A coworker sent me this link after we had a short debate on global warming.
[quote=Right Wing Coworker] The most disturbing aspect of the whole Global Warming science debate is how raw temperature data is artificially adjusted, and how this modification seems to account for most or all of the reported warming. Well, it looks like we can now add a selection bias, too. Only a third of the available weather station thermometers seem to be used in the CRU data set (the one relied on by the UN IPCC).I see some simple errors here, like confusing weather for climate and assigning a conspiracy to peer reviewed journals, but I’m wondering about some of the other claims made in the blog. Were the weather stations truly cherry picked, as he claims?
Well, surface temperature stations are not the only way we measure global temperature. Satellite measurements also show a warming trend in during the 20th century.
Climate scientists understand that climate science has a great deal of uncertainty. The problem of global warming alarmism is that when the science gets reported in the mainstream media or used for political purposes, the amount of uncertainty gets left out and it becomes evidence and consensus.
What many skeptics are looking for is the data and programming code that goes into the temperature record so they can see exactly what adjustments are being made. Right now, there is too much “just trust our results” from climate scientists when there should be more openness and transparency. The policy decisions are too important to rest upon science that cannot be easily reproduced and verified.
The CRU is just one out of several dozen agencies. This is like saying that because your neighbor Billy might not have actually raped his girlfriend, there is no such thing as rape.
Nothing in science matters until it has been independently replicated. There’s some chance that any one finding is inaccurate, but once you have dozens or hundreds of people having all come to the same result, then scientists begin to accept it as probably true. But if you look at any one finding, especially if you look specifically for the one which had the poorest cites, was being backed by an organization with an agenda, had a member who was an alcoholic, etc. you’ll certainly be able to point out that it could and possibly is fully inaccurate. But that was always true, and it’s true of every single individual finding. Ultimately, that’s a meaningless thing to point out though because there’s the other 100 possibly inaccurate studies that all came to more or less the same result and only 1 possibly inaccurate study which came to any other result.
Well, it can and most of the data has been released. Remember, many “skeptics” are in reality even denying that this has taken place so they should be dismissed.
Here’s the problem. Most of the touted global warming science is bad science. For example: in one of the chart comparisons in An Inconvienent Truth, it actually shows CO2 movement slightly lagging BEHIND temperature change. That would seem to imply to me (common person making the post hoc fallacy) that it is temperature change that affects CO2 not the other way around.
Add to that the fact that many of the public faces of GW (the same people that claim Al Gore has an Oscar - he doesn’t, it went to Davis Guggenhein) are idiots. The worst offender of greenhouse gas emission is China yet Al Gore tells me that the US needs to lead by example. Certainly worked for human rights. How are the Tibetans doing? Oh and what about the fact that Gore’s house wastes more energy that Bush’s or how much carbon was put into the atmosphere with the private planes flying to Helsinki? Danny Glover claims the earthquake in Haiti was caused by global warming (I think he may have meant the hurricanes which actually makes sense but it came out as the earthquake was caused by GW). Is it really hard to understand why no one takes them seriously?
I do believe that we are suffering from global warming but I also think it is unclear what is causing it. A natural cycle? Greenhouse gasses? The huge amount of asphalt, concrete and glass? Mother Earth hitting menopause (Get it? Hot flashes! Damn, I’m funny). I think that the best response to AGW (cause by humans), GW (not caused by humans) or “climate-change” (nature is getting ready to kill us all on Dec 21, 2012) was said by Mrs. Cad. She said, “Does it really matter if we’re causing it? We can still do things to help even if it’s not our fault.”
Not hard, but you are forgetting that the denier media is even harder to take seriously as the previous answer showed.
BTW this science reporter that also dissed Gore had to tell the deniers that they are now falling for conspiracy theories:
Deniers are even less likely to be respected now.
No.
Yes.
No.
You are not funny…
More likely you are referring to the heat island effect,
The answer is still no.
Yes, it does matter, and as George Bush (the Father) showed, The US can lead and influence the rest of the world to do the right thing like he and the USA did with CFC’s in the late 80’s.
Hint: An Inconvenient Truth is not a peer reviewed scientific publication.
I think the important fact is that the movie got it - not that the Academy in any way resembles Science or Nature or the more specialized journals whose names I don’t know.
You think telling China to spend on greenhouse gas reduction when we do nothing is going to be very effective? And why don’t you compute to whatever number of decimal places it takes the additional emissions from whatever planes went to Copenhagen that wouldn’t have gone someplace else?
When did Glover get a PhD in Geology or Meteorology? Tell you what, you ignore him and we’ll ignore the morons who say “it’s snowing, global warming can’t be happening!”
Maybe it would be better if you let her post, eh? The problem is, if we are causing the problem, the remedy involves stopping or reducing whatever we are doing. If it actually was purely natural, the remedies would be different.
