.
.
.
Posted on 02/13/2010 3:38:39 PM PST by annalex
[...]
“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 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.
[...]
a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
IOWs the Greenhouse Theory itself is based on entirely erroneous assumptions
and ignores a plethora of other mechanisms of heat transference on the planet.
How did you like this gem: "His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted".
The fact that someone collected warming data on airliner exhaust requires a peer review?
.
.
.
Who are you going to believe: A few academics with expertise in the field, or a politician with a Nobel Prize and a financial interest in selling the global warming story?
Guys...
width=600 is a good idea in an IMG tag.
That creep is fat enough without 1124 x 1440 magnification.
great point. you should reply to that commenter who demanded peer review & tell him what for, to check & see if the photos are photoshopped?!!
I can’t believe that one slipped by me. It just goes to show these premises are slipping by us all the time, as long as we are taking in the left’s media (and the times is Newscorp, same as FNC)
If the temperature sensors in thousands of weather stations are systematically wrong, then these people aren’t scientists at all. They are complete bozos who should find new careers.
The way these scientists manipulated the data they could have just as easily proven that the globe was cooling and it was caused by too much conservation of energy and therefore man has to use more fossil fuels so that the globe will warm up.
However, their whole goal is to make everyone equally poor (except the elitists). Why should the most productive, talented group of people who have taken the risk to develop and produce goods and services be unwilling to turn their profits over to those who just consume.
I think they got confused. After all, fauxteaux synthesis is not the same thing and they have been caught at that a couple of times...
“failed science class”
and divinity, and english, and logic, and...
oprah: “what’s your favorite cereal?”
algore: “i don’t have time to watch serials”
Yeah. With that 5C-6C degree rise in temperature, I’m sure the scientists in Antarctica will be so glad they can finally have that beach party they always wanted./s
They’re wrong if they aren’t telling you what the truth is. I find it difficult to believe that they are as you say all placed “strategically” when its more likely that they were all placed in spots that were chosen by their owners for whatever purpose instead of these so-called climate researchers, who apparently only just figured out that the placement of the sensors might introduce some bias into their huge database of data.
“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”
Five inches? Prove it! As for the arctic sea ice,
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
It’s just a little low. Interesting that the average arctic ice drops just a little as global temperatures fell from 2001 until now. But the drop is nowhere near 40%!
A different view:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
The fluctuations, for you Warmists lurking here, are called “seasons”.
There is some indication that, if sensors position were not explicitly chosen, which sensors are used in their models were “cherrypicked”.
Like Mann using ONE siberian tree for his treering data because it fit his model the best. Reasonable researchers would have RSSed or averaged many tree’s ring patterns and reported what the results were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
