|
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: The graph there shows the longest dataset available in the Northern Hemisphere, and doesn't support AGW.
er, it doesn't say anything about it. If you want to talk about 'AEW' you might have a point, but as it's a global phenomenon we're talking about, we should look at average global temperatures.
Refuting them with particular places is akin to people who say the current English cold snap disproves it (or the current Israeli heatwave proves it).
No, I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways. The IPCC utilised data implies that they use 'global' datasets, whereas they use a scattering and cherry-picked set of data from measurement stations. There are many, many reports coming out now of the 'cherry-picking' approach. They also have only access to mostly Northern Hemisphere data due to most of the Southern Hemisphere being water. They have not had access to the many of the so-called 'cold station' data for a long time which does skew the figures upwards. In fact, according to the Russians, The Moscow based Institute of Economic Aalysis: "The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory." Read the full story, last paragraph:
http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html/ Russia accounts for 12.5% of the planets land-mass, as mentioned in that report.
---------------------------------------------------
Merrick wrote: jshell wrote: The IPCC have been accused of bias as they, and New Scientist promoted that pack of lies about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035, when the date was actually stated as 2350 in some obscure phone call
Your gift for overstatement's not departed yet, I see.
The 'pack of lies' is one figure, a projected date for total glacier loss in the Himalayas. Where did you get your 2350 thing from?
as I understand it, the figure seems to have been misconstrued by WWF and the source for the IPCC didn't check the original paper being cited. That is indeed a serious error, regarding Himalayan glacier melt. It certainly doesn't undermine the fact that the vast majority of glaciers on earth are in retreat.
The 2350 date is mentioned in many news reports. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hv2NwFkM8rIdj6z931p20UW8Bbmg is one of them.
Glaciers are in retreat, you seem to think that's a point of argument, it's not. What is in question is man's effect. Climate changes, it is changing, it will always change. That's the point, more and more people are refuting that it's man's effect.
--------------------------------------------------------
Merrick wrote: It certainly does not refute the rest of the hundreds of thousands of facts cited in the IPCC reports.
The IPCC has been shown to 'cherry pick' reports, refute dissenting reports and is a 'politicised' organisation with no real impartiality. The IPCC was designed to deal with AGW as 'Accepted Science', therefore it has one focus and direction and will continue that way until enough contrary evidence is avaiable, and even then, perhaps not. Citing IPCC reprots is like taking the Tory Manifesto, if there is one these days, together with all other Tory printed 'matter' and basing your views of British Politics on that one political party. It's hugely biased. You have to consider both sides, or you can't see past the trenches - that's where we are now.
You do know that of the 3,000 'scientists' appointed to the IPCC, many are not. Many others refuse to put their names to IPCC reports and other have actually raised legal action to have their names removed?
Couple this with the 32,000 scientists, 9,000 who have Ph D's who have signed a petition against AGW. http://www.petitionproject.org/ Still think it's just a few 'deniers and dissenters?? That's only the US.
|
