2015 sets new record for warming

[gowlerk 1,926]

Quote

The power plants we operate are among the cleanest in the US

Talk about using weasel words. What does this mean? What kind of plants are you talking about? Being among the cleanest coal fired plants is nothing to brag about. Even if you have scrubbers the coal still has to come from somewhere. Are you storing the CO2 output somehow?

I seem to recall you firmly opposing EPA rules to clean up coal plants as too expensive. Now you claim that yours are among the cleanest of the dirty.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Quote

The power plants we operate are among the cleanest in the US

Talk about using weasel words. What does this mean? What kind of plants are you talking about? Being among the cleanest coal fired plants is nothing to brag about. Even if you have scrubbers the coal still has to come from somewhere. Are you storing the CO2 output somehow?

I seem to recall you firmly opposing EPA rules to clean up coal plants as too expensive. Now you claim that yours are among the cleanest of the dirty.

Well hello Mr Deadender

We have mix of coal, widnd and gas
We just finished a multi million dollar build updating ALL plants to what was going to be the EPA mandated (until they got stopped in the courts) The company I work for has already met current and future standards
We have been and are de-commissioning at least 3 coal fired plants in favor of gas powered plants
We have on wind farm and are currently working at doubling it. It is in Franklin County in Iowa
Look up the Whispering Willow wind farm if you wish.

The CO2 argument is bullshit so I will not address that alarmist nutty claim

So, whether or not I opposed any of the EPA regulation does not mean anything
I do not run the company

See how fast you can look foolish!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

rushmc

*********
Why are you so afraid to tell us what you drive? Is it a Prius or something?

Afraid?

I have posted this before.

My daily driver is a 94 chevy 1 ton. It has a 1975 block 383 stroker with an Eldbrock carb. Computer is disconnected with no catalytic converter. 380k miles. It is my hobby along with building AR15 rifles.

What are you afraid of?

In that case, your carbon footprint will be way way higher than mine.

And I Am not a hypocrit. You cant say this

As we have seen many times in the past, just because YOU say something, it doesn't make it true.

BTW, Here is a nice picture of my MG. It's the one next to the Prius in my (unheated) garage, illuminated with a 9W LED lamp.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

************
Why are you so afraid to tell us what you drive? Is it a Prius or something?

Afraid?

I have posted this before.

My daily driver is a 94 chevy 1 ton. It has a 1975 block 383 stroker with an Eldbrock carb. Computer is disconnected with no catalytic converter. 380k miles. It is my hobby along with building AR15 rifles.

What are you afraid of?

In that case, your carbon footprint will be way way higher than mine.

And I Am not a hypocrit. You cant say this

As we have seen many times in the past, just because YOU say something, it doesn't make it true.

BTW, Here is a nice picture of my MG. It's the one next to the Prius in my (unheated) garage, illuminated with a 9W LED lamp.

And your plane?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

The CO2 argument is bullshit so I will not address that alarmist nutty claim

Yeah, my uncle smoked and drank and he made it to 100.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

The CO2 argument is bullshit so I will not address that alarmist nutty claim

Yeah, my uncle smoked and drank and he made it to 100.

you been drinking already?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,926]

Quote

Well hello Mr Deadender

We have mix of coal, widnd and gas
We just finished a multi million dollar build updating ALL plants to what was going to be the EPA mandated (until they got stopped in the courts) The company I work for has already met current and future standards
We have been and are de-commissioning at least 3 coal fired plants in favor of gas powered plants
We have on wind farm and are currently working at doubling it. It is in Franklin County in Iowa
Look up the Whispering Willow wind farm if you wish.

The CO2 argument is bullshit so I will not address that alarmist nutty claim

So, whether or not I opposed any of the EPA regulation does not mean anything
I do not run the company

See how fast you can look foolish!Laugh

It's nice to know that the company you work for does not operate with the same beliefs as you. Since they are making all those changes they must be run by alarmists.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Quote

Well hello Mr Deadender

We have mix of coal, widnd and gas
We just finished a multi million dollar build updating ALL plants to what was going to be the EPA mandated (until they got stopped in the courts) The company I work for has already met current and future standards
We have been and are de-commissioning at least 3 coal fired plants in favor of gas powered plants
We have on wind farm and are currently working at doubling it. It is in Franklin County in Iowa
Look up the Whispering Willow wind farm if you wish.

The CO2 argument is bullshit so I will not address that alarmist nutty claim

So, whether or not I opposed any of the EPA regulation does not mean anything
I do not run the company

See how fast you can look foolish!Laugh

It's nice to know that the company you work for does not operate with the same beliefs as you. Since they are making all those changes they must be run by alarmists.

no
It is run by realist who have to deal with the alarmist idiots in a political (not scientific) world

Whether or not they believe as I do is unknown.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,926]

Quote

It is run by realist who have to deal with the alarmist idiots in a political (not scientific) world

So...let me get this straight. You believe that the vast majority of both scientists and world leaders are all "alarmist" in a conspiracy against the truth, which is that all the smart people are wrong, and the deadenders like Watt are the only correct people who can see through the fog to the truth.

But that you, and they, are not political. You are the real scientists?

You are well and truly delusional. As well as political. And you are fighting from not only a losing position, but a lost position. The game is over, that's why you and yours are deadenders. You're just too stubborn to accept that you have lost, and that your game is over.

It's going to feel better when you stop banging your head against the wall. Really. Take a time out.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

I stopped reading at "vast majority".

That 95% bs has been so totally debunked it is not worth going over anymore

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,434]

>That 95% bs has been so totally debunked it is not worth going over anymore

No, it hasn't. Every relevant study that has looked at it has confirmed it. (And it's 97% not 95%.)

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>That 95% bs has been so totally debunked it is not worth going over anymore

No, it hasn't. Every relevant study that has looked at it has confirmed it. (And it's 97% not 95%.)

It is bull shit and you know it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

I know there is a bit of a mix but, here is a link for anyone who would want to learn what this 97% really means

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=the+97+consensus+on+global+warming

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,926]

Quote

I stopped reading at "vast majority".

That 95% bs has been so totally debunked it is not worth going over anymore

That's because your mind is closed on the matter. It's got nothing to do with science for you, it's strictly political. Vast majority is a little open ended. But you would quibble with whether it's 90, or 91, or 92, or 99. Because that's all you deadenders have left are pathetic petty little arguments that are meaningless. Step it up, get in the game.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,434]

>It is bull shit and you know it


==================
Expert credibility in climate change
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider

Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and
expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists
on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American
public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic
cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A
broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the
distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to
agreeing researchers, and the level of agreementamong top climate
experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
===================
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes

Science 03 Dec 2004:Vol. 306, Issue 5702, pp. 1686

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

[We analyzed] 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
============================
Doran 2009 - Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union

Survey of scientists. Question - "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 97.4% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. 82% of all scientists (of all disciplines) responded yes. (The only scientists who responded with agreement rates under 50% were petroleum geologists.)
==================
Climate Change: A Profile of U.S. Climate Scientists' Perspectives

Published in Climatic Change
Volume 101, Numbers 3-4 (August 2010)

Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy
Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University

Abstract
Climate scientists have played a significant role in investigating global climate change. In the U.S., a debate has swirled about whether a consensus on climate change exists among reputable scientists and this has entered the policy process. In order to better understand the views of U.S. climate scientists, we conducted an empirical survey of U.S. climate scientists (N=468) in 2005, and compared the results with
the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical science report and policy summaries. Our results reveal that survey respondents generally agree about the nature, causes, and consequences of climate change, and are in agreement with IPCC findings. . . .

Conclusions

. . .We also find significant agreement among scientists on nearly all elements of the climate change debate, except for a minority of ideologically conservative scientists who are less supportive of some policy choices, such as imposing taxes to discourage certain practices. Climate scientists in our survey strongly support a variety of policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases, believe that climate scientists played an important role in transforming this issue into a public policy issue, and think it is time to
implement strategies to reduce GHGs.

[billvon 2,434]

>But you would quibble with whether it's 90, or 91, or 92, or 99.

Interestingly the numbers change depending on how closely the person is researching climate change.

All scientists in all fields? About 82% agree (including economic scientists, sociologists petroleum geologists etc.)

All self-declared climate scientists? About 90% agree.

All self-declared climate scientists who have published papers on climate change? About 95% agree.

All climate scientists who publish most of their papers on climate change? That's the 97% number.

[kallend 1,648]

rushmc

And your plane?

Better mpg than your truck. And not even I can be flying and driving at the same time, so that's a wash anyway.

Your logic is straight from Looking Glass land.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

rushmc

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html

That's a nice objective source ... NOT.

They don't even claim to be objective.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

From Forbes
***Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, 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.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

And Bill
Two things
First the newest article you posted was 2010
The one above is 2013
Many are newer
Second
You seem to really really like manipulated data that supports your cause

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)

[ Weblog Coverage ]

Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid - Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate - Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT - The Collapsing 'Consensus' (May 22, 2013)
WUWT - Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT - 'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT - On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful' (July 28, 2013)
WUWT - What Is Cook's Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT - Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT - 97% Climate consensus 'denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT - Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the '97% consensus' (September 20, 2013)
WUWT - The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT - 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT - John Cook's 97% consensus claim is about to go 'pear-shaped' (May 10, 2014)
WUWT - An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook's '97% consensus' paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT - The climate consensus is not 97% – it's 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT - The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT - If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)

Rebuttals to Criticisms:

Critism: Tol (2014) was rejected by other journals for being flawed.

Rebuttal: Dr. Tol's paper was censored by Environmental Research Letters (ERL), which conveniently has multiple alarmists scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) and rejected by two other journals for being "out of scope" (off topic) not flawed.

Critism: Tol (2014) has 24 errors in it.

Rebuttal: Dr. Tol refuted all of these claims in a post online and in his published rejoinder.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

rushmc

From Forbes
***Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media

That right there is the announcement that a load of BS will follow.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,434]

>From Forbes

That's the difference. You post opinion pieces from the popular media - Forbes, FOX News, Freeper, and Breitbart. I post studies from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature and the American Geophysical Union.

So if your argument is "there is no consensus among right wing pundits that climate change is a big deal" then I agree, definitely. However, your argument seems to be that "among climate change scientists there is no consensus on what is causing the climate to change" - and on that you are dead wrong. Not because of what I say, but because of what those scientists say.

(BTW I find it funny that you go out of your way to blast the "drive-by media" the "lamestream liberal media" etc only until you find something from them that supports your point - then you post it as if their opinion is scientific proof.)

[JerryBaumchen 1,066]

Hi Bill,

Quote

only until you find something from them that supports your point - then you post it as if their opinion is scientific proof

It is the drowning man/straw syndrome.

Jerry Baumchen