I went away as "Northern Britain"
returned to work this week.
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Debunking the "no warming in 16 years" stuff...
You seem to have a bug in your browser as you are using the "Skeptical Science" website as a source
If this is intended you need maybe to look at their background. For example they are/were involved with the "Gergis" paper which suggested loads of warming in Australia - it even passed peer review. However in response to a data request she said
This list allows any researcher who wants to access non publically available records to follow the appropriate protocol of contacting the original authors to obtain the necessary permission to use the record, take the time needed to process the data into a format suitable for data analysis etc, just as we have done. This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.
But despite all that "peer review" - you know science being checked and so on - it has been "put on hold" due to an error with their sums. Or maybe withdrawn
Due to errors discovered in this paper during the publication process,
it was withdrawn by the authors prior to being published in final form. A new version of this manuscript has been submitted and is under review.
The new version seems to have, er, not made it anywhere - yet.
Oh and the "Stephan Lewandowsky" paper
which seems to be have been published (despite being crap in both idea and again perhaps their sums) but nobody really knows where. It might be an Australian university publication they refer to - oh hang on...
Apart from this, the site founder is a cartoonist and is funded by an Australian university - hang on again, have I typed that phrase before ? I'm seeing a pattern - maybe.
Oz tax dollars at work
At least their politicians are honest - no wait
Anyway debunking the debunking
Go and argue with the BBC and the UK Met Office - they now admit the no warming / slow warming event.
Bottom line - they think it will be a pause but they aren't sure, but like you they think it will restart sometime and humans are the cause. A lot of "extreme" people on the skeptic side say it has stopped - end of story, others say no it is a pause and it will continue. I say more research and kudos to the Met Office (UK) for at least admitting it and starting to deal with it
, and minus a load of points to skeptic websites that didn't notice the use of a new model.
Hang on - New Model - thats "More Science" like I'm advocating.
Am I alone and barking at the moon here ?
- more science = good, consensus = crap, like that Galileo
persecution by an ignorant church "issue" a few hundred years ago. There are a few other theories
which fight the "consensus" too.
But without detailed evidence and a force sufficient to drive the movement, the theory was not generally accepted: the Earth might have a solid crust and mantle and a liquid core, but there seemed to be no way that portions of the crust could move around. Distinguished scientists, such as Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert, were outspoken critics of continental drift.
Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift gained support and a lively debate started between "drifters" or "mobilists" (proponents of the theory) and "fixists" (opponents).
Note the name calling and labelling there - did that make it better ? Did it really make it better ?
However UK Met Office, minus a few thousand PR points for doing it on Christmas Eve (let's try and bury bad, no sorry, difficult news) and then having to explain themselves repeatedly at my (as a UK taxpayer) expense - and badly goofing it up. No really badly.
No honest my son at 11 could tell a joke about farting and it would be better.
One of their scientists
did it better
, maybe they should get rid of the PR people.
In fact please do - I would like less tax please.
And Met Office - minus a few more thousand more PR points for suggesting rainfall in the UK in 2012 was "extreme" when they also forecast a drought in 2012 until May, oh and actually 2012 is not unusual as far as anyone can tell.
Again I want to point out I'm not having a "free swing" at anyone here - everyone is posting for the best of intentions as they see them, I have no problem with that at all.
Sources are important - read them all - from RealClimate and DesmogBlog to Watts and Bishop Hill. Take them all with a large drum of salt and be prepared to do your own digging and research to get a full picture.
I'm sure a few people will mark this as disinformation or indeed spreading doubt - no, I want people to understand as much as possible.
Also as I tapped earlier - if someone said no warming and humans are not involved, I would disagree with them too. See my previous post
about all of that.