Yet another climate scientist jumps off the AGW band wagon

[BlasterBates]

oh dear, this one actually got the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore:

Another Top International Scientist Jumps off Global Warming

The wheels are coming off.

[d000hg]

oh dear, this one actually got the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore:

Another Top International Scientist Jumps off Global Warming

The wheels are coming off.

Nice unbiased place you chose to quote from. Probably because:

The Slovenian climate professor made the chilling announcement last month in an obscure foreign language journal that has only now been translated into English.

i.e. Nobody cares... or as you'll no doubt claim, it's been "squashed". Note that the article you link to doesn't even provide a link to the original, foreign or not they should do for authenticity.

Where exactly does the article substantiate the claim that she is a "top international scientist"? She's apparently worked in a team which won the Nobel peace prize (her name is not listed here) but so what?

[BlasterBates]

It was awarded to the panel on climate change of which she was a prominent member.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C4%8...%C5%BE_Bogataj

Vice chair on one of the working groups.

She was a lead on one of the IPCC working groups, a professor, not a non-entity, and hence a joint holder of the Nobel Peace Prize.

I think you'll find she'll be joined by many more over the next 2 to 3 years.

[DimPrawn]

Just wait until the glaciers are moving across Africa.

They'll still be claiming it's global warming.

Global warming is dead. Long live, er, 'Global climate disruption'! – Telegraph Blogs

HTH

PS. When there is no disruption, it will become Global Climate Stays the Same.

[pjclarke]

More Bollox

It is balony. All the climatologist has done is state in an obscure Hungarian journal that:

"Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo- and proxy methods, Dr. Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises in temperature. "

'Climate Realists' (one man website run by the absurd John O Sullivan who makes his money publishing 'sceptical' authors') present this as proof that the good Dr Bogataj has jumped ship. It is not. It is mainstream climate science, to the extent that it was predicted in a 1990 paper 'The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming' coauthored by Jim Hansen. See also here.

No other evidence is presented of Dr Bogataj's 'defection' so it is almost certainly non-existent, as a prominent IPCC author it is implausible that a shift in her position to the 'sceptical' side would not be headline news at WUWT (We Use Wishful Thinking) and elsewhere rather than popping up at the obscure website run by fantasist John Sullivan.

Really, how weak must the case be if this is the kind of spin required? But here's a challenge: the phrase 'yet another' implies a stream of scientists who were previously convinced of AGW and are now not.

Name three of them.

[EternalOptimist]

It is balony. All the climatologist has done is state in an obscure Hungarian journal that:

"Buried in an otherwise drab study on paleo- and proxy methods, Dr. Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur AFTER rises in temperature. "

'Climate Realists' (one man website run by the absurd John O Sullivan who makes his money publishing 'sceptical' authors') present this as proof that the good Dr Bogataj has jumped ship. It is not. It is mainstream climate science, to the extent that it was predicted in a 1990 paper 'The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming' coauthored by Jim Hansen. See also here.

No other evidence is presented of Dr Bogataj's 'defection' so it is almost certainly non-existent, as a prominent IPCC author it is implausible that a shift in her position to the 'sceptical' side would not be headline news at WUWT (We Use Wishful Thinking) and elsewhere rather than popping up at the obscure website run by fantasist John Sullivan.

Really, how weak must the case be if this is the kind of spin required? But here's a challenge: the phrase 'yet another' implies a stream of scientists who were previously convinced of AGW and are now not.

Name three of them.

pj - its not a popularity contest.

I am sad to see you starting to use 'persuasive' (manipulative) language. stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves. thats what you are good at.

[pjclarke]

I am sad to see you starting to use 'persuasive' (manipulative) language.

I am sad that you're sad. Give me an example so I can avoid doing so in the future ......