|
Merrick wrote:
You made a number of assertions and I challenged them. Can you respond to these?
Been a while as I'm covering 9 projects right now and working in a different city to where I live, so bear with me. I really have little time to myself.
Merrick wrote: Firstly: Do you agree that we are warming faster than at any time for many millennia, that the global average temperature is higher than at any point for many millennia, and that this rise is exactly in line with what we'd expect given the consensus about the effect of greenhouse gases and the addition of them to the atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuels.
This is a complex one Merrick. I used to think that it was as simple as 'measuring temperature' on a global scale. It's not, it's fecking difficult. You need repeatability - which you don't have as we're trying to measure differences in 0.1 deg C's with very early/old technology. You need global coverage - which you don't have as there are vast, vast areas of the planet not covered throughout history. You need a homogenous atmosphere - which you don't have as weather systems move and the S Pole cools in real terms. We rely on a data-set which has been manipulated to show warming trends worse than they are - there's vast amounts of information out there on this, with huge photgraphic representations of UHI effects together with differing temperature measurements between manual and latterly satellite trends.
Do yo know that the Sat data appears to have been corrupted for the last few years? http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/11/satellite-gate-noaa-data-10-15%C2%B0-high/ I'm not suggesting deliberately, but it's happened nontheless.
So, we have a short data set of non-homogeneous manual temperature measurements. Have a wee look at this report - there are MAJOR problems with data gathering: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
We have the removal of nearly 4,500 temp measurement stations from the records and the messing about with the data from the rest.
So, the truth is, I don't KNOW if we're warming any faster than we should, and neither do you...
Merrick wrote: Secondly: Do you agree that there is a vast swathe of reliable science out there - stuff that's been peer-reviewed, subjected to the scrutiny of those whose work reinforces or challenges it - and it all points one way. Thousands of published papers. Show me one that says anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. Just one.
FFS, the IPCC has re-written the essence of the now bankrupt 'peer review' process. Do you think that the people who are giving their own time to challenging the IPCC reproduced data are doing it just for fun or because they are making a fortune from 'big oil'? No, they are risking their careers and livelihoods to challenge unsound 'science'. The peer review process only works when you are challenged on your work, but the IPCC only use peer-review within the AGW community thereby redering it bankrupt. If I write a report that I'm a cool-dude and loads of my friends read it and agree, does it really make me cool - aye, but only till someone says: no, actually you're a dickheid! Then I'm somewhere inbetween -probably closer to dickheid.
I'm suspicious purely because the IPCC's own charter states AGW as a 'GIVEN', with NO scope for challenge and then completely discounts the views and hard work of many people who would like the chance to openly challenge the findings. They are not given the chance.
And, a quote from this paper: http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf ""How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong. In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60 and were they all qualified and credible scientists? Let's take a closer look at the real numbers.""
There's enough doubt about the process for me to retain my suspicions!
|
