The intro reads: Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?
This series features Steve McIntyre prominently, and well worth the read. See the series links below:
- Part 1: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
- Part 2: Politically Charged Science
- Part 3: A Climate Rebel Takes on the Establishment
- Part 4: The Smoking Gun of Climatology
- Part 5: The Reality of Rising Sea Levels
- Part 6: The Myth of the Monster Storm
- Part 7: Climate Change’s Winners and Losers
- Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…
A C Osborn,
Jeff ID’s and Lucia’s are skeptical blogs. I highlighted that fact above. It strengthens the result.
I’ve looked at all the analyses I could find.
I don’t think Chiefo’s done a full global analysis of the centennial temperature record with raw data. I have read some of his stuff on raw data for specific locations, but not global and not the centennial record. Please link me up if I’m wrong.
Stephen,
Demonstrating that there was no undue manipulation of the raw data (and the jury is still out on that) doesn’t help in justifying the creation of a hockey stick curve or speculating wildly about the scale of human contributions to a naturally changing climate.
The ‘hockey stick’ refers to paleoclimate reconstructions over centuries using proxy data. The subject I’m talking about is the alleged warm bias in the instrumental record of the last 130/160 years (depending on the surface record being compared).
They are two different things. It appears that you do not understand this, or that you wish to move the goal posts.
The ‘jury’ comprises skeptics and proponents alike and they come to the same conclusion. Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo have not done this necessary number-crunching, yet they have published claims that the global instrumental record is warm biased. That was before others did the work. They, like you, should have reserved judgment – or better yet, done the work themselves.
REPLY: Well unlike you, we at least put our names to our work. I’m never much impressed by lecturing from anonymous cowards. – A
The raw data itself is suspect from UHI and siting issues.
Yes, that’s why they adjust it. As it turns out, the adjusted trend is cooler – maybe they got rid of UHI.
Ref – RockyRoad (08:41:37) :
Enneagram (06:58:19) :
“McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change”
That is pitiful.
———————–
“Only an idiot would not.”
_________________________
Second the motion!
PS: If we’re talking about the Science!!!!! If on the other hand we’re talking about the religion of “Climate Change and Manmade Disaster and the Great Prophet Fat Albert” then I retract my motion.
REPLY: Well unlike you, we at least put our names to our work. I’m never much impressed by lecturing from anonymous cowards. – A
I am never impressed by name-calling.
Putting a name to a bad argument doesn’t make it any better, and a good argument is not compromised by not knowing the identity of the author.
The topic is still there for you to address substantively if you wish.
REPLY: Actually it’s not name calling, its a label that originates from slashdot.org and is used daily for situations such as yourself. Off to the troll bin then. -A