AG Warming: Evidence left out!

[Truthseeker]

Before you get too excited by Alec Rawls’ nonsense have a look at these pages:
“Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.”
http://www.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_61749.html
“Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm
Who is Alec Rawls anyway?
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ag/alec-rawls/

That made me read this (by Rawls): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/2...-unscientific/
Now, the paper by Rawls that made me create this thread was published in 2012. Since then, he has not retracted the paper. Indeed he continues to make serious charges against the AGW crowd.

[firstfloor]

I 've thought for a long time that leading climate change alarmists misrepresented or misinterpreted the available evidence. They also made unrealistic assumptions in their climate models, though I couldn't very well argue that. HOWEVER this article

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...ntence-in-ar5/

surprised me. Even shocking.

Before you get too excited by Alec Rawls’ nonsense have a look at these pages:
“Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.”
http://www.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_61749.html
“Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm
Who is Alec Rawls anyway?
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ag/alec-rawls/

[Truthseeker]

Show us how you came to decide that the author of the paper that contained the estimate of an 80-year lag is a kook. Of course it couldn't simply be because you simply disagreed with the paper's conclusion

[Epoetker]

Because there is a great deal of utility in rejecting out of hand outrageous accusations made by kooks.

Your source is WUWT. This particular author is an economist and his article runs from PRATT to PRATT, without getting called on it by Watts, surprise, surprise. You call the scientific consensus, led by every national academy on the planet, including our own, "alarmists." Your religious tradition has a long history of rejecting science. That's a lot of good reasons to line up on the other side.

And you're posting this in Civics.

You want details? Great. Educate yourself. Got questions? Post them in Nat. Sci.

Why should any of us care about where your refutation is posted, since you can ad hom, post weakly related links, and brag about the inevitable victory of the invisible pink scientific consensuses here or there? Nat Sci is unofficially creation vs. evolution only, there's like only one or two actual global warming threads there, and the most interesting one by Glenn Morton has been lost to the ages. Fight here or fight elsewhere and link there, or shut up.

[Juvenal]

The article does cite a claim that CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years give or take several centuries. Please, lao Tzu, explain IN DETAIL why we should take the alarmist side on this question.

Because there is a great deal of utility in rejecting out of hand outrageous accusations made by kooks.

Your source is WUWT. This particular author is an economist and his article runs from PRATT to PRATT, without getting called on it by Watts, surprise, surprise. You call the scientific consensus, led by every national academy on the planet, including our own, "alarmists." Your religious tradition has a long history of rejecting science. That's a lot of good reasons to line up on the other side.

And you're posting this in Civics.

You want details? Great. Educate yourself. Got questions? Post them in Nat. Sci.

As ever, Jesse

[Truthseeker]

It's a link not actually directly contradicting the article, but posted as pretending to deal with it in lieu of actually dealing with it, in the style of leftist journalism and manager-ese. Toss that weak crap back to Upworthy and show me that you can actually string an argument together before I throw you in with the fusionists as the miserable careerist failures who bear primary responsibility for the loss of trust and excellence in American science.

The article does cite a claim that CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years give or take several centuries. Please, lao Tzu, explain IN DETAIL why we should take the alarmist side on this question.

[Epoetker]

It's a PRATT.

It's a link not actually directly contradicting the article, but posted as pretending to deal with it in lieu of actually dealing with it, in the style of leftist journalism and manager-ese. Toss that weak crap back to Upworthy and show me that you can actually string an argument together before I throw you in with the fusionists as the miserable careerist failures who bear primary responsibility for the loss of trust and excellence in American science.

[Juvenal]

It's a PRATT.

[Teallaura]

Ouch...

[Truthseeker]

I 've thought for a long time that leading climate change alarmists misrepresented or misinterpreted the available evidence. They also made unrealistic assumptions in their climate models, though I couldn't very well argue that. HOWEVER this article

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...ntence-in-ar5/

surprised me. Even shocking.