictures of the temperature change over time. See the red line? Then look at the blue line which marks the current temperature. Even if we're causing warming, it is insignificant compared to what the Earth, itself, has done across its past.

Are you unaware that the fact that the climate has changed in the past is actually known to scientists? Who do you think brought you this information? It has no bearing on the fact that the warming and resulting climate change we are now seeing is caused by human activity.

The TRUTH/FACT/SCIENCE is that the Earth naturally warms and cools over time, and that Humans may be (probably are) having an effect, but we do not know the extent of that effect.

We have all kinds of data as to the extent of this effect. Check out the links I posted above.

The rest of your post is too disjointed and hard to follow so I'm not going to. Next post please clean up your formatting.

[semaphore]

I should also note, for the record, my personal view is actually a very balanced one:

There aren't always two sides to a story. You're not even a little balanced, you're deploying a very standard biased argument by anti-science crowd. See below:

Human activities may be having an effect.
We don not know the extent of this effect.

We, in fact, do.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/quan...l-warming.html

[Aalyy]

You asked for a list of errors in the film. I gave you a list of errors in the film. The source is a UK Court Judgment - and determined that there were errors in the film that were not supported by the science. You never asked whether or not the film was junk, or asked me to post why it was junk, or whether or not there was anything in the film scientifically valid. I did not post anything saying that the film as a whole was bad, or unscientific - you asked for a list of errors, I gave you a list of errors.

My mistake to assume that your interest in bringing science to this discussion was sincere and that you would at least attempt to use science to discredit it. It doesn't change the fact that the "errors" you listed weren't factual errors and the conclusion of the judge explicity states in that same judgement:

17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

What was the purpose of the caterwauling?

Classy! I take it you thought you could bluff your way through this and steamroll people with your empty blustering and internet copy/pastes. Best laid plans and all.

[Renathras]

Alright, then let me ask you just a few questions, and you guys show me studies to set my questions to rest on them:

How much does the sun/solar cycles contribute to the Earth's climate and does it change it at all? If so, how much?

How much of global warming is the result of water vapor in the atmosphere as a percentage of global climate change?

What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is the result of Human activities and what percent is the result of natural processes, as percentages of all CO2 in the atmosphere? Of this combined percentage, how much is dealt with through natural CO2 sinks that pull it out of the atmosphere? And is CO2 emitted from Human sources any different than CO2 emitted from natural sources, as far as the sinks are concerned?

What is fundamentally different about the current trend of climate change compared to past trends (Ice Ages and warming periods)? What is the deviation from those past events?

.

Do you guys have scientific studies, from credible sources (not "skepticalscience.com"), that specifically study and address these points? I would like to see them.

My current information on these is:

Probably. Unknown.
97% of greenhouse warming is caused by H2O vapor in the atmosphere.
Unknown (assumed < 50%), unknown (assumed > 50%). Unknown (assumed approximately 80-90%). No - the chemical CO2 is indistinguishable to natural sinks.
Unknown. Unknown.

I would like to get rid of those unknowns and get actually percentages for the assumptions, as well as a good idea of how the sun is playing into all of this.

.

So links, please?

The above are my main issues with anthropogenic climate change science. Addressing them would go a long way towards winning me to your position.

---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 12:58 AM ----------

As to this:
"There aren't always two sides to a story. You're not even a little balanced, you're deploying a very standard biased argument by anti-science crowd."

There aren't always. But there often are. Science is seldom all or nothing. My position is largely valid since you aren't able to deny either that the Earth has natural cycles nor that there are other contributors to global warming besides Humans.

My view point is very middle of the road between the two sides of this argument, and it's also an open view - I made no statement to the amount of global climate change caused by any one source, which means if Humans turn out to be causing a majority of it, that causes no real change to my position (that is, my position encompasses your view if it turns out to be true.)

I'll read through your links and see what I can find.

For the record, physics is my domain. I'm fully capable of understanding scientific arguments. The various insults thrown at me for not believing on faith 100% of what I'm told by people in this thread notwithstanding.

Though if you have any links to post in reply to what I posted immediately above this, I'd love to see them, since I haven't read much in those areas of study (or on those specific questions.)

[Vaengence]

My mistake to assume that your interest in bringing science to this discussion was sincere and that you would at least attempt to use science to discredit it. It doesn't change the fact that the "errors" you listed weren't factual errors and the conclusion of the judge explicity states in that same judgement:





Classy! I take it you thought you could bluff your way through this and steamroll people with your empty blustering and internet copy/pastes. Best laid plans and all.

I can't work out whether you are being intentionally stupid or whether you just don't read properly. The last post I made confirmed that the ruling did show that there were claims in the movie that were based on science and were factually correct - the same ruling also stipultaed that there were claims in the movie that weren't. This is not a all goo or all bad scenario - some claims were fine, some weren't.

There is not a lot to wrap your head around here.

This is an article from the Guardian reporting the ruling (the Guardian is a warmist news source so you should be happy with it)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen.../climatechange

Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]."

Which is exactly what I said - that there were facts supported by science and that there were errors in the the film that were not supported by the science.

I say again, I never said the entire film was bad, I pointed out the errors that occured in the film - which if you intend to be objective and not accept things at face value (ie be critical of what you read) you need to accept that there were mistakes.

[Sayl]

Lets start with 2 - Lindzen & Choi 2009 and their corrections in 2011 that show from direct measurements feedbacks from CO2 are likely negative. I linked both papers already and said what they find. What would your response be?

The 2009 incarnation was so flawed that one of your other favorite "skeptics" (Spencer) panned it, and even the "corrected" 2011 version was rejected for publication by the PNAS, despite Lindzen having selected two of the reviewers. Later, after they managed to get it published in an obscure journal overseas, it still has zero citations. Ooo, sciencey!

[Vaengence]

The 2009 incarnation was so flawed that one of your other favorite "skeptics" (Spencer) panned it, and even the "corrected" 2011 version was rejected for publication by the PNAS, despite Lindzen having selected two of the reviewers. Later, after they managed to get it published in an obscure journal overseas, it still has zero citations. Ooo, sciencey!

And your response to this one:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...old/mbh99.html

?

[Tradewind]

And your response to this one:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...old/mbh99.html

?

Old science is exciting.

Also, just wondering, did you even read any of it?

[Vaengence]

Old science is exciting.

Also, just wondering, did you even read any of it?

I have spent many hours with this particular paper, I was not linking it because it was old. You didn't answer the question.