http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/11/us/swifter-warming-of-globe-foreseen.html
From 1986. No comment needed.
metatron
Global Warming Prediction
by metatron 6 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
besty
denier argument no. 110 - 'Hansen got it wrong in 1988'
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
it's called the scientific method - observe, test, hypothesize, predict - rinse and repeat.
Not sure what your point is - please elaborate.
EDIT - don't make me get your post out from 10 years back predicting the demise of the WTS within 10 years :-)
-
metatron
No comment needed
metatron
-
Watchtower-Free
This Climatologist formerly with NASA
debunks the Global warming scam very easily
Dr. Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite
http://www.drroyspencer.com/ -
cantleave
Good grief Watchtowerfree - so you pick an article discussing air temperature and which ignores the fundamental issue of oceanic temperature increase.
You really have no understanding of this subject do you?
-
Watchtower-Free
I am referencing the entire website and his book.
I base my opinion partially on having had a discussion with this NASA climatologist .
On July 18, 2013 before U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works committee, Spencer suggested the hearing title could easily be renamed "Climate Change, It's Happened Before" rather than the actual title, "Climate Change, It's Happening Now". He added “The last 2000 years of proxy reconstructed temperature variations for the Northern Hemisphere shows that the Modern Warm Period (today) is not significantly different from the Medieval Warm Period of ~1000 years ago, or the Roman Warm Period of ~2000 years ago."
-
besty
@watchtower-free
It's interesting you appeal to the authority of a book and blog* by a former 'NASA climatologist', whilst simultaneoulsy ignoring NASA's unambiguous acceptance of human caused climate change...
If Roy Spencer wasn't selling books and lobbying he might have more time to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Still, the existence of debunked opinions like those of Roy Spencer at least prove there is no 'follow the money' conspiracy amongst climate scientists.
It happens that he is in the 3% of climate scientists who do not accept what the the other 97% do - namely, we are are causing the climate to change.
I am curious as to what makes you qualified to accept a 3% minority view?
Further reading: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/
*clue - real science is published in peer-reviewed papers, not on blogs and books