world

July was hottest month on record for world

57 Comments
By SETH BORENSTEIN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

Not much of a conclusion with less than 135 years of records with life on earth for millions of years. It's not in dispute the earths climate cycles from ice ages to warmer spells. Is this a warming trend? Is this a cooling trend with humans caused climate change? No rational scientist can prove anything either direction. Human records don't have enough data to prove anything.

Meanwhile George Sorros invests in coal mines.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

No rational scientist can prove anything either direction

And the earth is flat.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

And the earth is flat.

I dispute that. I saw a mountain last week and a sink hole

0 ( +4 / -4 )

....And the ice age is comming.......mid 70's. So what's your point? Not a good one so far.

Funny connection. That's the same George Sorros I mention above who owns numerous news outlets. Does the word agenda come to mind?

Now, I am not sold on human climate change however I am a tree hugger. I love the outdoors and natural places. Population increasing concerns me more. Fresh water supply concerns me more. Climate change has no indisputable proof. And as an individual I leave minimum impact. How many believers can say or live that? Certainly not Sorros or Gore.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Anyone who doesn't believe in human-made climate change needs to visit China. You can literally see it with your own eyes. The idea that it doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous - which is why virtually every climate scientist out there says it exists. Of course, some people believe the world is only 6000 years old. You can't fix stupid.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Funny connection. That's the same George Sorros I mention above who owns numerous news outlets. Does the word agenda come to mind?

The same Soros who recently began buying stock in coal companies. I guess he was trying to get the stock prices down so he could go in and buy them up, and in a few years we will see that coal is not as bad as his people said it was and the prices will skyrocket and he will get even richer.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Stupid is believing pollution is climate change. Pollution is overpopulation with no controls. Does China care....don't see it. Does the rest of the world care, they keep sending money to China.

Alpha wins! Profits are to be made as the shepherd leads the sheep.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Stupid is not believing that when you can see the air, it doesn't change the climate.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

MarkG, President of the American Flat Earth Society

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

That's not very scientific Stranger. I never said pollution is nonexistent! ....and Kenji reverts back to childish silliness.

Facts and proof. Theories are just that. Mark my words, potable fresh water within 20 years or sooner will be major issues. Not the century or so they claim human climate will become an issue. Just the rotation of the earth (not human controlled) can initiate the next ice age anytime. We live in a robust and fragile world. Try your minds on that statement.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Theories are theories until they are tested and peer-reviewed. Climate change is fact, not theory. Kind of like how the world is a lot older than 6000 years.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"Just the rotation of the earth (not human controlled) can initiate the next ice age anytime."

Dude? No one is worried about an Ice Age...we are worried about the earth overheating. Stop getting your science from The National Review

"We live in a robust and fragile world."

Wow, robust and fragile at the same time...how is that possible, Trump Jr?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

My favourite quotes on climate change came from, naturally, a US Republican politician:

“[Nancy Pelosi] is com“[Nancy Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said she’s just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that"

"Muslims created the global warming hoax so we bankrupt ourselves changing to renewable energy"

Michelle Bachmann.

While elected people like this are barking like this, you can guarantee that there are those who don't even know what 'scientific consensus' means.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Climate change is fact. Human influenced climate change is not.

I can prove the world is older than 6000 years. Can you prove human influenced climate change? Until you or anyone can its theory. Perhaps hypothesis. I don't say it's not possible or even happening. I want to point out wealth is made having you believe in human influenced climate change. Not much done regarding overfishing, water pollution, or overall air pollution. Just fossil fuel pollution. See any connection yet? Have you pondered the robust and fragile world comment?

Now, as I mentioned I am a treehugger! I love natures beauty. I want future generations to see and feel what I do. Las Vegas lights don't impress me. New York skyline is not for me. And the current leading polluter, China does not collect many of my $. I buy made in other countries. In my world nuclear and fossil fuels are limited to needs, not flash. But....the same persons wanting us all to follow the HUMAN INFLUENCED climate change love the flash! Think about it. Obama's last Christmas had 26 or 27 live cut christmas trees inside. He preaches but does not live the life. Same with Al Gore, George Sorros.......

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Anyone who doesn't believe in human-made climate change needs to visit China. You can literally see it with your own eyes. The idea that it doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous - which is why virtually every climate scientist out there says it exists. Of course, some people believe the world is only 6000 years old. You can't fix stupid.

You must be kidding. Do you know the meaning of climate? You can see the climate chaging in China? Indeed, you can't fix stupid.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Anyone who has been to China knows human made climate change is real.

There has never been climate change at the rate we're seeing it now. Never.

Of course nothing will change the minds of those who don't believe science.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"And the current leading polluter, China does not collect many of my $. I buy made in other countries."

ROFLMAO...what are you using to post comments in this forum? A typewriter?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Stranger....you use the word 'never'. With less than 135 years of records out of the millions upon millions of years old the earth is not convincing and absolutely unscientific if you know how science works.

Kenji-San, " many of my $". This means they get some, (no options) yet. I avoid the best I can on the rest.

Amazing how easy it is to misinterprete if not read carefully.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

'Stranger....you use the word 'never'. With less than 135 years of records out of the millions upon millions of years old the earth is not convincing and absolutely unscientific if you know how science works.'

I'm a science major. I'm no high-flyer and so could you help me out on how science works?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"many of my $"

Very bad english...and english is my 2nd language.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm a science major.

Me too.

I'm pretty sure I could right a scientific paper to show how some people will never let facts overcome their political affiliations. But they'd never believe my results anyways.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Me too

Then you don't believe in science.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I believe science.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

?

Science in not a faith. One ought not believe it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Absolutely understood Kenji-San. No offense made.

Stranger, political affiliation has nothing to do with it. I use common sense. I tried to show you the motivated agenda and the hipocracy some who lead you practice.

Is human influenced climate change taking place? I don't know. Is natural climate change taking place, yes. Fact! We can see the climate history of the planet. 135 years of temperature collecting is a millisecond in the climate history of earth.

Potable fresh water! More a concern.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

In one post you say you use common sense, while your other posts are filled with faux news talking points.

In other words you're entirely contradicting yourself.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

. Is natural climate change taking place, yes. Fact!

Really? How did you determine the change is natural?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Is human influenced climate change taking place? I don't know. Is natural climate change taking place, yes. Fact! We can see the climate history of the planet. 135 years of temperature collecting is a millisecond in the climate history of earth."

Yes, just a coincidence that rapid heating of planet coinicides with massive greenhouse CO2 emmissions from human industry and mass deforestation of planet can't suck CO2 up. Just a coincidence....

4 ( +5 / -2 )

Apparently logic isn't your strong point. I'm crushed. Which of my points are not logical?

Seeing Climate in the smog of China is logical? Thinking that you can control Climate is logical?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There is almost absolute consensus among climate scientists that humans are the cause of this latest, rapid warming trend in Earth's history. So who should I believe? These smart, dedicated professionals? Or some posters on JT, with an obsession with George Soros, spouting old, debunked myths?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

July was hottest month on record for world

Wasn't there something similar in the news earlier this year? Something like, "2014 was the hottest yr on record".

Dude, our planet is screwed. Best have fun, get ur kicks while u can. CARPE DIEM !

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

'Stranger, political affiliation has nothing to do with it.'

Is the fact that all leading GOP candidates are at the very least sceptical of man-made climate change pure coincidence ( correct me if I'm wrong here )? Have they all reached this conclusion after in-depth studies of the evidence available?

3 ( +4 / -2 )

Coincidentally, we happen to be seeing everything that scientists warned us would occur if greenhouses gases were not controlled --- including extreme heat, widespread drought, and epic wildfires. We are just seeing it happening faster than anyone anticipated. And wingnuts are still claiming that there is nothing to worry about.

There is. Get worried.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

MarkGAug. 21, 2015 - 10:08AM JST Climate change is fact. Human influenced climate change is not. I can prove the world is older than 6000 years. Can you prove human influenced climate change? Until you or anyone can its theory.

It's still a theory because the global climate system is way too chaotic and complex for humans to reproduce yet. But I believe that one has to fool himself to believe that pollution has not impact at all on such a chaotic system.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Science in not a faith. One ought not believe it.

There's a difference between 'believe' and 'believe in'. Believe means to accept something as the truth. 'Believe in' means to have faith that something is the truth, backed by faith. Some disbelieve science, and I am the opposite of it. I believe in the scientific method, because I have faith in it based on a documented process that makes me believe it is the correct way to determine something scientifically. This belief in the scientific method makes me believe sciences as being truthful. Some people don't believe in the scientific method, and so they don't believe science. They think science is lies. I am the opposite of this, I believe that when a hypothesis is made, scientific testing is done, a conclusion is reached, and that conclusion is peer-reviewed and accepted by the community as a whole, it's likely true.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yep...climate change is a lie. Elvis was taken by aliens. The earth is flat. It's easy to say when you only see what is happening in a place you see all the time. But where I was a kid I lived in the high desert. There was alwas a line on the mountain where the forest and desert are separated. I thought that was the coolest thing about where I lived. Now I go back to vist every couple of years and the place is turning green all over. Last year it looked like grassy plains in some parts but the mountains still had the same line that separated the two. I went back again this summer and the line is all but gone. The moutains are green, not the brown I knew growing up. Native American stories talked about that area being green more than 200 years ago. I never could have imagined seeing that. Now I think it's good for the area but it's got to be bad for other places. When you see climate change in front of your eyes you have to accept it, not stick your head in the (grassy) sand.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Earth is being sucked into the gravitational pull of the sun, that is why it is getting hotter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

.you use the word 'never'. With less than 135 years of records out of the millions upon millions of years old the earth is not convincing and absolutely unscientific if you know how science works.

That statement is ridiculous. Scientists, using something they call science, can estimate temperatures back thousands and even million of years. Referring to recorded temperatures as if that is all science can research is so incredibly stupid I am surprised to see it in print. That is like saying that before there was a thermometer there was no temperature. It is breath taking what a few gullible people will believe once the coal industry fabricates its story and gets fox news to broadcast it.

Fact is that science has proven that climate change, man made, is 100% real and that it occurring naturally is basically zero. But the Koch brothers, who own the republican party, own coal factories. So the republicans are 100% in denial.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

'And the current leading polluter, China does not collect many of my $. I buy made in other countries.'

Does this fine principle extend to the world's second largest polluter, the USA?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”. ...

Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al. ...

A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water. ... The survey is titled: Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members ...

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause. ...

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Poor turbo, can't distinguish between real climate scientists and your TV weather anchor.

The AMS on the other hand is not comprised primarily of climate experts. Some of its members do climate research, but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/02/meteorologists-global-warming-consensus

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

3 ( +3 / -0 )

turbotsat: The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey

I assumed your info was bullshit, so I Googled the title and found the top sites saying that the "myth" report is just that.

"We appreciate the reader engagement with our recently published paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1) which explores the perspectives of AMS members on issues related to climate change. Some readers may wish to flatten the complexity of our data into a narrative line that tells the story they want it to tell, harnessing facts to make a particular case; others may build a case on the nature of the facts. The first is a political process, and the second an empirical, scientific process. Our paper was written as a scientific paper, with the aim of inquiry and discovery. Should some readers wish to ignore or distort our findings for ideological ends, we can’t stop them. Readers who consider our findings more objectively, however, are likely to reach conclusions that differ starkly from those of Mr. Taylor."

It happens with just about every point made by the deniers. Just research it and see how it falls apart.

3 ( +2 / -0 )

There you go destroying political ideology with facts. The fauxes may have a fauxrt attack.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If my posts were actually read, you see I do not deny the possibility of human influenced climate change. I simply point out be care who you follow, what does that group have to gain when you do?

Points I made are almost entirely my point of view, not talking points.

Human impact on the the ecosystem has been clear my whole life. On climate change....the article clearly states since records have been taken in 1880. Sorry but that's a very weak argument to convince any rational person. Do any of you recall the ice age is comming in the '70's? How about the hole in the ozone? Now humans are changing the climate. What could be next?

Look into algae blooms, look into human population and expansion. The earth does have finite resources. The worlds aquifers. Desalination is costly.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

On climate change....the article clearly states since records have been taken in 1880

Did you miss this comment:

That statement is ridiculous. Scientists, using something they call science, can estimate temperatures back thousands and even million of years. Referring to recorded temperatures as if that is all science can research is so incredibly stupid I am surprised to see it in print. That is like saying that before there was a thermometer there was no temperature.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Strangerland,

Of course he did, but he is denying my comment. As was stated above the tissue of lies that makes up the oil and coal company propaganda is so easy to dispute. Exxon knows the truth, they have known it for decades but it is not in their financial interests to tell the truth. So they make up lies that the gullible repeat to themselves and others.

On another note, your alias, derived from Heinlein's work?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

...and this is why our planet is going down the drain. When political agenda trumps scientific investigation, you know we're in trouble. The whole issue has become a "must win on ideological grounds" issue. Stop. Forget whatever you've been told. Do proper research (as in scrutinise your sources and find out where the information is coming from and double check the "facts" they "quote") and the picture becomes clearer. ...but to the die-hards, I'm sure anything I say, or anyone else, is not going to change the opinion of people with their heads firmly buried in the sand.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

On another note, your alias, derived from Heinlein's work?

Bingo! You're the first person to get that. Or at least the first to ask.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet once again, Nasa and NOAA are giving us their ground station temperature readings, all of which are subject to various mathematical averaging formulas to compensate for things like heat island effect, or the lack thereof. Never do they simply use raw data from their thermometers.

Worse yet, Nasa operates the GISS satellites, which have been measuring atmospheric temperatures since 1977. This data is not averaged or modified, as it measures the upper atmosphere where greenhouse gasses are supposedly absorbing heat. But Nasa does not use GISS data in it's reports, and neither does the IPCC. Why not? Because the GISS satellites show no warming at all. These same satellites also measure sea levels, but once again, this information is not used, as the satellites show no unusual changes in sea levels. The IPCC used information from a single measurement buoy located in the harbour in Hong Kong to show abnormal sea level rise, the two other buoys in the harbour showed no rise.

Earlier this month we had snow in Sydney, for the first time since 1836. I suppose a record heat level in July is responsible for the record cold and snow in Sydney? And this year we have seen the all time record for antarctic ice. It has broken records for both volume and extent. I suppose this record hot weather is great for creating more ice as well. Oh, and it was nice to have snow in Hawaii this summer, it was the first snow my daughter had ever seen.

But it's all irrelevant anyway, as the seas continue not to rise, and the ice caps continue not to melt (arctic ice was supposed to be gone by 2013, can anyone "deny" that it hasn't?), climate change (formerly known as global warming) has lost it's social significance. But that's okay, it is already being replaced by a new issue, that of "financial inequality". Both issues are means to a similar result, the redistribution of wealth from one class to another with the agents responsible for transferring this wealth collecting a healthy commission.

Nice to see president Obama has bought a beachside home only a meter or so above sea level, apparently he isn't as worried about climate change as he expects other people to be.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I wasn't crazy enough to buy it. Canberra had minus 4 C' (-4), Melbourne had minus 1 C' (-1) and WA border with SA got snow and TAS got snow. We have very good weather in Melbourne, Victoria. Also more Ice in Arctic than 7 year ago.

From dailymail;

Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

I want Climate Change (Global warming) experts to come clean and honest about their finding. Al Gore has his own interest in renewable energy businesses. How can I trust peoples like Al Gore calling for more investment in renewable energy to save the earth.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

From dailymail;

quoting the daily mail's david rose on much of anything isn't a very good idea

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/01/global_warming_denial_claims_of_arctic_ice_recovering_are_exaggerated.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

“It just reaffirms what we already know: that the Earth is warming,” said NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch.

fyi:

Science isn't a "belief" it happens to be a process that demands skepticism and validation.

sci·en·tif·ic method The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

This is why the GOP-Tea, FoxNews and some here are so angry with global warming. Global warming can't happen and only the libs are able to understand its impact. So, as some have pointed out, ignore it and live for today. Problem solved.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Honestly, the posts from the tea party types are pitiful. They are simply parroting the lies of fox news like empty headed dolts. It is the same tired formula that the right wing propaganda masters replay over and over again. And their followers never wise up to the lies. WMD in Iraq? Sure they are there. Obamacare will cause a depression? Sure it will. Obama a socialist? Sure he is with stock markets at all time highs. It is pitiful that so many enjoy being deluded over and over again. They end up voting for people that make their lives worse, like in Kansas for example. Or Louisiana. Or Florida. Or for Bush who tanked the country.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Honestly, the posts from the tea party types are pitiful." - comments

How can anyone expect this type of perspective to consider science that east coast elites make in their Universities? "Shepherd said in an email. “I am more concerned about how the Earth is starting to respond to the changes and the implications for my children.” What a bunch of snobs, always playing the "children" card, sickening.

In all fairness these posts show a depth of belief, a commitment to their catechisms and the willingness to repeat blatant falsehoods as absolute truths. (And mostly because a Kenyan was voted into the White House as President of the United States. It is nice that they have some pride in their prejudice, not the wishy washy kind of prejudice.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This article debunks several claims made in this thread by the deniers:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Like I said, if you see anyone denying climate change and the link to humans, and they talk about some report or article, just research it. It's guaranteed that it will be debunked in other articles like the one above.

MarkG: ....And the ice age is comming.......mid 70's.

Do your research and report back.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Joeintokyo: Poor turbo, can't distinguish between real climate scientists and your TV weather anchor. ...

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from ... In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

The Skeptical Science site is owned and run by John Cook, author of "Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts", you might expect some bias there in support of his own paper.

About which ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature‘ searched the Web of Science for the phrases “global warming” and “global climate change” then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists’ papers as “endorsing AGW”, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

... (interviews Drs. Idso, Scafetta, and Shaviv on their respectives, asks them "Is this an accurate representation of your paper?", and presents their detailed replies in the negative) ...

And in the same vein ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

... 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.” ...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites