Ladies & Gentleman, if you'll excuse me while I quote at length from Dr Vincent Gray (emphasis mine):
"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition."Further on
"To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.You know, all that "good science" malarkey....
This claim fails from two fundamental facts
1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.
...
2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected""
"The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures."This is so unbelievably awesome. Know why?? Because it's not me saying it!! It's from a scientist who worked in the heart of the organisation that is propagandizing this ridiculous idea every. freaking. globally warming. day. To finish off:
"The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case."Read the whole thing. (h/t Five Feet of Fury)
Let me conclude by responding to a comment in a previous thread. It is not for ME TO PROVE that Anthropogenic Global Warming IS NOT happening. It is up to the various government and non-governmental agencies who want to take my money and liberties to PROVE TO ME that it's happening, beyond reasonable doubt. And after this, their case is not looking good...
4 comments:
It's CO2! Leave the 0 out of it!
OK, I may have misspelt the ol' CO2, although you are the only one that has noticed, but is that all ya got? It was you I was talking about in the post...
Oh, I got it. 'Cause it's your dog! Thanks, Jack. Next time be more bleeding obvious for me!
I am the ONLY person reading this, you know. I'm sure Nathan just stumbled in by accident and surely not everyone you know is so spineless as to not be able to post ONE SINGLE COMMENT! Maybe you should get out more. Get some new friends. Remember, bring your friends to Azeroth, but go outside with them too!
Ok, I have some issues here.
Firstly, it's rubbish that noone has EVER made average temperature measurements of ANY PART of the Earth's surface. There is just so much wrong with that comment that I'm quite surprised you stooped so low as to make it part of your argument. With a bit of reasoning, "average" can become a feature of daily/ weekly/ monthly/ annual maximum or minimum temperatures and the same purpose is still served for the sake of statistical purposes. C'mon Jack. You're better than this.
Next, measurements are made mostly near urban settlements. Yes. Agreed. What's the population increase in recent years and where are all these people living? The vast growth of people is in the ever expanding settled areas. So, in claiming this bias, he ignores the fact that the urban areas are increasingly growing throughout the world. But let's look at somewhere away from those mean house-builders.
I would like to direct you to this website www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av. This site shows climate averages for a place called Davis in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Check the place out on Google Earth and see the impact of urbanisation on it (for those who don't want to, the place is a base on the Antarctic Coast with not much around but penguins - those pesky, urbanising penguins!). I only flicked through the graphs since 2000, but overwhelming it seemed the recorded temperatures were above the averages line. I will happily stand corrected if you do the stats on them. And show me, of course!
I have this other thing that leads me towards believing in the Warming. Glaciers. Ever been to one? And back again a few years later? Are all those photos we see everywhere faked (like the moon landing)? Whilst I have not directly observed the large scale retreat of a glacier with my own two eyes, I have been convinced by some measurements I once made (ok, now everyone knows who I am. Luckily it's only you and me here!) and in the stories I have heard both in Antarctica and New Zealand and probably from some crazy Canucks too.
You know what? I also believe in the Cooling. You know why? It's called natural history. It's also called the Milankovitch Cycle. It's also called the carbon cycle. Geologists and climatologists have mapped through the ages the changes in naturally occurring isotopes and determined that warm and cool periods are the norm and the planet has techniques for dealing with them. Simply, as the planet gets more CO2, the icecaps melt, more land becomes arable and vegetation expands as do the oceans. Eventually, tipping point is reached and heat is leached out and cooling begins and many things freeze and die. It's only natural (that I should want to be here with you - sorry, sidetracked!). Should the Earth suffer a cataclysmic volcano eruption, meteorite or massive bushfires, yes, the Earth will cool. But to believe that the massive amounts of CO2 that humans disgorge into the atmosphere through human industry are having no impact on the planet is simply doing your best emu impersonation. Exactly what impact it is happening, the models will never tell us because it is impossible to account for all the variables. That's what models are there for - to model. If they were real then ... they'd be the reality! We don't have the computing power for that yet. Instead, we should CONSIDER what we might be doing and if we could do things better. I believe we can. And I don't like Kevin Rudd.
Post a Comment