How more specific do you want? Zunli Lu: It is unfortunate that my research, An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula, recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets. Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. 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. http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html or perhaps The Daily Mail is not really near the top of a New York academics reading list.
WTF is Sinclair? You were asked why you think it is the academics fault when some trashy tabloid completely distorts his work? Why can't you answer?
so you agreed with him when you thought that what he said supported your argument because he was misreported, but now that he is wanting to set the record straight - then he's the liar?
They showed warming and now say it should not be used? Seems to me their bosses do not like the information. The information is being shown that is not misrepresenting any thing
Sinclair is the owner of a GW propaganda blog that claims the scientists deny it. Where is the scientist speaking this in a news source?
You have been shown several times the scientists own statement posted on his University'e website The last time you were show was a few posts up. You even quoted it. http://www.politicalforum.com/1061097291-post53.html How long do you want to pretend that this information came just from a blog?
again ... I have to ask - do you have a literacy problem? if so, pm me and I will provide you some online links to assist you.
No - they did not report what his report said at all. That is the problem. They misreported what the paper actually said and drew incorrect unsupported conclusions from it 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. How long will you keep denying what is right under your nose?
It was a study of one specific area on the Antarctic Peninsula He did not say it should not be used. He said: The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Seems to me you have shown to be 100% wrong but you are childishly making excuses to try to squirm out of admitting it The information in the tabloid article you quoted completely misrepresented the findings 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.
Yes a statement with specifics. The report takes nothing out of context. I would say his GW bosses told him to fix the problem
I have no problem. What is misreported? The scientist never specified instead said he would address it later. If it was misrepresented why did he not state what was misrepresented. This is more deception and not admitting the facts show things that are not helpful to global Warming.
Another words do not look at the facts for what they say because i will be in trouble if go against Global Warming. More of GW scientists trying to deny what they found
Surely you jest. The first link you provided doesn't even have a citation to a peer-reviewed paper. Nor does the last. The second one does, but that paper (Spencer & Braswell 2011) has already been debunked multiple times (for example, Trenberth & Fasullo were unable to replicate this paper's results, the kiss of death for a scientific hypothesis.) In fact, Spencer's paper was so full of holes and so easily refuted that the editor of the journal that published it resigned in disgrace. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.
Nonsense. Here's the spaghetti chart from the IPCC's run of various models: Every model run shows periods of apparent stasis, caused by natural variation superimposed on the greenhouse-caused warming trend. You're just flat-out lying.
Is it your eyesight that is the problem? Let me help: Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions.
As you have already been told - He does not deny what he found at all. He has stated that his conclusions were misrepresented The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. What exactly are the words you don't understand in this?
So we show warming occurred but this does not mean anything about warming. HAHAHA okay nice try for a GW scientist to try and deceive what his report says. The media is just showing what the report says and now the GW propagandists are trying to spin it.
He showed warming occurred in one specific part of the Antarctic Peninsula. No one is denying that. He said: The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Do ou understand what this means? Do you know what the Antarctic Peninsula is? Do you know where it is? No - the media misrepresented the report. We know this because the bloke that actually wrote the report said so: 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.”
Dude, it shows warming for Antarctica (and only one part at that). Antarctica is not the entire globe. Why is that so hard to understand?