Topics:
Latest in
Claim:
Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at ‘unnatural’ rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact on the climate.
The author has removed two paragraphs and changed the title, but the new version of the article does not contain any mention of the fact that the article has been updated.
“The article contains little to no rational treatment of observational data, but relies on heavily biased secondhand interpretation… Even the title is based on a lie. There is no ‘study’ that finds static temperatures for 19-years. This article is based on a newspaper article that makes this false statement based in turn on a blog post…”
“This article suffers from a common error in reasoning. The author focuses on individual “snapshots” of the state of the climate while ignoring the long-term trends. Those trends occur over many decades and must be observed/considered over those time scales.”
Claim:
Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling.
Claim:
Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming. In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere.
Claim:
Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3°C to 1.1°C
the New York Times opinion section itself apparently didn’t realize that the content of Mr. Stephens’ piece did not actually support the message of the push notification that was introducing the article…
“Dr. Happer’s assertion that models show 2x to 3x greater warming than observations is incorrect. At the surface (where we all live) models predict a rate of warming of 0.2 °C per decade since 1970, while NASA observes warming of around 0.18 °C during the same period.”
Claim:
The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less.