"predictable isn't it from supporters of the biggest liar? "
Popular media is hardly a bastion of scientific thought. They rely on sensationalism to sell copies.
Try a little reality.
I know, I know. it has a liberal bias.
But you really shouldn't get your "science" from a novel.
ams.allenpress.com
Table 1 as warming or cooling articles, respectively.
The neutral category in Table 1 includes papers that
project no change, that discuss both warming and
cooling influences without specifically indicating
which are likely to be dominant, or that state not
enough is known to make a sound prediction. Articles
were not included in the survey if they examined the
climate impacts of factors that did not have a clear
expectation of imminent change, such as increases
in volcanic eruptions or the creation of large fleets
of supersonic aircraft.
The survey identified only 7 articles indicating
cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those
seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the
citations. Graphical representations of this survey are
shown in Fig. 1 for the number of articles and Fig. 2
for the number of citations. Interestingly, only two of
the articles would, according to the current state of
climate science, be considered “wrong” in the sense of
getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing
they considered—one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner
1976) and one warming (Idso and Brazel 1977) paper—
and both were immediately challenged (Woronko
1977; Herman et al. 1978). As climate science and the
models progressed over time, the findings of the rest
of the articles were refined and improved, sometimes
significantly, but they were not reversed.
So, while there were some climatologists who promoted the idea of global cooling, they were a small minority.
The only spin is by your team. But, that is what y'all do, isn't it? Spin, lies and distortions is y'alls stock in trade. |
