Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

[John Manning]

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science
papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found
a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global
warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

~~ Details and link to full study:
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html


SEE ALSO from Wikipedia

GRAPH: Opinions of Climate and Earth Scientists on Global Warming
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 15, 2:33 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science
> papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found
> a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global
> warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.
>
> ~~ Details and link to full study:http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
>
> SEE ALSO from Wikipedia

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has
increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the
increase occurring since 1980.[2] Warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is
primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and
deforestation.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the
national science academies of all major industrialized nations.

So?

[A Really Really Large Number]

On Jun 15, 2:36 pm, A Really Really Large Number <quarke...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The map shows the 10-year average (2000–2009) global mean temperature
anomaly relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The largest temperature
increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. Source: NASA
Earth Observatory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg.png

[Blue]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/28/more-woes-warmist-john-cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-3-more-scientists-dr-morner-soon-carlin-plus-round-up-of-analyses-of-cooks-study/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

[John Manning]

Those are all typical disinformation AGW denier blogs.

They represent a small fringe minority of scientific opinion AND/OR are
directly or indirectly sponsored by the MEGA Trillion Dollar Polluter
Industry which continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in their
insidious attempts to misinform the public and caste doubt about the
*very real*
threat of human-caused climate change and global warming.

They use the same tactics as the Big Money Tobacco Industry did to
mislead the
public about the health dangers of smoking - only they do it on a vastly
larger scale.

[John Manning]

On 6/15/2013 4:12 PM, Blue wrote:
>

Those are all typical disinformation AGW denier blogs.

They represent a small fringe minority of scientific opinion AND/OR are
directly or indirectly sponsored by the MEGA Trillion Dollar Polluter
Industry which continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in their
insidious attempts to misinform the public and caste doubt about the
*very real*
threat of human-caused climate change and global warming.

They use the same tactics as the Big Money Tobacco Industry did to
mislead the
public about the health dangers of smoking - only they do it on a vastly
larger scale.

*Notably* you didn't address the separate data set represented below...

[Blue]

97% Doran EoS paper
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

75

vs

31,487

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[John Manning]

You must really be a colossal moron.

The 'Petition Project' was a laughable and completely bogus operation
where any crackpot or fraud could sign their name on a postcard *anyone*
can get, sign and mail in.

Here is that Petition Project card that *any halfwit*
like you can get - mark the Ph.D. box - and then sign:
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_images/Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

[Blue]

On 15/06/2013 21:36, John Manning wrote:
> On 6/15/2013 5:17 PM, Blue wrote:
>> On 15/06/2013 20:12, Blue wrote:
>>>
>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/28/more-woes-warmist-john-cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-3-more-scientists-dr-morner-soon-carlin-plus-round-up-of-analyses-of-cooks-study/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 97% Doran EoS paper
>> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
>>
>> 75
>>
>> vs
>>
>> 31,487
>>
>> http://www.petitionproject.org/
>>
>
>
> You must really be a colossal moron.

I prefer the term Atheist.

[John Manning]

On 6/15/2013 6:24 PM, Blue wrote:
> On 15/06/2013 21:36, John Manning wrote:
>> On 6/15/2013 5:17 PM, Blue wrote:
>>> On 15/06/2013 20:12, Blue wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/28/more-woes-warmist-john-cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-3-more-scientists-dr-morner-soon-carlin-plus-round-up-of-analyses-of-cooks-study/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 97% Doran EoS paper
>>> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
>>>
>>> 75
>>>
>>> vs
>>>
>>> 31,487
>>>
>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/
>>>
>>
>>
>> You must really be a colossal moron.
>
>
> I prefer the term Atheist.

Atheists are notably excellent critical thinkers. You're clearly an
extremely
rare exception demonstrating that even an atheist can be a colossal moron.

[Blue]

On 16/06/2013 00:57, John Manning wrote:
> On 6/15/2013 6:24 PM, Blue wrote:
>> On 15/06/2013 21:36, John Manning wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2013 5:17 PM, Blue wrote:
>>>> On 15/06/2013 20:12, Blue wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/28/more-woes-warmist-john-cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-3-more-scientists-dr-morner-soon-carlin-plus-round-up-of-analyses-of-cooks-study/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2
>>>>>
>>>> 97% Doran EoS paper
>>>> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
>>>>
>>>> 75
>>>>
>>>> vs
>>>>
>>>> 31,487
>>>>
>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/
>>>>
>>> You must really be a colossal moron.
>>
>> I prefer the term Atheist.
>
> Atheists are notably excellent critical thinkers. You're clearly an
> extremely
> rare exception demonstrating that even an atheist can be a colossal moron.

Well in a world of many religious believers, as an
Atheist I don't hold that sheer numbers or any so
called consensus is some axiom proof of anything
except that there are large number of believers.

Not proof from the number of believers, proof
from authority or proof from abusive behaviour proves anything
other than a desperation to proselytise others into believing.

And all I see you bring to the table a few people
sneakily gleamed from a search. They didn't even
have the decency to ask them what they really thought.
It is the equivalent of asking vicars if they believe in god.

As for the actual science, I have studied it long
and hard. The model predictions, the reality, the
cost to human life today, and it doesn't add up.

Everything is surface temperature. The sky is doing
nothing, and yet the sky is supposed to be leading
the surface temperature. It just isn't happening.

Yes I would like to think Atheists are smart.
And they know dogma and proselytising when they see it.


--------------------
Prediction:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/global-warming-effects-could-kill-10000-in-the-uk-by-2012/785

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/22/environment.frontpagenews

vs

Reality:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341484/Floods-droughts-snow-May-Britains-weather-got-bad-Met-Office-worried.html


----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuNMrtE6wA

[John Manning]

Then you don't accept the legitimacy of peer-reviewed science
and you really don't know at all how science works

> And all I see you bring to the table a few people
> sneakily gleamed from a search. They didn't even
> have the decency to ask them what they really thought.
> It is the equivalent of asking vicars if they believe in god.

Now you're lying.

>
> As for the actual science, I have studied it long
> and hard. The model predictions, the reality, the
> cost to human life today, and it doesn't add up.

Your presentation of misinformation from denier blogs abundantly
demonstrates
that what you've studied is the readily available abundant
disinformation and not
the actual science. Of course, colossal morons are noted for buying into
horseshit
snake oil.

Anyone who is stupid enough to actually accept the Petition Project
as being legitimate is clearly dumber than a sack of hammers.

>
> Everything is surface temperature. The sky is doing
> nothing, and yet the sky is supposed to be leading
> the surface temperature. It just isn't happening.
>
> Yes I would like to think Atheists are smart.
> And they know dogma and proselytising when they see it.
>
>
> --------------------
> Prediction:
>
> http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/global-warming-effects-could-kill-10000-in-the-uk-by-2012/785
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/22/environment.frontpagenews
>
> vs
>
> Reality:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341484/Floods-droughts-snow-May-Britains-weather-got-bad-Met-Office-worried.html

The Daily Mail? REALLY? Your glaring lack of knowledge of the
difference between 'weather' and 'climate' makes my point in spades
that you're clueless about the actual science of AGW.


>
>
>
> ----
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuNMrtE6wA
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Blue]

They are not starting with the premise of the
question of whether Global Warming is real or not.
Peer reviewed here is like asking vicar how many
feather's does an angel wing have.

>> And all I see you bring to the table a few people
>> sneakily gleamed from a search. They didn't even
>> have the decency to ask them what they really thought.
>> It is the equivalent of asking vicars if they believe in god.
>
>
> Now you're lying.

No, you have brought nothing to the table except
a sneaky bogus so called consensus for obvious reason
and abuse to silence argument. In other words religious
tactics for hundreds of years to shut down debate.

>> As for the actual science, I have studied it long
>> and hard. The model predictions, the reality, the
>> cost to human life today, and it doesn't add up.
>
>
> Your presentation of misinformation from denier blogs abundantly
> demonstrates
> that what you've studied is the readily available abundant
> disinformation and not
> the actual science. Of course, colossal morons are noted for buying into
> horseshit
> snake oil.

I would rather read sceptic and heretic blogs
than mantra out some prays from a green bible.

> Anyone who is stupid enough to actually accept the Petition Project
> as being legitimate is clearly dumber than a sack of hammers.

Is there no end to your 'scientific' argument.

>> Everything is surface temperature. The sky is doing
>> nothing, and yet the sky is supposed to be leading
>> the surface temperature. It just isn't happening.
>>
>> Yes I would like to think Atheists are smart.
>> And they know dogma and proselytising when they see it.
>>
>>
>> --------------------
>> Prediction:
>>
>> http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/global-warming-effects-could-kill-10000-in-the-uk-by-2012/785
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/22/environment.frontpagenews
>>
>> vs
>>
>> Reality:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341484/Floods-droughts-snow-May-Britains-weather-got-bad-Met-Office-worried.html
>>
>
>
> The Daily Mail? REALLY? Your glaring lack of knowledge of the
> difference between 'weather' and 'climate' makes my point in spades
> that you're clueless about the actual science of AGW.

What the Met Office here are trying to excuse themselves
of why since 2007 the weather has been bad in the
UK. And after they got their head shot clean off
after their Barbecue Summer prediction of 2009 was
a complete wash out. And how their much predicted hot
summers have never appeared.

We are supposed to be in 'climate' now, so of
course 2007-2013 can count as a trend and if climate
is never weather one day then there is no need to
worry about climate.


Anyway, to counter your argument by 'sneaky'
numbers of people and abuse I'll bring more real
empirical science to the table.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png



>> ----
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuNMrtE6wA

[Logan Sacket]

If you think that you can educate anyone around here on why the
current so-called AGW concensus is wrong - good luck.

[sully]

On Jun 16, 5:07 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:33:42 +0100, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
> >On 16/06/2013 03:41, John Manning wrote:
> >> On 6/15/2013 9:57 PM, Blue wrote:
> >>> On 16/06/2013 00:57, John Manning wrote:
> >>>> On 6/15/2013 6:24 PM, Blue wrote:
> >>>>> On 15/06/2013 21:36, John Manning wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/15/2013 5:17 PM, Blue wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 15/06/2013 20:12, Blue wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsel...
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/28/more-woes-warmist-john-cooks-9...
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-...

> >>>http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/global-warming-effec...
>
> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/22/environment.frontpagenews
>
> >>> vs
>
> >>> Reality:
>
> >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341484/Floods-droughts-snow-...

>
> >> The Daily Mail?  REALLY?  Your glaring lack of knowledge of the
> >> difference between 'weather' and 'climate' makes my point in spades
> >> that you're clueless about the actual science of AGW.
>
> >What the Met Office here are trying to excuse themselves
> >of why since 2007 the weather has been bad in the
> >UK. And after they got their head shot clean off
> >after their Barbecue Summer prediction of 2009 was
> >a complete wash out. And how their much predicted hot
> >summers have never appeared.
>
> >We are supposed to be in 'climate' now, so of
> >course 2007-2013 can count as a trend and if climate
> >is never weather one day then there is no need to
> >worry about climate.
>
> >Anyway, to counter your argument by 'sneaky'
> >numbers of people and abuse I'll bring more real
> >empirical science to the table.
>

> >http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs...

>
> >>> ----
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuNMrtE6wA
>
> If you think that you can educate anyone around here on why the
> current so-called AGW concensus is wrong - good luck.

LOL, after you butchered basic HS physics, you want
to pretend you know why 30k scientists are lying.

[John Manning]

Dr. Roy Spencer and Intelligent Design

Just to give readers an idea of what kind of 'scientist' Dr Roy Spencer
is,
he actually believes in and preaches intelligent design in place of
evolution.

Dr. Roy Spencer wrote the following for TCS Daily, which was an online
magazine on current news from a political 'free-market' perspective.
(NOTE: TCS Daily was primarily funded by sponsors that included
Exxon-Mobil)

Dr. Roy Spencer:

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied
the evolution versus
intelligent design controversy for about two years. And
finally, despite my
previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I
came to the realization that
intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more
religious, and no less
scientific, than evolutionism.

"In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are
many fine books out there
on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by
scientists who lost
faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to
apply the analytical tools
they were taught in college."[8]

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote:

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation
actually had a much better
scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the
creation model was actually
better able to explain the physical and biological
complexity in the world. [...]

"Science has startled us with its many discoveries and
advances, but it has hit a
brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a
creator and designer."[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#Intelligent_Design




>
>
>
>
>>> ----
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuNMrtE6wA
>

[Blue]

On 16/06/2013 17:00, John Manning wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#Intelligent_Design




----

I am a Christian. I am a Protestant. I am a Baptist.
http://hollowverse.com/al-gore/

[John Manning]

Al Gore is not a scientist and doesn't claim to be one.

[Blue]

----------------------
John Cook�s 97%.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
----------------------
John Cook
"I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by
passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25", he
wrote. "... I care about the same things that the God
I believe in cares about � the plight of the poor and
vulnerable."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/aug/25/solar-physicist-religion

[John Manning]

On 6/18/2013 5:47 PM, Blue wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 17:42, John Manning wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 1:18 PM, Blue wrote:
>>> On 16/06/2013 17:00, John Manning wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#Intelligent_Design
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ----
>>> I am a Christian. I am a Protestant. I am a Baptist.
>>> http://hollowverse.com/al-gore/
>>>
>> Al Gore is not a scientist and doesn't claim to be one.
>
>
> ----------------------

> John Cook’s 97%.

> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
>
> ----------------------
> John Cook
> "I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by
> passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25", he
> wrote. "... I care about the same things that the God

> I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and
> vulnerable."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/aug/25/solar-physicist-religion
>
>


Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster
and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website
wattsupwiththat.com.

He does not have a university qualification and has no climate
credentials other
than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and
debunked at
the website wottsupwiththat.com

Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is
funded by
polluting industries.

~ Links included: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

[Blue]

[John Manning]

If you're attempting to equate John Cook's legitimacy with
that of Dr. Roy Spencer, it's rather laughable.

| NOTE: Unlike Roy Spencer, John Cook
| doesn't do research and publish his own work.
| In that sense, he's more like Al Gore.

First, John Cook, Climate Science Blogger:

Skeptical Science is a climate science blog and information
resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook.

In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate
science
and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles
analyzing the
merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global
warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate
change. (Not much different from what Al Gore does.)

Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to
understand
or debate climate change, and has been praised for its
straightforwardness.[11]

Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most
prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the
world"[12]
and...

The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed"
website
to counter arguments by global warming skeptics.[13]

In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the
Australian Museum
in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.[14]

Cook is trained as a solar physicist and says he is motivated by his
Christian beliefs.
[15] He is one of a number of Christians publicly arguing for scientific
findings
on anthropogenic global warming, and is an evangelical Christian.[16]

Funding

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or
charitable entity.[17]
The site does not contain banner ads and is funded entirely by Cook
himself, with
reader donations.[1] All regular and guest authors contribute strictly
voluntarily.

~ Much more at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science


NOW, Roy Spencer, AGW Denier, Anti-Regulation Activist:

"One of the few AGW deniers with real credentials", Roy Spencer is a
principal
research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (also
home to AGW
denier John Christy) and is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.

Spencer is on the nine-member board of the anti-regulation,
[multi-billion dollar
right wing, pro-business, anti-regulation Big Energy interests
organizations -jrm] Scaife-
and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose
this
affiliation on his website.

~ Extensive overview of Spencer and his controversial work and views:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer


ALSO: Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer

~ Multiple links and references included:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/#more-282584

[Blue]

------
�WOW. It�s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights
are melting,� ThinkProgress declared, noting the
temperature topping off at 114 degrees.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/dumpster-fire-not-global-warming-melted-oklahoma-streetlamps/

[John Manning]

On 6/19/2013 10:28 AM, Blue wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ------
> “WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights
> are melting,” ThinkProgress declared, noting the

> temperature topping off at 114 degrees.
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/dumpster-fire-not-global-warming-melted-oklahoma-streetlamps/
>

Unlike Roy Spencer, whose 'science' has been discredited by his peers,
Think Progress updated that particular story with the photo and corrected
their honest mistake.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/02/630211/in-oklahoma-its-so-hot-the-street-lights-are-melting/

[John Manning]

> “WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights
> are melting,” ThinkProgress declared, noting the

> temperature topping off at 114 degrees.
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/dumpster-fire-not-global-warming-melted-oklahoma-streetlamps/
>

You really do have a propensity for the fringe right wing, Mr Blue.

In any case...

Unlike AGW denier Roy Spencer, who sits on the nine-member board
of the right wing, pro-business, anti-regulation multi-billion dollar
Scaife- and
Bradley-funded Marshall Institute and whose 'science' has been

discredited by
his peers, Think Progress updated that particular story with the photo and
corrected their honest mistake.

And it certainly doesn't change the scientific data they presented on
the record-breaking heat in Oklahoma.

~ Multiple links and references included.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/02/630211/in-oklahoma-its-so-hot-the-street-lights-are-melting/

[Blue]

Negative Water Vapour Feedback
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/

[John Manning]

On 6/20/2013 5:23 AM, Blue wrote:

>> On 6/15/2013 3:33 PM, John Manning wrote:

>> A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science
>> papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found
>> a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global
>> warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.
>>
>> ~~ Details and link to full study:
>> http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

>> See *SEPARATE SURVEY* at Wikipedia

>>
>> GRAPH: Opinions of Climate and Earth Scientists on Global Warming
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

The 'hockey stick' temperature graph is legitimate. Attempts to
discredit it have
been thoroughly debunked *repeatedly* by numerous peer published scientists.

Roy Spencer - who sits on the nine-member board of the right wing,
pro-business, anti-regulation multi-billion dollar Scaife- and
Bradley-funded
Marshall Institute, has had his climate 'research' repeatedly debunked
by his peers.

Spencer has a political agenda and has no credibility with the credentialed
scientists of the climate science community.

You're buried in the bullshit, Blue - and wasting my time.

'plonk'

[Blue]

On 20/06/2013 17:14, John Manning wrote:



> You're buried in the bullshit, Blue - and wasting my time.
>
> 'plonk'

No peace for the wicked.

[Blue]

97%....John Cook....Cartoonist.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

[Blue]

On 21/06/2013 12:17, Blue wrote:
>
>
>
> 97%....John Cook....Cartoonist.
> http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html








http://web.archive.org/web/20110904152445/http://www.atimetolaugh.com.au/about.php

[Blue]

Fraud
http://web.archive.org/web/20060820035503/http://cartoons.sev.com.au/Sev-Space/Fraud-of-the-Rings/

[Logan Sacket]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:33:19 -0300, John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:

>
>
>A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science
>papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found
>a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global
>warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.
>
>~~ Details and link to full study:
>http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
>
>

>SEE ALSO from Wikipedia

>
>GRAPH: Opinions of Climate and Earth Scientists on Global Warming
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png
>

G.K. Chesterton said that "when people stop believing in orthodox
religion, rather than believe in nothing, they will believe in
anything". One of the ersatz religions which fills the void in recent
years is belief in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming. It claims to
be based on science. But it has all the characteristics of an
eschatological cult.

It has its own priesthood and ecclesiastical establishment - the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; they alone
can interpret its sacred scriptures - the Assessment Reports; it
anathematises as 'deniers' anyone who casts doubt on its certainties;
above all it predicts imminent doom if we do not follow its precepts
and make the sacrifices it prescribes.

What most clearly distinguishes the Catastrophic Global Warming cult
from science is that it is not refutable by facts. As Parliament
enacted the Climate Change Bill, on the presumption that the world was
getting warmer, it snowed in London in October - the first time in 74
years. Supporters explained "extreme cold is a symptom of global
warming"!

The Met Office - whose climate model is the cult's crystal ball to
forecast centuries ahead - has made a series of spectacularly
unreliable short term forecasts: "Our children will not experience
snow" (that was 2000, before the recent run of cold winters), a
barbecue summer (before the dismal 2011 summer), the drought will
continue (last spring before the wettest summer on record). Now they
say that rain and floods are the new normal. But - hot or cold, wet or
dry - global warming is always to blame.

Alarmists are reluctant to admit that the global surface temperature
has not increased for 16 years, despite CO2 emissions rising far more
than predicted. They wave this inconvenient truth away with the
non-sequitur that this decade is the hottest since records began, so
the world is still warming. If you climb a hill and reach a flat
plateau you are higher than before - but the plateau is flat, not
rising. When cornered, global warming alarmists assert that the
current pause is simply the result of unspecified 'natural
variations'. That implies that the pronounced warming over the
previous 25 years may have been amplified by 'natural variations' in
the other direction. In which case, the likely temperature rise for a
given increase in CO2 may be less than previously estimated or
required to produce the threatened doom.

In 2006 I asked how long the pause in warming would have to persist
before the Met Office would revise its model. They replied that, since
it is based on known laws of physics, they would never adjust it. Just
like the German philosopher Hegel, who claimed to derive the laws of
nature from first principles: when told that the facts did not agree
with his theories, Hegel replied: "So much the worse for the facts"!
Climate models do incorporate some established physical laws including
the basic greenhouse effect which, having studied physics at
Cambridge, I accept. This implies that doubling the concentration of
CO2 will raise the temperature by a fairly harmless 1.2�C. But the
models amplify this several fold using assumptions about complex
phenomena which cannot yet be reduced to simple physical laws.

This cult enables adherents to feel morally superior at little
personal cost. Buy a Prius or vote Green and save the planet.
Unfortunately, costly renewables are driving many into fuel poverty
and manufacturing jobs overseas. Action by Britain is pointless unless
China, India and Africa join in. They are most vulnerable to climate
change. But they are vulnerable because they are poor. They will
remain poor until they harness energy like us. Requiring them to
forego fossil fuels in favour of renewables costing several times more
condemns them to remain poor. The cult requires sacrificing the poor
to Gaia. As Professor Bruckner concludes: "save the earth, punish
mankind" .

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-lilley/global-warming-religion_b_3463878.html#