|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2011 1:40:53 GMT 1
There aren't a lot of people supporting the IPCC line, abacus. It is a small (but highly influential) clique of a few scientists, a few NGOs and a few government bureaucrats and scientific advisers. The National Science Academies and learned societies have long since been "captured" by alarmist advocates.
But forget the red herrings about motivation and just look at the quality of the so-called "science" the IPCC hacks produce. It is dire. Even I as a lay person can recognise how dire it is. Why can't you?
Nearly all the reputable climate scientists are outside the IPCC process - quite a lot of it were once inside but have left in disgust at the politicking and corruption.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2011 8:46:01 GMT 1
Here's an interesting article by Michael Palmer examining the US data compiled by GISS from stations with a longterm reporting history throughout the twentieth century. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/#more-49836 I have provided just the graphs from the article. They tell the story well enough! Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trendFigure 1: Temperature trends and station counts for all US stations in GISS between 1850 and 2010. The slope for the rural stations is 0.0039 deg/year, and for the other stations 0.0059 deg/year. wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/palmer_figure2.pngFigure 2: Temperature trends and station counts for all US stations in GISS between 1900 and 2000. The slope for the rural stations is 0.0034 deg/year, and for the other stations 0.0038 deg/year. Figure 3: Temperature trends and station counts for all US stations in GISS reporting continuously, that is containing at least one monthly data point for each year from 1900 to 2000. The slope for the rural stations (335 total) is -0.00073 deg/year, and for the other stations (278 total) -0.00069 deg/year. The monthly data point coverage is above 90% throughout except for the very first few years.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2011 9:01:04 GMT 1
p.s. I hope you will notice when the "Great Dying of the Thermometers" occurred in fig 1. It was alongside the rapid post 1990 "warming". Those of you who have been paying attention will recognise the profile well. (You can find a similar graph for the whole world coverage here jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temperature/number-%20temperature-stations-ghcn-1701-2008.gif ) Figs 2 and 3 above show data from the period 1900 to 2000 with the periods of low station count cropped. During that period a large number number of stations were still included in the three global datasets.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2011 9:20:12 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 24, 2011 10:42:26 GMT 1
There aren't a lot of people supporting the IPCC line, abacus. It is a small (but highly influential) clique. But forget the red herrings about motivation and just look at the quality of the so-called "science" the IPCC hacks produce. It is dire. Even I as a lay person can recognise how dire it is. Why can't you? Nearly all the reputable climate scientists are outside the IPCC process - quite a lot of it were once inside but have left in disgust at the politicking and corruption. Haven't we moved beyond questioning the "science" of climate change? It is obviously nonsense. Surely the important thing is to expose the perpetrators and their motives and have them dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 24, 2011 10:51:25 GMT 1
marchesarosa, how can you be sure that the data you regularly present on here is scientifically valid? It's not a difficult thing to be selective and choose 'evidence' that you happen to agree with but this is not the correct scientific approach. Neither of us are climatologists so all we can do is judge based on the professionals.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 24, 2011 15:19:35 GMT 1
marchesarosa, how can you be sure that the data you regularly present on here is scientifically valid? It's not a difficult thing to be selective and choose 'evidence' that you happen to agree with but this is not the correct scientific approach. Neither of us are climatologists so all we can do is judge based on the professionals. Quite, and the warmist "scientists" have shown themselves to be corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 24, 2011 15:59:42 GMT 1
This argument does not really stand up to scrutiny because if the pro-AGW scientists were all involved in a worldwide conspiracy the evidence they have produced could easily be shown to be false by correct science. The fact that much of the independent sources of evidence seems to show a clear correlation to the global warming hypothesis is strong scientific evidence for it. The anti-AGW sceptics do not present correct science but a distortion of it to suit their position. Another point is how on earth would it be possible for the many climatologists involved in global warming research to all keep quiet about such a huge deception? You would expect that one or two would 'spill the beans.'
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2011 17:42:39 GMT 1
You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that there is disagreement amongst climate scientists, abacus, and that a proclaimed consensus is not proof of anything. Doesn't the word "consensus" used in the same sentence as "science" make you cringe?
I spend a lot of time reading about climate research and I have no difficulty in judging between good and bad arguments. All the land datasets derive from the same surface station sources and all have undergone the same "Dying of the Thermometers" and the relocation of thermometers southwards and to the coast. It is no surprise that they are similar. GISS is run by James Hansen, CRU by Phil Jones and the NCDC by Tom Karl. All are ardent advocates of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. I would hesitate to accord any accolades to the quality of their "science" and I am not alone by any means. Data collection and data adjustment should not be in the hands of advocates. It should be a purely value free process in the hands of people like those who conduct other statistical surveys on the part of the state like the Consumer Price Index or Retail Price index. It's not rocket science, just humdrum number crunching with the stress on accuracy.
Why you are beguiled by the notion that this sort of stuff is beyond my ken is ludicrous. Speak for yourself, mate.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 24, 2011 18:20:13 GMT 1
Of course not, that's exactly why there can be no conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 24, 2011 18:24:18 GMT 1
In modern times the scientific consensus has occasionally been wrong but far more often it has been right.
If you want to go with the long odds that's your choice but the money is on the odds-on favourite.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 24, 2011 18:26:44 GMT 1
Wrong again! The IPCC doesn't produce the science, just reports on what climate scientists are producing.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 24, 2011 18:35:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Oct 24, 2011 18:51:36 GMT 1
There are no proofs in science - that's for maths. Science deals in probabilities and the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that there is a very high probability that humans are altering the climate. That's just the way science works.
Actually you have consistently failed to spot the difference. We only have to look to the previous page of this thread to see you claiming that scientists from BEST said that human influence of the climate is exaggerated. You completely missed the context of that comment, as has been shown. There are many other instances of your jumping to wrong conclusions in your desperation to find anti-AGW evidence but I can't be bothered to list any more.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2011 7:45:38 GMT 1
Try reading Donna Laframboise if you can bear to have your faith in this appalling institution challenged, nick. In the 22 years of the IPCC's existence this is the first book written about it and high time! See this thread for more info radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=read&thread=1112&page=1And don't be such a silly billy. The debate is not whether I am right or wrong about anything, it's about whether the supposed evidence adduced for a hypothesis is right or wrong. You consistently drag down the debate to bad mouthing your fellow boarders. Try to keep on topic.
|
|