tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8100775083903905043..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Why are alarmists denying ...er what?Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19424940297525184552014-01-11T04:24:32.142+11:002014-01-11T04:24:32.142+11:00I've also compiled a list of some important cl...I've also compiled a list of some important climate science papers and reports since Fourier, showing that by 1975 plenty of people were thinking about the warming effect of CO2 emissions:<br /><br />http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50209067240485512032014-01-11T04:15:12.317+11:002014-01-11T04:15:12.317+11:00This is a useful paper:
"The Myth of the 197...This is a useful paper:<br /><br />"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus," W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008<br />http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38486046717024905192014-01-10T16:14:41.404+11:002014-01-10T16:14:41.404+11:00and of course they don't go so far as to check...and of course they don't go so far as to check the source to see what was actually being said:<br /><br />"...the rapidity with which human impacts continue to grow in the future, and increasingly to disturb the natural course of events, is a matter of concern." – 1975 NAS report<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html" rel="nofollow"> UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action Review by W M Connolley</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32082683373481507922014-01-10T16:12:43.185+11:002014-01-10T16:12:43.185+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73529699605475781982014-01-10T15:30:17.532+11:002014-01-10T15:30:17.532+11:00The reasons
for the mid-20th century pause actual...The <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm" rel="nofollow">reasons</a><br /> for the mid-20th century pause actually support the science of global warming. The <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo" rel="nofollow">Wu</a>wtians have to ignore the physics of climate forcing in order to pretend that the science is wrong.<br /><br />Intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion are burned into their DNA.<br /><br /><br />Bernard J.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24195184827716991512014-01-10T14:17:29.505+11:002014-01-10T14:17:29.505+11:00"If extreme weather was in fact becoming more...<i>"If extreme weather was in fact becoming more frequent, then why do we typically have to look back 20 or more years to find the prior examples?"</i><br /><br />That would make a great poster.<br /><br />Strange that Watts emphasizes this period. It did not refute global warming and makes the "hiatus" he loves to post about look puny and even less of a challenge.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com