4 ms·

I don't want to feed a troll here, but I'll debunk the arguments laid out in the first Chapter of the book [1]: > The “97% consensus” that all scientists belie

I don't want to feed a troll here, but I'll debunk the arguments laid out in the first Chapter of the book [1]: > The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts. Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure? > Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure No, they haven't. Hansen (1988!) has been extremely accurate [2]. > No global warming occurred for 18 years and 8 months through December 2015. Total meme-argument. There is no denying the temperature increase [3]. Debunked time and time again. > NOAA and NASA have corrupted surface temperature records. Evidence? This is completely unsubstantiated. > Only satellite temperature measurements are reliable. I don't agree, but there are multiple satellite datasets that indicate global warming is real. > The past is the key to the future. ok? > Cyclic climatic patterns in the geologic past provide a basis for predicting future climate changes. Cyclic, I'm not sure of. But "climatic patterns in the geologic past" have been studied extensively and DO provide a basis for "predicting future climate changes". Key among them: CO2 levels in the atmosphere. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804588600001X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804... [2] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm [3] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...

YarickR2 7y ago
At this point I'm not sure you're not a troll ; or do you hope noone will actually click your links and check facts stated there ? I will quote here: 'The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;" the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2.' I'm not sure how this correlates with your 'Hansen has been extremely accurate' claim, but you're clearly not helping with your references
- yongjik 7y ago
  Okay, you made me actually click through the link, and I can find: > As noted above, Hansen's model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), ... Predicting global warming for ~30 years within 25% in 1988 seems "pretty accurate" to me, isn't it? Surely it's a far cry from the skeptical position that models are so wrong that we can gain nothing from them.

YarickR2 7y ago

At this point I'm not sure you're not a troll ; or do you hope noone will actually click your links and check facts stated there ? I will quote here: 'The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;" the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2.' I'm not sure how this correlates with your 'Hansen has been extremely accurate' claim, but you're clearly not helping with your references

yongjik 7y ago
Okay, you made me actually click through the link, and I can find: > As noted above, Hansen's model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), ... Predicting global warming for ~30 years within 25% in 1988 seems "pretty accurate" to me, isn't it? Surely it's a far cry from the skeptical position that models are so wrong that we can gain nothing from them.