Comments on: Earth Scientist Speaks Up Against AGW Skeptic Slander http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/ Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:35:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: kim http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/comment-page-1/#comment-50 kim Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:55:35 +0000 http://climatepatrol.net/?p=41#comment-50 And yet, the globe cools. In view of this recent cooling, completely unexpected by the models of the IPCC, why doesn't every scientist involved step back, and wonder if the assumptions are wrong? ========================================= <i>[ANSWER] Kim, thank you for your visit and comment. They haven't stepped back but some of them at least have toned down. See <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/recent-climate-observations-compared-to-ipcc-projections/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Once the average temperature anomaly result for 2008 is out, there may be some converts:-)</i> And yet, the globe cools. In view of this recent cooling, completely unexpected by the models of the IPCC, why doesn’t every scientist involved step back, and wonder if the assumptions are wrong?
=========================================
[ANSWER] Kim, thank you for your visit and comment. They haven’t stepped back but some of them at least have toned down. See here and here. Once the average temperature anomaly result for 2008 is out, there may be some converts:-)

]]> By: sod http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/comment-page-1/#comment-49 sod Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:08:49 +0000 http://climatepatrol.net/?p=41#comment-49 <b>"horrible" </b> is the word that sums up this blather best. this debate IS scientific. it took much too long to become political as well. still, some of the biggest powers on earth do not like the science results, but are forced to accept it beacuse they are real hard FACTS. i have some serious doubts that rahmsdorf is supporting alcohol prohibition, but you may surely ask him. this argument has been turned upside down. <b>in reality, the people opposing the climate science are often PAIED by groups, that dislike government intervention!</b> that nature might "overlap" the effects of AGW at times is absolutely normal and the claim that it does contradict the importance of AGW is total nonsense. (imagine the moon falling onto earth...) basically, every statement in this "article" is false or stupid. i wouldn t hold my breath while waiting for a reply by realclimate et al... <i>[ANSWER] i gather your "real hard facts" refer to the very general "extremely likely" (95% confidence) claim of the ipcc that human activites cause global warming. i am afraid though i don't understand the further connections you make. without the need to agree with everything "der physiker" says, it earns my respect just as much as prof. rahmstorf's claims earn my respect. prof. rahmstorf was the one who saw it necessary to present his view of the curriculum vitae of prof. singer on his scientific faq sheet. this entails the "big tobacco" issue (which is somewhat related to alcohol prohibition). you have probably read the curriculum vitae of prof. singer in a better light, such as presented by "der physiker" over at oekologismus.de . maybe you and me have at least something in common here: - alcohol prohibition has nothing to do with the case of climate alarmism versus sceptisism. - people who dislike government intervention have the potential to become sponsors of climate sceptisism in general. i brought up the issue myself in an earlier post. climatepatrol</i> “horrible” is the word that sums up this blather best.

this debate IS scientific. it took much too long to become political as well. still, some of the biggest powers on earth do not like the science results, but are forced to accept it beacuse they are real hard FACTS.

i have some serious doubts that rahmsdorf is supporting alcohol prohibition, but you may surely ask him. this argument has been turned upside down.
in reality, the people opposing the climate science are often PAIED by groups, that dislike government intervention!

that nature might “overlap” the effects of AGW at times is absolutely normal and the claim that it does contradict the importance of AGW is total nonsense. (imagine the moon falling onto earth…)

basically, every statement in this “article” is false or stupid. i wouldn t hold my breath while waiting for a reply by realclimate et al…

[ANSWER] i gather your “real hard facts” refer to the very general “extremely likely” (95% confidence) claim of the ipcc that human activites cause global warming.

i am afraid though i don’t understand the further connections you make.

without the need to agree with everything “der physiker” says, it earns my respect just as much as prof. rahmstorf’s claims earn my respect.

prof. rahmstorf was the one who saw it necessary to present his view of the curriculum vitae of prof. singer on his scientific faq sheet. this entails the “big tobacco” issue (which is somewhat related to alcohol prohibition). you have probably read the curriculum vitae of prof. singer in a better light, such as presented by “der physiker” over at oekologismus.de . maybe you and me have at least something in common here:
- alcohol prohibition has nothing to do with the case of climate alarmism versus sceptisism.
- people who dislike government intervention have the potential to become sponsors of climate sceptisism in general. i brought up the issue myself in an earlier post.

climatepatrol

]]>