Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Both sides? What is the other side from reality?
|
Before I clicked on the Quote button this was all that was posted.
My response was to be "Here is a debate, we are on page 56 of it. There are people with doubts including scientists and ordinary people."
My funny side suggested posting "Narnia, come through the wardrobe - the Lions are lovely and cuddly, and talk like Liam Neeson to little girls who carry swords and make spells".
However...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
If the science concludes that climate is warming and it is because of humans burning fossil fuels, then what else is there? Wishful thinking? Belligerent ignorance? Willful lying bought and paid for by monied interests?
Another clearer graph:...
|
Bottom line - it is one study,
largely based on proxies. You may recall James and I discussed this before - take thing which is affected by x (e.g. temperature) and try to use it to determine what x was in the past.
This is a process fraught with danger, especially at the stage of selecting proxies. This is where the original 98 and 99 hockey sticks (allegedly) "came a cropper". Did you know some of the proxies in MHB98 and 99 were used upside down ?
I'd say that was worrying. Maybe it only happened away from reality ?
Note my italic
largely here. A quick scan through the released stuff suggests it
might not all be proxies - some of the data might be instruments spliced onto the end. This has been seen before in papers - did you actually understand the real process behind "hide the decline" or was that not part of reality?
The results of this paper conflict with other papers, especially some that reconstruct temps based on ice cores - which arguably are the most reliable and also arguably the least reliable - depending on which side of the reality vs non-reality debate they support or don't.
The ice itself must be pretty fed up by now due to not being believed by either side.
Sorry - I'm being sarcastic, and not deliberately insulting. Guess what sometimes us skeptics pick up science stories quickly -
What do you mean you don't have a subscription to "Science"... 
I'm here for the debate. I'm not paid (wish I was - exxon, Koch, Shell, BP - please PM me for account details), or ignorant - and I really do care about the environment and the future. I have kids too.
In that spirit of a debate, I posted the paper here
first. A skeptic too.
Lets debate the paper ourselves, take a look at it and the analysis of it by others. This is what I have been calling for all along - more science, more research. Read it, analyse it, look at the challenges, look how they got round them, check the analysis, get the data, compare it to other results.
Look behind the curtain for the wizard...
And maybe less lingua "Joe Romm".