World may not be warming, say scientists

[OnePimpTiger]

There are just too many "global warming" stories today...have to post another:

World may not be warming, say scientists

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.

[OnePimpTiger]

Instead of a new thread (we'll run out of space if we give every "global warming" blunder it's own), I'll just add this to this one:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon...

...He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

[drtom2005]

Instead of a new thread (we'll run out of space if we give every "global warming" blunder it's own), I'll just add this to this one:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Once again OPT, you missed his rebuttal. How long is 15 years out 4.5 billion? Just wondering. These critics do not look at past extinction events. They do not look at past CO2 levels which lead to several of these extinction events. I also like the idea that scientists are debating the last 15 years data means global warming is not true. What happened to the past 250 years since the industrial revolution? Are we just going to throw this out too? I am specifically asking you to find the data that disproves the past extinction events and the upward trend for the last 250 years in total. I will not make a sample error.

[OnePimpTiger]

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Well, there's the last 150 years...that's a good start, right?

And as I said in the other thread, you missed the point entirely. But you do bring up a good point...what is 15 years in 4.5 billion? And to answer your question with a question: What is 250 years in 4.5 billion? I'm sure you know the Earth's temperature is in an almost constant state of flux, from ice ages to warming spells that have cycled for 4.5 billion years. I also like the idea that scientists are debating the last 250 years data means global warming is true.

[drtom2005]

Well, there's the last 150 years...that's a good start, right?

And as I said in the other thread, you missed the point entirely. But you do bring up a good point...what is 15 years in 4.5 billion? And to answer your question with a question: What is 250 years in 4.5 billion? I'm sure you know the Earth's temperature is in an almost constant state of flux, from ice ages to warming spells that have cycled for 4.5 billion years. I also like the idea that scientists are debating the last 250 years data means global warming is true.

And my whole point in this debate is where is the opposing data? The people who state global warming is not real, do not have an opposing hypothesis.

If they want to be taken seriously, they will present their data and will allow it to be evaluated. The fact that scientists are debating this shows the science process. Data comes up and people debate.

They have no data to support their view. They are ignoring other data such as the geological record, other planets in the solar system, coral bleaching and on and on.

They have to explain how the medieval warm period relates to recent time. If they can not make the correlation, then they have nothing to support their view.

When we have debate before, my whole point has been there is no data to support the current trend as a natural cycle of the earth.

If their point is valid, they will present their data. They will not just criticize other's data. It should be easy for them.

Belief without data in science is useless and nothing more.

[OnePimpTiger]

So corrupted, forged, and falsified data provided by liberal think tanks, students, and local anecdotes is better than nothing? Actually, I guess that is the way it goes in this argument.

I don't care if there's not another science-based, factually formed hypothesis on the face of the Earth (although there are, plenty, despite your ignoring them), I still want to know the "global warming" hypothesis is true before throwing billions of dollars at it. And right now, no matter how many times the media and pseudo-scientists try to say otherwise, we do not know it is true.

[drtom2005]

So corrupted, forged, and falsified data provided by liberal think tanks, students, and local anecdotes is better than nothing? Actually, I guess that is the way it goes in this argument.

First of all this has nothing to with liberals. I do not like the fact that you equate this with liberals. Second, I want their data. Where is it? Since the last time, I have been looking for it. The only articles global warming deniers publish are critical of the opposition's data. Nothing more. Bring your own data to the table to be discussed.

I want them to explain all the things I have mention within their hypothesis. They have yet to do it. Once they do, I will listen.

If the current data is incorrect, it should be easy for them to falsify it with their own hypothesis. Bring on the hypothesis. Scientifc method man.

[drtom2005]

By the way, this debate does not "shatter" my worldview. It only makes it stronger. Science corrects itself with time. It gets stronger. It admits it is wrong. There is nothing more satisfing then getting disproven. This is what you do not understand about me. I want to know if I am wrong so I can correct past mistakes.

[OnePimpTiger]

First of all this has nothing to with liberals. I do not like the fact that you equate this with liberals.

But this does have to do with liberal think tanks, if you'll read up on AfricaGate:

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Some of the main information pushed as proof of "global warming" was actually propaganda from a liberal think tank. I'm doing nothing but stating facts.

Second, I want their data. Where is it? Since the last time, I have been looking for it. The only articles global warming deniers publish are critical of the opposition's data. Nothing more. Bring your own data to the table to be discussed.

I want them to explain all the things I have mention within their hypothesis. They have yet to do it. Once they do, I will listen.

Read the studies...they're out there. But, again, you miss the point. "Global warming" proponents are making the claims, they are the ones who need to provide proof...and all of that "proof" is turning out to be lies and errors. What does that do to their claim? It means it isn't proved...other hypotheses aren't proved yet either, but just because they aren't proved doesn't mean "global warming" is.


One of the main "global warming" research centers had tons of temperature data. They applied their model formula to the data, which gave them numbers they put in numerous reports, "proving" "global warming." Then they deleted the raw data. "Scientists" applied a model before it was proved, then DELETED the raw data so, even if they discover their model is wrong or need to tweak it, they can't because the model numbers are all they have now. A simple question: Is that the kind of "true science" you support? That's where your "proof" of "global warming" comes from...sorry if I don't accept that as fact.

[OnePimpTiger]

By the way, this debate does not "shatter" my worldview. It only makes it stronger. Science corrects itself with time. It gets stronger. It admits it is wrong. There is nothing more satisfing then getting disproven. This is what you do not understand about me. I want to know if I am wrong so I can correct past mistakes.

So errors, lies, misrepresentations, and the like make your beliefs stronger? Sounds about right, very scientific of you.