US Defence Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilising the world

That doesn't mean to say that we are not involved now and accelerating the process.

 

Oh! Dear! Daily Fail!! Not even Wiki will use it as a source!

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...citation-unreliable-mail-online-a7570856.html

 

Bloody few and most outweighed by negatives

That is unless you like your food supply to be unreliable

 

SPPI is a well known denialist site which has received fossil fuel funding and your link is to a book written by someone who is NOT a climate scientist. It is not peer reviewed and altogether too much twaddle to get through

 

Again attack the source instead of understanding ?? Disappointing but not surprising.

 

The costs begin to outweigh the benefits at ~ 3 deg C of warming.

 

Why should I waste my time reading something obviously biased? NOT peer reviewed. NOT a climate scientist and NOT even formally published

It is paid opinion not science

 

Well it would be nice to see something other than unsupported opinion on this

 

The analysis is supported. I've given the references many times.

 

Again predictable. Why challenge your faith ??

 

Oh! The old "there was a reference here somewhere and it was to something that may or may not be germane to what I just stated"

You claim it you support it

In a timely fashion

 

Haven't changed a thing as I have always insisted on academic standard and this was not even close. Again why would I waste time on something bot peer reviewed from a questionable source written by someone with no expertise in the field? That would be like using an aromatherapy text as your first aid guide for a broken leg

 

You don't seem to get it, the temperature sources are suspect.......

Examining the USHCN network of temperature monitoring stations in the U.S., used by the NOAA for surface temperature data reveals some very disappointing scientific methodology. 61% of the monitoring stations were class 4 and an additional 8% of the inspected stations being class 5 (explanation of class below).

It's a shame what they are trying to pass off as legitimate science. 69% of their data comes from stations the NOAA itself classify's as poor or worst. So please don't tell me about 1/10's of a degree when 69% have an error rate of 2C to 5C and that's not 1/10's. BTW I don't exist to fund others bogus science.

 

Another predictable response from one who refuses to challenge their faith.

 

So when we say GLOBAL temperature recordings - how much of the GLOBAL readings does this reflect?

BTW where are your links to back your claims

 

I can't comment on the accuracy of the instruments used in making any given study, but I trust that most scientists would use the best available to them, since their professional reputations would become dependent upon their findings being substantiated later. Climatologists don't preach global warming because they have an ulterior motive. They preach climate change and global warming because ALL the evidence accumulated from ALL the studies, support the conclusion that the Earth is warming at a historically rapid rate, and that that rate is increasing over time. You can find inconsistencies or problems within every individual study, but that doesn't change the overall findings of all the studies taken together. Global warming is happening, and it's connected to thoughtless and careless human activities. Global warming is beginning to change the planet and affect all the life forms living there at an ever increasing rate. The effects will be powerful and problematic. Some can be averted by quick action now, unless those who argue against taking action win their way and endanger the rest of us with their rejection of the facts and the truth.

 

I can't say for the rest of the world, but in the United States 69% of the temperature stations have an error between 2 degrees C and 5 degrees C. A margin like that could skew the rest of the world's by quite a bit. Heaven only knows what their surface stations look like or are located.

 

Looks like this guys got 13 million ulterior motives.

 

Again where is your validation for this claim

Again and again denialists on this forum demonstrate little or no understanding of basic academic rules and yet feel they have enough knowledge to criticise those who have spent a life time working within those rules. Would you feel able to criticise the Australian Cricket Teams playing?

 

I chased it down it was not and is not a study. It is a blog
Take a tip from someone who has posted on this forum for a long time. When you do not get the links it is usually because the source is so questionable no one but the most desperate would use it

 

Did not go to him personally And the link is not to the article

 

Go back through the thread, I already posted it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...es-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html

 

Again not adhering to the rules of academia which governs science and scientific publications but believes that they are able to judge scientific output

 

For a start this was seven years ago now and there is only one article about this no verification. Near as I can tell that money went to CRU not Jones himself if there ever was a grant like that