Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Sure, one "side" (see below) takes a reasonable pre-industrial temperature value, the other picks the warmest recent value out of a noisy data set.
Obviously, because the Earth has a long history, including periods like the Permian/Triassic, when (as best we can tell from scanty data) elevated CO2 came pretty close to wiping out all multicellular life.
One amusing incident involved the chief scientist being snowed in at Heathrow on her way to the Rio conference to deliver a report on how warm the UK was getting - my how we all laughed
And what exactly was the cause for laughter? Because "you all" are so stone ignorant that you don't know the difference between weather and climate?
Wrong. It is perfectly valid. All that stuff you claim as problems? They're just short-term variations: no more than bumps and curves in the road that may change the ride, but don't affect the destination.
Yes, it is, because however interesting & potentially valuable such research might be, it doesn't change the basic science. Thus calling for "more research" is really nothing more than a way to convince people to put off dealing with the problem, which is just that same old head in the sand trick. Ignore it, and it won't happen.
Just as all temperatures are measured by a TYO. It's fundamentally the same as measuring it by the expansion of mercury in a glass tube, or the changing resistance in a bit of silicon. Only difference is that some TYOs become fixed, and can be read back later on.
Again, this is just plain horse manure. The so-called "Hockey Stick" has been tested over and over again. The only people who claim to find basic problems is - surprise! - those emotionally/financially wedded to the idea that increasing CO2 won't cause climate change. And (perhaps no surprise) it's their analyses that seem to be full of holes.
There are no "sides". There are people who observe the science, and those who have a motive to deny the science, or who haven't examined it. Oddly enough, whenever honest skeptics actually examine some of the science, they wind up not being skeptics any more. See for instance the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
|
I have been a skeptic for years, and have gone after the science of the cause over the propaganda and the effects of. I nail either "side" when their science is bad. My position is stronger than it ever has been, and I feel it is important to have your position challenged from time to time to either strengthen it, or to show you that it is time to change. And there are many sides, those who believe it is all human caused, those who believe it is all natural, those who believe it is primarily human, and those who believe it is primarily natural. Of all of those sided the ones who I have seen look more at the science fall into one of the two latter catagories, and the arguments fall to how much is natural and how much is us.