He's a Nobel laureate in physics.
Update, 5/18/17: Maybe this is because CO2 isn't pollution, it's plant food:
GLOBAL GREENING: Scientists Find ‘Lost’ Forests The Size Of Seven TexasesUpdate #2, 5/23/17: Back when the "best and brightest" ran our institutions, there was unanimous agreement on global cooling. Are they any better or brighter now?
And yet he isn't a climatologist.
ReplyDeleteNo, but he has more education--and more intelligence--than you do.
ReplyDeleteI defy you to refute his points. That shouldn't be hard if the "science" were as definitive as you members of the Church of Global Warming think it is.
And you are denier Darren. Repent by signing over your life savings to the ALGORE!
ReplyDeleteI haven't posted a couple of comments. They're of the type you'd expect--attacking me, attacking the scientist, not attacking a *thing* he said.
ReplyDeletePost your silliness on your own blogs, I'm not going to post it here.
Read the article:
ReplyDeleteThe co-authors say previous studies missed the vast amounts of forests on drylands because they were based off “older, low-resolution satellite images that did not include ground validation.” These forests also have relatively low tree density.
Pardon the late comment Darren, I just caught up on your blog.
ReplyDeleteSurveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Cherry-picking those other 2-3% is counterproductive to reality.
There's a handful of hacks with the title of "Doctor" who advocate against vaccines too, but I don't suppose you'd give them the light of day (which of course, you shouldn't).
Science, as you know, does not *prove* anything. But it's best we go with a consensus to lead us to the truth.
I read that the 97% figure is bogus. When I listen to the "believers", they sound like religious fanatics and not scientists. They don't answer the simplest of questions, they just crank their disdain up to 11 and expect to roll the rest of us over. And *no one* acts like they truly believe there's a crisis.
ReplyDeleteI've seen this too many times. Population bomb. Peak oil. Bird flu. SARS. Nuclear winter. Y2K. There are probably others--in just my lifetime--that I'm forgetting at the moment. Perhaps the believers are right, but they've cried wolf so many times that they're going to have to provide more evidence of wolves than they have so far in order to convince me.
What do you think of Roy Spencer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
Yes, there's an obvious spectrum of ways people deal with a topic like this, and some are bound to be insufferable from either viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI should have cited my source on the 97% figure. It's actually the average of seven survey studies that measured consensus via the conclusions of a ton of scientific, peer-reviewed research papers (one of the survey studies looked at like 14,000 studies total). They were also chosen in such a way that the researchers couldn't purposely pick papers that they agreed/or disagreed with.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
Yes, above website's goal is to refute climate-change skepticism, but I hope you find the data behind the 97% figure interesting and well-sourced.
So, that's the consensus of thousands and thousands of researchers.
Now onto your guy. It appears he published a study that was improperly done and resulted in deeply ingrained misconceptions about Earth's warming (he took satellite readings and didn't account for his readings needing to have been taken place over the Earth at the same time). That, paired with his apparent religious bias, don't really help with me supporting the guy.
He's also directly quoted saying ,“I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” Obviously doesn't increase my respect for his research.
But even if he was a straight-shooter in my book, I'd still believe the scientific majority. Sorry for the novel. I'm happy to read through some literature that has influenced your belief set too.
Now *that* is a comment I can work with--disagreeing without being disagreeable!
ReplyDeleteNo,Josh, I'm still not satisfied with the 97% figure. Here are a few articles explaining why:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#4af266823f9f
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
Additionally, as I wrote on a recent post, one of the advantages of growing old is the wisdom that comes with experience. You can read an explanation of this at http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2017/06/climate-change-hysteria.html .