Yes - and that "global warming blog" disclosed that the comment came from a publication of Syracuse University - the Uni where Prof Lu works: http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html You still want to deny it? So - you have been shown the original source (as you were in Mannie's link - but you didn't actually read the link - did you.). You believe it?
you didn't look very hard then http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html to find this, all you had to do was go to his page on the University website: http://earthsciences.syr.edu/People/Faculty/Lu/Zunli_Lu.html with the name of the reseracher and th euniversity, its pretty easy to find things like this. perhaps you aren't familiar with universities, so aren't aware of this.
Why is it no other source confirms this? Only Sinclair says this was said. Sinclair is not credible and not believable.
So the scientist is denying what he said? Funny how he is now back tracking. I would say GW scientists and the government have let him know he must not show anything that denies man made global warming. I can think of no other reason he is denying what his report says
Once more those that doubt the facts about climate change make fools of themselves quoting the daily mail as if it was gospel. Did the scientist (Zunli Lu) ever say what was quoted in the daily mail? They appear to have depended only on this report http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate.html which do not support the headlines in the daily mail.
Address this issue how? What are the solutions? How much additional R&D is needed? When do they have to be in place to be effective? What is the total cost? What do we give up to afford the cost?
He did not deny what his report said. He said his report and its conclusions were misinterpreted. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming, completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.
which is where the real debate is, when will various stages of CC occur, how severe will be the effects, what can be done, what will be the cost... deniers of the world have a delusion that there is still a debate on whether CC is real or not, that ship has sailed there is no longer any debate in the scientific community in regards to whether CC will happen, it's here...
Wow, brilliant. As if climate change never happened before. Hate to tell you this but it has been happening since the world was created don't you think?
there are a number of solutions that have been discussed/proposed, and no doubt there are many more than can conribute. quite a lot, no doubt. the sooner the better. what is the total cost of ignoring what is happening and pretending the problem will go away? what will our children and their children be forced to give up if we don't do something?
what planet are you on? no seriously - anyone on this forum who regards AGW is an issue is aware that climate chaneg occurs naturally. that doesn't change the fact that the current warming is the result of human activity. If I say that someone has a bleeding nose because they were punched doesn't mean I think that all bleeding noses are caused by being punched. use your brain, dumbo.
do you have a literacy problem? he is saying that WHAT HE SAID HAS BEEN MISREPORTED. and I would add misreported by ignorant denialists.
You are absolutely right. After all, people were dying of things long before they invented busses. It is completely ridiculous to think that being run over by a bus might hurt anybody.
Yep, you are absolutely certain aren't you? Well certainty is not something that occurs in studying the causes of CC. Sorry, you can live in Gore land but those actually reading the papers see that many scientists use caution unlike people like Hansen and politicians like Gore, but by all means, join their religion.
you have an obsession with al gore. move on. everybody else either never had the obsession or moved on a few years ago. except for your fellow deniers. it seems you guys are all infatuated with him.
As mentioned above, that is where the real resistance occurs. If MMGW required no change - there wouldn't be "deniers". We have discussed this adnauseum, but have never seen comprehensive solutions (electricity and transportation) or hard numbers for cost. Sure, there have been the statements that this new process will create a gallon of gasoline from used Christmas trees for US$0.60 (which, if real, would have had a long line of investors), but then fade into obscurity.
a simplistic post that demonstrates how little you know...that you believe you're in possession of some obscure scientific fact when it's common knowledge to anyone that's completed grade school...what it reveals is you aren't aware there are a number of causes for climate change...what it reveals is you don't comprehend the evidence...what it reveals is you aren't capable of critical thinking...
show us a post where anyone here cites Al Gore as an expert...4yrs here and I have yet to see that... I'll have no problem digging up denier posts where the deluded cite bloggers, tabloid journalist and pseudo scientists as experts...the denier world will cite some wacko non expert as an expert, pick a thread any thread and you'll find it to be true...religion requires belief/faith with out evidence(denier world), AGW/CC has mountains of hard evidence/data... the delusion is strong within you...
As I have said before, anyone that is not in your religion is a heretic, such as you believe I am, so; therefore, I cannot understand anything (belief) about your religion. You are a true believer that now has a belief system based on unproven theory. Good for you.
so I guess I'll be wasting my time waiting for you to find someone who cites al gore as an expert?... your grasp of the science involved here is rudimentary...your level of critical thinking is grade school ability at best...
So some trash tabloid completely distorts his work and it's somehow his fault? Are you for real? Show a little skepticism of Daily Mail, skeptics.
He gives no specifics and says it will take weeks to reply. another words this is politics and he must consult with others to get the right political spin.