It is a credit to NASA and the scientists around the world that we now have at our disposal a huge amount of scientific evidence that proves AGW. I too would prefer it wasn’t true - but the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Thanks for the links Warwick. It's interesting to note that 66% of said scientists have no position on Anthropological Global Warming (AGW), and 33% (rounded up) endorsed it. NASA is the organisation that has amongst its members Michael Mann, whose 'hockey stick' graph has been the subject of much controversy: Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia Scientists the world over will seek funding for their work, and most of that funding comes from government sources. If you cannot provide data that can support government policies, then the possibility exists that funding will be sparse - or denied. That: 97% of scientists are shown to support a consensus position on AGW has to be looked at with caution. That appears to me to be 97% of the 32% who support it. One has to be very careful about reading these percentages when researching opinion and the reading of data. Questioning the data source is important - how valid is it? Figure 2 in section 3.2 at https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta shows two graphs with those endorsing AGW; No position on AGW, and Rejecting AGW. The number of self rated papers published since 1995 has increased - as one might expect when the subject of AGW became politically 'hot' (no pun intended), yet the number of positions on endorsing AGW has dropped since 1995, and the number of positions with no position has increased. This does not indicate a consensus, as consensus means 100% confirmed, not 66%, nor 32%. There may be one reason why the data scientists use regarding global temperatures can be misleading. Look at the number of monitoring stations - those that supply the temperature and other data - around the world: Graph of Number of Stations vs Temperature It will be seen that since 1990 the number of land based stations dropped dramatically. Those stations removed would be those that were the most remote, and therefore expensive to service and maintain. These have been shown to be those in the coldest wilds of the world. Removing those data providing stations would immediately show fewer cold readings, and therefore give the appearance of overall warming on the overall averages. However, since around the 1990's we have had satellite readings that should have negated the loss of land based stations, and the data from the satellites should be more accurate and consistent with reality, but there has been suggestions (I don't have the references to hand) that said satellite data had been compromised at some point through mis-programming, and showed a higher temperature than reality. Again, this is controversial stuff. In the same website referred to in paragraph 2 above, section 4.1 is headed "Sources of uncertainty", and section 5 - "Conclusion". In the first paragraph of conclusion is the telling statement; - "The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011) [My emphasis in bold]. However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012)." We also need to look at the claimed increase in temperatures that alleged AGW has given us; from 0.5°C to 0.8°C over 150 years. (The IPCC computer modelling showed increases of 2°C or more. These have been discredited as fallible, as computer models forecasting such events are seen to be inaccurate). Our current bedroom temperature overnight varies between 20.1°C around 9pm, and 19.4°C at 6am - no central heating, no thermostatic control of any kind, just the influence of the outside temperature, tempered by the thickness of the walls. Outside it may be 4°C or 10°C. How much do we notice of the difference between 19.4 and 20.1? None at all. That's 0.7°C difference going unnoticed. It must also be remembered, that; a) the globe has had an average temperature far higher millenia ago than we have today, the British Isles were at one time beneath a tropical sea, and there was no anthropological presence during those times. b) That the globe has had ice age periods too, and that we are at this point in time still coming out of the last ice age event - the mini-ice age of the 1600's. Mankind did not induce that particular ice age, nor has it been convincingly proven that we have "warmed the globe" all by ourselves. There has also been recorded an increase on the surface of Mars since such records had begun. Don't think there's anyone living there. Furthermore, the Hockey stick chart so loved and used by Al Gore, shows us (according to him) that CO2 has caused the "runaway" global warming. This ignores the fact that CO2 levels do not precede warming, but are caused by the increase in temperatures driven by Solar radiation, which enhances water vapour content, and CO2 content of the atmposphere as the Seas and Oceans warm and release CO2. A result of warming, not the cause. THE main driver of global temperature is the SUN. No Sun - we freeze to death. Data, can be cherry picked to show anything. It can also be manipulated - weighted - to enhance a desired result. On that I will agree. We are less than rasins in the Sun. If we think we can control global climate, we are fools to boot. Though there are those who would wish to weaponise such a device if it could control weather (some will claim HAARP is of that nature), of that there is some certainty. HAARP: Secret Weapon Used For Weather Modification, Electromagnetic Warfare - Global Research It claims the facility was closed down in 2014. As a 'military' establishment, that might be questionable. I'm off to chop some more wood. That will warm me up!
Derek You have every right to believe what you want. But you are (and have been) behaving like a troll, dropping in on otherwise pleasant conversations to prosthetise your views. Climate science is something I know a little bit about: I’ve headed two major Antarctic, Southern Ocean, climate science and marine science research organisations in Australia over the last two decades. And I’ve worked with honest, hardworking scientists from around the world. Your comments about those good people are frankly offensive. Please don’t get on your high horse and attempt to categorise me. I’ve stood up in public and defended the right of people like yourself to participate in public discourse on these matters. Even after your very own Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, publicly demand my sacking, I publicly defended his right to speak on campus. I’ve been loath to get involved in these threads you bomb in on, but your comments above are gratuitous and insulting. Tony
Wow. Lots of information there. I'm not a particularly fast reader, so it could take me some time to absorb it all. Henry.
Tony, I'm sorry you wish to categorise me as a 'Troll', I am not that. Most trolls will simply add a few lines of comment repeatedly against the mainstream viewpoint with a deliberate desire to antagonise. Any one can do the research and find as I have done, what is believed is entirely up to the individual. As it is, so many people have been taken in by the CO2 caused warming bandwagon that all I wished to do was show another facet. If this marks me as a troll, I will cease further comment, but I would ask you point out where any of the comments I have made in the past are offensive and insulting.
I should make this my final comment on global climate even though I stated I would make no further comment - so I'm a hipocrite as well as a 'troll'. The subject and its beliefs are complex, and whilst I have been accused of "bombing" the thread with information, how does one determine a valid point of view without information? There is an awful lot of information available to anyone who has access to a computer, and errors can be made in taking one side or another in any climate debate depending on what bias an individual has from the start, especially if they start without some background in science. What better then, to listen to those who DO hold decades of experience. These two short videos give some indication from two eminently better qualified men than I. Patrick Moore is the co-founder of Greenpeace, and Dr. Patrick Michaels, the director of the Centre for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Duration 20mins. Duration 14 mins.
Centre for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. It would appear that adding the word "science" to the title of a company is designed to add some weight to its position. Please research this company yourself. Warwick
