[Coral-List] DONT BE TOO MUCH OF A SCIENTIST
sealab at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 8 09:52:54 EST 2012
I don't believe that I've ever seen a post on Coral-List
that was more transparently political. Why does support
for the international scientific consensus relating to
climate change have to be equated with anti-Americanism?
Countless studies have concluded that solar irradiance plays
a minor role when compared to forcings that are human-made
and everyone knows the effects of the ENSO. Claiming that
temperatures peaked in 1998 is not accurate in that it reflects
only short-term variability within the long term climate trend.
Previous posts relating to climate change have been chastised
for not being relevant to corals, a perspective I never understood.
The one I question here doesn't relate to reality and challenges
both the credibility of established scientific opinion and more
improperly, one's patriotic fervor.
>From: Bill Raymond <billraymond10 at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Feb 7, 2012 2:34 PM
>To: Coral List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
>Subject: [Coral-List] DONT BE TOO MUCH OF A SCIENTIST
>Gene Shinn made a good point. Global temperature peaked in 1998, yet CO2 levels continued to rise over the past 11 years. Solar cycles correlate better to global temperaturer than CO2 levels. Yet, the IPCC claims solar forcing contributed +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 compared to +1.6 W/m2 from anthropogenic warming. They apparently chose to use a parameter of solar irradiance that has not changed significantly. Do they really expect us to believe the sun's influence is only 7 1/2 % of the human contribution? Will they also deny the recent increase in solar flare activity?
>First convince the world of AGW, then demand $10 trillion to fix it. Is the UN pro-America?
>Coral-List mailing list
>Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
More information about the Coral-List