|
jshell wrote: No, I'm sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
Says the person who wants to say that temperatures in one spot can measure the whole world!
Are you really saying that global average temperatures can't be measured until we have a thermometer on every street corner?
It is possible to measure temeeratures in the southern hemisphere thanks to the existence of islands. Also, there is measurable oceanic warming.
Using dispersed stations - even thousands of them - is not the same as 'cherry-picking' as long as you use all the data that's reliable. Cherry picking is when you discount reliable evidence that doesn't fit your desired outcome.
jshell wrote: The IPCC was designed to deal with AGW as 'Accepted Science'
No, it was designed to assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, and provide an authoritative source for those who want information.
jshell wrote: The IPCC has been shown to 'cherry pick' reports
Where and to what extent?
jshell wrote: Citing IPCC reprots is like taking the Tory Manifesto
The tories have a stated political agenda. The IPCC is compiles the work of vast numbers of scientists, then puts it out to critical review, then formulates a complete report. Do you see the difference?
jshell wrote: according to the Russians, The Moscow based Institute of Economic Aalysis:
Ah, a great unconscious irony there in decrying the alleged bias of the IPCC but citing the Institute of Economic Analysis as if they're neutral. The words 'thinktank' should make anybody pause (why do they always get presented on the news as if they're impartial?). The IEA was set up and is run by Andrei Illarionov, senior fellow of the Exxon-funded Cato Institute. That's a commitment to science-denying partiality.
jshell wrote: 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.
So, I wonder again, what is there that explains it other than natural processes exacerbated by human emissions?
More to the point, if you now accept now that CO2's effect on temperatures is a fact, why do you think that doubling it doesn't alter temperatures?
The IPCC made an error in citing that 2035 date. The difference between scientists like them and climate deniers is that they admit and correct mistakes, instead of simply ignoring the rebuttal and repeating the same discredited argument next time round.
jshell wrote: The Mediaeval Warming Period has always been a problem for AGW, as it shows long periods that were warmer than today, but where's the man made greenhouse gases?
Let me say it simply: not I, nor anyone else, is saying climate change is entirely due to human activity. It is an established fact that many things alter climate and thereby global temperatures.
There have been times in the past when it's been substantially warmer and colder than now. Solar activity, orbital wavering, all manner of stuff can affect it.
However, the global average temperature today is markedly high and has risen very quickly. Exactly in line with carbon emissions, which we know act as greenhouse gases.
jshell wrote: others have remained quiet, let's be honest they're not going to get much funding if the break from the pack, are they?
Are you kidding me? The attention dissenting scientists get (especially when you can find one who's actually qualified as opposed to an astrophysicist or whatever) is huge. The money that rolls in (thankyou Exxon) is even larger.
jshell wrote: 'Peer Review' has no validity here now
Yes it does. It is still a robust system that allows others to examine how findings were reached and to put forward conflicting or supporting data before anything's considered established.
jshell wrote: What about this guy, he's a leading climatologist: Dr Wallace Broecker. Here's his site
Er, no, that's not Wally Broecker's site. As a tip for future research, respected scientists tend not to use geocraft.com for their web hosting.
It's actually a page that quotes Broecker done by someone called Monte Hieb. It also quotes Fred Singer, which is enough to make anyone interested in truth suspicious.
But that quote of Broecker's about water vapour being 'the only element capable of making these fast changes'. Is he talking about now, or is he about his field of expertise, paleoclimatology, the study of the climate in the past?
Can you find me anywhere where he actually casts doubt on human-induced climate change? (clue: it may take you a very very long time....). Again, you're just wrong.
|
