Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
IPCC lead authors falling off the high sensitivity bandwagon
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Chom Noamsky
May 23, 2013, 1:48:37 AM5/23/13
to
This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/
fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/
Dawlish
May 23, 2013, 3:52:34 AM5/23/13
to
Are you people incapable of recognising spin when you see it, or do you just want to believe every tiny scrap that comes your way, no matter what the information actually tells you? OK, You do want to believe it, without any question, don't you?
emoneyjoe
May 23, 2013, 5:44:40 AM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 00:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Of course I am capable of recognizing spin,
I do a lot of bulk deleting you, gordo, cai, Lloyd
and Desertphile.
wrote:
I do a lot of bulk deleting you, gordo, cai, Lloyd
and Desertphile.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 23, 2013, 2:37:09 PM5/23/13
to
On May 23, 1:48 am, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum> wrote:
> This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
> fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-...
> This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
> fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
>
Why? It does not say:
1. The earth isn't warming.
2. Warming stopped xx years ago.
3. The earth is cooling.
4. It's the sun.
5. It's a natural cycle.
6. It's not CO2.
7. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
8. There is no greenhouse effect.
9. The warming isn't due to CO2.
10. Most scientists don't support AGW.
All things you and the other denialists here have been claiming, and
it doesn't support a single one of them.
emoneyjoe
May 23, 2013, 4:18:33 PM5/23/13
to
that CO2 produces a climate sensitivity though,
if it gets any colder even that will have to go
on the manure pile.
Desertphile
May 23, 2013, 10:07:44 PM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:48:37 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
wrote:
> This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
> fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
And yet the effects of human-caused climate change have been worse
than the IPCC's assessment Report Four said was most likely.
How do you explain that?
--
"God wanted me to be in bed with the maid."
wrote:
> This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
> fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
than the IPCC's assessment Report Four said was most likely.
How do you explain that?
--
"God wanted me to be in bed with the maid."
Dawlish
May 24, 2013, 3:47:27 AM5/24/13
to
Last Post
May 24, 2013, 5:29:43 AM5/24/13
to
On May 23, 3:37 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
Ø ——— Lloyd lists a marvelous bundle that are factual
——— but Lloyd can not admit the facts.
——— Those scientists that support AGW are merely
——— protecting their paychex.
——— but Lloyd can not admit the facts.
——— Those scientists that support AGW are merely
——— protecting their paychex.
Desertphile
May 25, 2013, 2:37:47 PM5/25/13
to
Desertphile
May 25, 2013, 2:38:04 PM5/25/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:07:44 -0600, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:48:37 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> wrote:
>
> > This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
> > fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
>
> And yet the effects of human-caused climate change have been worse
> than the IPCC's assessment Report Four said was most likely.
>
> How do you explain that?
*CHUCKLE!*
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:48:37 -0700, Chom Noamsky <wea...@stew.yum>
> wrote:
>
> > This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
> > fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
>
> And yet the effects of human-caused climate change have been worse
> than the IPCC's assessment Report Four said was most likely.
>
> How do you explain that?
matt_sykes
May 27, 2013, 7:14:57 AM5/27/13
to
On 23 May, 09:52, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:48:37 AM UTC+1, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> > This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
>
> > fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
>
> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-...
> On Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:48:37 AM UTC+1, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> > This is actually quite a major movement, and no doubt motivated by the
>
> > fact that observed reality doesn't support high sensitivity:
>
>
> It's Watts. As always he's gathered a tiny bunch if friends to spin the real facts of the paper. Read it and Otto's comments on it and you'll derive the actual facts.
>
> Are you people incapable of recognising spin when you see it, or do you just want to believe every tiny scrap that comes your way, no matter what the information actually tells you? OK, You do want to believe it, without any question, don't you?
Do you deny CO2 sensitivity is reducing in the eyes of science?
> It's Watts. As always he's gathered a tiny bunch if friends to spin the real facts of the paper. Read it and Otto's comments on it and you'll derive the actual facts.
>
> Are you people incapable of recognising spin when you see it, or do you just want to believe every tiny scrap that comes your way, no matter what the information actually tells you? OK, You do want to believe it, without any question, don't you?
0 new messages