quote: This is opposite of what the climate models based on the 'CO2 causes warming' hypothesis predicted. Those models predicted such a rise in CO2, up 26%, would lead to significant warming. That prediction failed. Is it time to question the theory and if not why not?
quote: or... Plants consume co2 and create oxygen. More co2, = more efficient plants, = more oxygen to balance the co2.
quote: any more than humans "love" a water-rich environment
quote: It has been shown that while trees may grow faster at higher CO2-levels, the wood they produce also becomes less dense
quote: So you can't make a blanket statement that more CO2 = better for plantlife, because nature isn't that simple.
quote: So ... can I throw a few more shrimp on the barbie for ya?
quote: That would work normally... Except we are destroying the plants that create the oxygen. The Amazon forest, also known as the "Lungs of the Earth" probably won't be around forever at the rate it's being wiped out. - tinyurl.com/7ja6gbb
quote: The Earth will always be able to fix itself until the days when the Sun starts to die.
quote: The other 99% of life will certainly celebrate and thrive in our absence.
quote: Nobody is claiming that more atmospheric CO2 should immediately trigger a jump in global temperatures
quote: When science is working as it should, awkward and unexpected results are often the most useful as it is such results that help to expose problems with theories and allow us to question and eventually reject false or incomplete hypothesis.
quote: I think we're missing the point here: temperatures were rising even before the industrial revolution, so even if we stopped producing any CO2 at all, they'd still be rising.Second, what happens when the Earth gets warmer? It could very well turn into an equatorial environment all the way to the poles (with more water evaporating because of higher temperatures).
quote: There's actually a consensus amongst over 95% of the scientific community
quote: Former climate contrarian Professor Richard Muller has released the draft of his teams Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST). The study, funded largely by multibillionaire petroleum magnates Charles and David Koch, known for donating 55 million dollars to climate denial front groups, “confirm[s] the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.” Muller confirmed at a public talk, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “none of the effects raised by the [sceptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.” He told MSNBC’s Morning Joe today that “we’re getting very steep warming” and that because “we are dumping enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we’re working in a dangerous realm, a realm where I think, we may really have trouble in the next coming decades.”
quote: "Dear All, Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don't have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don't have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. We are currently trying to do some more work with other datasets, which will get released (as gridded datasets) through the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC). This will involve more than just station temperature data. Perhaps we should consider setting up something like this agreement below http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/surface/met ... ement.htmlI just want these orchestrated requests to stop. I also don't want to give away years of hard effort within CRU. Many of the agreements were made in the late 1980s and early 1990s and I don't have copies to hand. I also don't want to waste my time looking for them. Even if I were to find them all, it is likely that the people we dealt with are no longer in the same positions. These requests over the last 2.5 years have wasted much time for me, others in CRU and for Dave and Michael. Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I've ascertained it most likely came from there, as I'm the only one who knows where the files are here. See you all later. Phil"
quote: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
quote: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."
quote: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out."
quote: Hi Ricardo - good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have some comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others' you're helping to lead. Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too. I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data - not inconclusive information.
quote: But such critical reports have thus far failed to actually provide virtually any such contextual explanations, despite their suggestion that they must exist.
quote: Further, the critics of the email publication are ignoring the fact that there are certain types of things that researchers should know to never say -- such as making comments that even sound like suggesting the destruction of academic evidence.
quote: This Jason Mick bullsh*t propaganda machine is ridiculous.
quote: However, carefully selecting articles to portray an anti-climate change argument because that's what you believe in is pathetic.
quote: Improved efficiency is beneficial regardless of AGW being true or not at any rate.
quote: It's barely tabloid journalism
quote: Healthy skepticism against the theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution too? Please..
quote: It's not "spin" ...
quote: Honestly I'm surprised this article is here. So you're just an idiot who is afraid of reading the truth.
quote: Your argument though is that he dislikes Obama and the Democrats