Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » Motivated Rejection of …..

Motivated Rejection of …..


Your posts are always wonderfully succinct Jeff and this one is no exception I particularly like the point you make with this :

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
– More than 100% (i.e. GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosolcooling)
– Between 76% and 100%
– Between 51% and 76%
– Between 26% and 50%
– Between 0 and 25%
– Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
– There has been no warming
– Unknown due to lack of knowledge
– I do not know
– Other (please specify)

From Bart’s post:

Consistent with other research, we found that the consensus is strongest for scientists with more relevant expertise and for scientists with more peer-reviewed publications. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) are the dominant driver of recent global warming.

This seems to agree with what we would expect, however there is a problem. The conclusion that human created GHG is THE dominant factor in global warming has absolutely no numerical foundation in the science. One wonders just what makes these scientists so certain! Yes there are papers on the matter of attribution, but those I have read are universally model based. There is nothing wrong with the concept of climate models, except that the ones relied on are now known to be non-functional. They have failed by overestimating global warming….dramatically.

To this non scientist its the utterly crucial point upon which all of the climate change enthusiasts fall down these is simply no way of determining the extent of human influence on the climate and no amount of assuming or asserting will change that fact
Cheers Comrade

the Air Vent

You can make a whole blog (a boring one) simply for the purposes of showing false claims by political activist climate scientists.  The claim below is quoted from a Daily Mail article I ran into surfing the internet.

Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates

The error in his statement is that the human-caused component still dominates.

Anyone with any background in climate change science knows full well (or should) that the human component of observed warming is completely 100% unknown.   Currently, it is statistically and mathematically inseparable from natural warming.  The only thing we can do to separate human and natural warming is model the contributions mathematically and subtract.  Today, climate models have failed by over-predicting warming.  …

View original post 1,703 more words



  1. omanuel says:

    In the morning I will submit the manuscript for review that exposes sixty-nine years of intentional government deception about “Solar Energy”


    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. omanuel says:

    This manuscript was submitted for publication at ~6:30 am this morning.

    An implicit self-selection process is thus now in process:

    1. If the 97% consensus community consists of real scientists, they will openly address all of the nine pages of precise experimental measurements that disagree with the Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars.

    2. If the 97% consensus community consists only of phony scientists, they will refuse to address any of the nine pages of precise experimental data that disagree with the Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: