Posted on 10/07/2015 4:51:13 PM PDT by Isara
Climate change is real. Climate change is happening. And we have an obligation to address climate change for ourselves, our children and future generations.
With that said, the Sierra Club needs to do better.
During a hearing of a Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday regarding regulation and minorities, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is running for the Republican nomination on an arch-conservative platform that includes rejection of mainstream climate change science, seized an opportunity to show off his debating skills.
...
..He asks Mair about the satellite temperature record, which he says has shown no warming during the last 18 years.
Mair should recognize this as a common, largely discredited attack on climate science. While it is true temperatures spiked during 1998 due to a very strong El Nino, if one does not cherry pick data the satellite record does show steadily rising temperatures over the last 35 years.
Temperatures according to 2 satellite series (UAH and RSS). The purple line indicates the mean of the three surface temperature series. (pbl.nl)
...
The satellite data has been well established for some time. Yes, if one looks at data from 1998 to present using one of the satellite data sets, a case can be made that there has been “no warming.” However when one looks at the entire data set there is a clear upward trend that continues today.
...
Global land and ocean temperature anomalies show clear, continued warming. (NOAA)
These are relatively simple points to refute, and I would argue that if you’re going before a Senate subcommittee led by Ted Cruz, you’d better be ready to handle these kinds of queries.
Otherwise you’re just doing your organization, and the field of climate science as a whole, a great disservice....
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.chron.com ...
"A Disgrace To The Profession":
The World's Scientists - In Their Own Words - On
Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science
Volume One
In other words, to go back to Laura Rosen Cohen's money quote, it's not just me saying "Screw you!" to Mann and his hockey stick, but some of the most eminent scientists in the world.
... It started with a lawsuit, when the creator of the global-warming "hockey stick" decided to sue me for defamation. That suit over a 270-word blog post is now in its fourth year in the fetid choked toilet of the District of Columbia court system: if I lose at trial, it will be the most consequential setback for the First Amendment for 50 years. If I win, it would be a big defeat for the climate mullahs and a rare victory for sanity in the ongoing climate wars.
But a chap can't sit around forever waiting for the disgracefully lethargic jurists of a dysfunctional courthouse to get their act together, so I figured I might as well put some of the mountain of case research clogging up my rec room into a brand new book. Over at The Way The Ball Bounces, they give the book "two bristlecones - way up":
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ERL.....8b4024C
From the link:
AbstractWe analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
So, the 97% does not come from a direct survey of climate scientists, as is relentlessly claimed or implied by warmist believers. Cook and his co-authors just examined about 12,000 climate abstracts and classified each as being pro-AGW, anti-AGW, or "no position." Of the abstracts THAT TOOK A POSITION on AGW, about 97% were classified as pro-AGW. The abstracts that were classified as taking no position were simply discarded from the results.
The Cook study is just a laughably roundabout way to come up with a high number (97%) that could be aggressively misrepresented as a survey of reputable climate scientists.
Does the Cook study even prove that 33% of climate abstracts are pro-AGW?
No, it does not. The assessments of the climate papers reviewed by Cook were disputed by some of the authors. Papers by some of the most prominent climate skeptics were classified as pro-AGW by Cook.
From Forbes:
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Lies built on lies built on lies.
Cruz just destroyed that sierra club spokesman, Mairs, the guy had nothing better to utter than....THE CONSENSUS...THE CONSENSUS...THE CONSENSUS....what a laugh, well done Senator Cruz.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.