Saturday, February 01, 2014
NewEnergyNews has passed the 3.8 MILLION page views milestone!
------------------------
------------------------
THE LAST TWO MONTHS
WEEKEND VIDEOS, June 24-25
WEEKEND VIDEOS, June 17-18
WEEKEND VIDEOS, June 10-11
WEEKEND VIDEOS, June 3-4
WEEKEND VIDEOS, May 27-28
WEEKEND VIDEOS, May 20-21
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, April 19:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, April 12:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, April 5:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, March 29:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, March 22:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, March 2:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, February 22:
FRIDAY WORLD, February 17:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, February 15:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, February 8:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, February 1:
MONDAY STUDY AT NewEnergyNews, January 30:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, January 18:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, January 11:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, January 4:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, December 21:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, December 14:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, December 7:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, November 30:
THINGS-TO-THINK-ABOUT WEDNESDAY, November 23:

1 Comments:
Here are two inconvenient truths:
1) Large scale economic changes which MAY be needed to address human caused climate changes will NOT occur until the debate IS settled. No, I'm not referring to the debate that the earth is warming, we all know it is. And no, I'm not referring to the belief that industrial activity is a factor in that warming, we all know it is. The debate that is not settled (as shown next) is over just how much the human contribution is a factor, as compared to other possible causes, and whether any substantial and costly changes in how we produce energy would really make a significant difference. That debate is NOT settled, and using false information (as shown next) to claim that it is settled, far from being persuasive, only results in a loss of credibility by those arguing that drastic measures are needed now to avoid a crisis.
2) Here's the other, related, "inconvenient truth" - the unethical tactics used to misrepresent that 97% statistic, including numerous citations to published climate scientists who say that their papers were misrepresented in that survey.
From link below:
"...investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."
"...The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action."
"...the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed."
"...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."
"...“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
"...To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
Post a Comment
<< Home