Originally Posted by
Barry Shnikov
Remember the way in which science works.... blah.. blah..
Well, there's how sceince works and then there's how AGW science works... I found this article on tree rings very illuminating: here's a snippet..
'I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year.
The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.
I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency. - Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.'
...report that the Global Historical Climate Network dataset (GHCN) uses data from one single station to demonstrate a severe warming trend for the entire continent of Antarctica. Worse yet, this station is located on Antarctica's Palmer Peninsula, and the station itself is poorly sited--on the grounds of a major research station and hence subject to the equivalent of urban heat island (UHI) effects.
And with regard to the 'adjusted' data..
I am sorry, but there simply is no way that you can “accidentally” remove all series that show less of an upward trend, and settle for 18 of the most upward trending series (thus raising the warming / century by 3 degrees!). I don’t know how they do things with the GHCN dataset, or who is responsible for this, but just like New Zealand this is pretty damning evidence that all the “adjustments” are done to deliberately corrupt data to cause specific trends.
Starting to look like a conspiracy to me Barry...
Your problem is that you constantly cite that 1,000's of scientists all over the World are coming to the same conclusions and yet you are completely ignoring the fact that there is only a limited amount of researched data available - so if the data is corrupted the mistake (and mistaken conclusions) gets repeated over and over again.
McKitrick's comment above says it all..
I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again.
Bookmarks