Exile comes back with some response!
Believers in anthropogenic warming, natural warming and next to no warming at all can chuck scientific references at each other for weeks and still not change the mind of the other. Saigon's constant references to "thousands of scientists" is the perfect example. There's more research looking at AGW (and more pertinently, the possible effects of AGW) due to funding. Full stop. He won't even acknowledge that his favourite bedtime book, the UNIPP report, is written by less than 35 scientists, and controlled by even less.
Exile states that the argument throws scientific references back and forth in roughly equal measure.
Response: No it doesn't. Hardly any of the links I've used refer back to the UNIPP report, they have been from independent research institutions/scientific journals all of which are a product of transparent data, many of which dated late 2009. You have offered exceedingly little in response, most of it either out of date (hockey stick debate, which has been substantiated by 12 similar studies that back up warming) and rejected by the mainstream (solar warming - 1994). Have you read my links, or does your isolated position on this issue prevent you from doing so? Please do respond with citations!
As a parting shot on the science side of things, to save me giving citations for every post I make, I offer this graph (Tesco & Monaghan, in Geophysical Research Letters, 2009).
You can clearly, clearly, see that ice melt in the last Antarctic Summer was the lowest ever recorded since measurement began. No news of that in the media, was there? You do wonder. A 30 year minimum in ice melt doesn't rate a mention in the press? Must have been too busy looking at Greenland instead (that's an in joke for those of us who've got some background knowledge about these matters. I'm sure Saigon's scratching his head :wink: ).
Exile searches the internet for a couple of days and comes back at last with
one graph, as a 'parting shot' on the 'science side' of things??? :D . What? This isn't a debate about religion old chap, it is scientific debate about scientific facts! :|
Please provide a link to the full article, I'm sure the graph hasn't been taken out of context, but a full account would be useful.
The 'world climate report' site you collected it from:
"Uses a collection of data, facts and statements within a broad range of categories to find and explain many of the fallacies held in popular global warming ..."
Sounds neutral :lol:
And yes, please cite references to
every specific scientific point that you make, because that is the difference between empty conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion (your stance), and accurate statements backed up in the scientific arena or peer review and logic.
I am of the opinion that the science is not settled, and that nature will, as ever, have the last laugh. If the science is settled, there's no need for the vast apparatus of cliques and hangers on researching global warming as if it's not, there's no need for us to think for ourselves any more, and we may as well all join greenpeace.
Strange conclusion. I am no nearer now to joining Greenpeace than I ever was, I just look at the science and form a conclusion.
A reminder to everyone, the whole AGW science corner is based on a computer model that cannot hindcast correctly, cannot forecast correctly, missed the 1998 el nino event, didn't think there'd be a decade of subsequent temperature decline and has altogether failed on every level against which it's been tested in nature. We're expected to trust this to forecast potential effects decades from now? No thanks! It's been set up and run in an air conditioned office in the home counties as a great computer game, but it's already out of date and is no substitute for scientific measurement in the real world
No it's not. It's based on firm foundations of mutually supporting evidence, continually updating primary data and the work of professionals that builds on the knowledge gained since 1845 and beyond. Temperature fluctuations are entirely within the scope of the models. Where is the sceptic model of climate change?
There isn't one. 8)
That tell you something? Anything? Oh dear.....
Luckily science marches ever onward. At current rates, we're doubling our scientific knowledge every seven years, and one can only hope that as rational thought is allowed to make it's presence felt, the religious zealotry of Warmists will be known for what it is. In fifty years, I hope teenagers across the planet are learning about the "late twentieth century warming", and that journalism students are learning the pitfalls of parroting a lie instead of doing what they ought, and investigating, reporting the truth, introducing balancing arguments and informing the public, not alarming them. I also hope when they read the names of Jones, Mann et al, they're uttered in the same sentence as that of Trofim Lysenko.
You hope, yes.
Science
is marching ever onward though, and if you were to look at the position in the same depth as I have done since this debate started (and well in advance of this, before you cite how many years you've been reading sceptic blogs) you would begin to see the weight of evidence. Evidence is what I go on you see, not the posturing of angry and frustrated web-blog authors, scientific websites and quasi-journals set up by the oil industry. For example Exxon has spent millions of dollars on a website that disputes global warming. Or there's the publication called '21st Century Science and Technology', which claimed that 55 per cent of glaciers are actually growing at the moment.
But this paper turns out to be owned by an American millionaire by the name of Lyndon Larouche (that's who published Bangor's crazy Polish radiographer), who has also claimed the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate. Nonetheless, he's been quoted by global warming sceptics.
Finally, you can vomit up as much rhetoric as you wish, but at this late stage in the global warming debate (the stage when the policy is being made), we really need to see the hard facts of accurate scientific evidence, and not your personal conclusions. You have teased us with a solitary graph in this post, and drawn a lot of inferences from it. Back it up.
