Dear All, This is biased coverage provided by the "World Business Council", attempting to provide a platform for the two contrarians here (Zachichi and Shaviv). Ben Santer, David Parker, and I have also given presentations and press briefings here, and the Italy media has been pretty good so far about presenting our side (i.e., the consensus view) on climate change. Look out for better coverage. Re, the Shaviv and Veizer paper--after seeing Shaviv present this, I'm now more convinced than ever that there is not one single scientifically defensible element at all to what he has done-the statistics, supposed climate reconstruction, and supposed "Cosmic Ray Flux" estimates are all almost certainly w/out any legitimate underpinning. Those w/ the appropriate expertise on the specifics really need to get a response out ASAP. My understanding is that something is indeed already in the works from Stefan et al... mike
Jan Veizer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2003, together with Nir J. Shaviv, an Israeli astrophycisist, Veizer published a paper in Geological Society of America confirming,[2] a reduced (capped) influence of carbon dioxide to Climate Change and attributing a more significant influence to cosmic rays. While the mechanism seems not yet to be fully understood, the empirical data showed a suitable fit.
Posts
1 comment:
And who does he turn to for an explanation? Stephan Rahmsdorf,
the convicted serial liar.
Here is the "something in the works" Mann was referring to.
Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate by S Rahmsdorf
A sciency looking comment to Eos - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union which never made it to press, and never cleared peer review.
Apparently there were flaws even the AGU couldn't stomach.
Or maybe it was the mighty jump across competencies by Ramsdorf in order to plant a hatchet in Shaviv's back that riled them.
Post a Comment