The Forum > Article Comments > The Great Global Warming Blunder - Review > Comments
The Great Global Warming Blunder - Review : Comments
By William Briggs, published 3/12/2010Feedback is where the real climate science debate occurs, and this book is a must-read contribution.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- ...
- 13
- 14
- 15
-
- All
Posted by PeterA, Sunday, 5 December 2010 4:07:27 PM
| |
I see why Leo Lane claims it to be the coldest as he must have read a journalist report, that made it up - being discussed at http://www.realclimate.org/
Again misinformation from Leo Lane. The scientists that he names and climategate, have all been investigated and totally cleared. If Leo Lane has evidence otherwise then it should have been tabled and not keep on making statements that are manevestly incorrect. Posted by PeterA, Sunday, 5 December 2010 4:28:40 PM
| |
Talk of hottest year coldest year seems to me to be meaningless. Especially as it is not clear if the measurements are based on non-randomly sited land stations, which over the years have been shown to follow various idiosyncratic protocols.
Reliable ocean temperatures using the Argos system and over lats 60N to 60S have only been available since about 2003. While satellite measurements covering the greater part of the globe have been available for about 40years only. So those that quote hottest year data should also tell us under what system the measurements were recorded. They should provide some indication of sampling errors. It would also be useful if 95% confidence intervals were included, so one judge the precision associated with the claim. Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 5 December 2010 5:12:33 PM
| |
I cannot help but think that the Met office indulges in “data mining” to make claims of hottest month, year, minute etc. in order to please their political masters. Or even to try and influence decision making at the Cancun meeting.
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 5 December 2010 5:18:06 PM
| |
Bonmot:
<I would say funding 'climate science' is critical and needs increased funding. Who knows, there might be someone out there that could knock AGW for six. That in itself will save trillions and trillions.> Excuse my naivety, Bonmot, but rather than just pumping more ATO dollars into research, shouldn't we be doing something more practical, like say putting a 20% surcharge on private jets, restaurant meals, international junkets (conferences) plasma tv's, Limos and SUV's? the proceeds going to AGW research? I'm just amazed that the funding for research has to be extracted under a veil of anonymity--consolidated revenue. Surely the high-end users should pay a premium? (if Yabby's reading, don't worry mate, exemption for yokels). Whether you like it or not, AGW is political, and it's about time you lot got your hands dirty! The minimifidianists, have a legitimate gripe, the scientific community is just another spineless hanger on. If you're going to ask for more funding, you're going to have to go in and bat for the cause, stand for something besides your bogus objectivity, or at least stop pretending you can do anything to help with all money and no action. The scientific community is just another strand of conservative hegemony. You know what actions need to be undertaken, but you'll settle for more funding, right? At least religious institutions occasionally stand up against the bullsh!t! Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 5 December 2010 5:50:23 PM
| |
Thanks for the link Peter.
Spencer should pursue his thesis though, even if in the end he modifies it. I doubt it though; Roy does seem to have difficulty separating his Christian religious fervour from his scientific pursuit – believing it impossible for Man to dare impact on God’s climate. Anti-green (love the tag) Do you really think the experts haven’t considered temporal and spatial characteristics or other “idiosyncratic protocols”? Really, 'climate science’ is put under the microscope so much these days (rightly so I will add) that they have to dot every ‘i” and cross every ‘t’, and then deal with FOI requests. You may find confidence levels are predicated in any data analysis they undertake – unlike the “assertions” of some others, Lindzen comes to mind. And your thought bubble about “the Met office indulges in “data mining”? Oh please, do you not realise how silly that sounds, particularly in light of ‘climategate’? Scientific bodies and institutions not only have to do the right thing, they have to be seen to be doing the right thing. Squeers You are absolutely right (except for the “conservative hegemony” bit) - sorry for giving the wrong impression Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 5 December 2010 6:30:24 PM
|
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html
It does not look good for Spencers theory.