This will take some time (assuming you are up to the task). But spend some serious time at Climate Audit and tell me the Climate "Scientists" are not cooking the books.
Don't just read the entry. Read all the comments. This will take time. Once you have done that roam around. Then come back here and tell me climate science can make pronouncements about anything. Including todays temperature accurate to 1 deg K.
Why don't you admit your racism and move on? You know that Global Warming is going to cause war, it's going to create famine and disease and you know it's going to cause my grandchildren to have an overbite. Why not end your "skeptical" denial and admit that whether or not Global Warming is a concern we have to start doing something today, before it's too late? We need to take action!
And that's why Vice-President Gore won the Nobel Prize and you're just a denier.
Climate Audit is one of the few "skeptic" blogs I consider valid. The climate science community needs external critics in order to keep it on the straight and level. McIntyre's recent finding of the error in Hansen's North American temperature data, for example.
But I also think you're grasping at straws. I used to be a strong a skeptic as you are, but no longer. And I'm not even looking at models. I'm looking at empirical examples like this year's record low arctic sea ice, and the overall downward trend since the 50s. Not to mention the physical properties of CO2 itself.
Look, I do think that there are groups that have trumped up the threat (James Lovelock and Hansen himself). And that modern environmentalism has taken on a quasi-religious taint. But getting off the oil teat will pay huge dividends in energy security as well. If you can't support shifting our energy sources for climate reasons, surely energy security is just as good.
You know, I anger liberals by advocating free market solutions and other conservatives by disagreeing with them on the science.
Cervus · October 13, 2007 04:51 PM
Cervus,
I've come full circle. I was a sceptic. Then I became a believer (around '98). Now I'm back into the sceptic column.
I think we are headed for a Little Ice Age. So far the data is proving me correct. The solar scientists are predicting this. I blogged it here.
"I think we are headed for a Little Ice Age. So far the data is proving me correct."
Oh, so the data that you don't trust are proving you correct? And what data shows we're going into a little ice age? The steep decline in arctic ice? Sea level rise (which includes thermal expansion)?
AS for Titusville, microsite issues are adjusted for and the satellite record shows remarkable agreement with the surface network, both for the globe and for the US lower 48.
"The arctic ice is explained by unusual flow patterns in the Arctic sea. The Antarctic ice has reached record proportions."
Yes, the antarctic did set a record, besting the old record by .7%. Meanwhile, the arctic minimum beat the old record by 27%. Moreover, there is no statistically significant trend in the antarctic, but the arctic downward trend is significant.
Please stop twisting the science.
Boris · October 14, 2007 09:02 AM
Boris,
It seems like the record you trust shows the SH cooling.
The SH isn't cooling at all, it just warms more slowly because it's mostly water.
If you want to know how homogeneity adjustments are calculated you should read Hansen's papers.
Boris · October 14, 2007 08:49 PM
Well yes. Hansen's papers.
It would be nice if he did it the way real science is done. Release ALL his actual code and ALL the data he used. For purposes of replication of his results and to make checking his results easier.
He has finally released SOME and for that I commend him.
So you are unable personally to tell me what the correction factor of Titusville is?
I was under the impression that you were an expert.
I'm merely an interested amateur.
So tell me how do you fix a mess like Titusville?
BTW if you follow surfacestations.org by Anthony Watts you find that something like 80% of the stations surveyed so far are in the Titusville category.
Please explain to the lay public here how you fix Titusville. Like say suppose the tanks get an influx of warm water in winter. How do you correct for that?
Did you know that sites up to 600 mi away are used for the adjustment? With the amount of adjustment declining by distance?
In addition since the environment is different at every "bad" site a universal adjustment procedure makes no sense. The adjustment would have to reflect the situation at each site. This is not done.
If you would like a critique of Tamino's work you can find it at Climate Audit - Tamino. Especially check the comments.
Please also note that the method of adjustment is not public.
Climate scientists need to release the code and the data. ALL the code. ALL the data. So their work can be replicated as would be done in real science. Evidently climate "science" is different.
If Enron was behaving this way you might suspect them of cooking the books.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Climate science can make valid prouncements about lots of things, including today's gloabl temperature anomaly to well within 1`K
This despite Steve McIntyre's unpublished opus.