Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

And I've shown you pictures of where some of these stations are...

 

I know and if you had read my responses you would see I answered that here:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5855086&postcount=1228

 

In Menne's paper he even credits Surface data for raising the issue:

 

"wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations."

 

The conclusion from their analysis is that the poorly sited weather stations exhibit a cooling bias, that when corrected shows more warming than was previously thought. The opposite of Watts's conclusions.

 

So as skeptical science puts it:

 

So the sequence of events is this. Surfacestations.org publishes photos and anecdotal evidence that microsite influences inflate the warming trend but no data analysis to determine whether there's any actual effect on the overall temperature record. Menne 2010 performs data analysis to determine whether there is a warming bias in poorly position weather stations and finds overall, there is actually a cooling bias. Watts responds with another photo and single piece of anecdotal evidence

 

So, so much for integrity or any scientific values.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Looks like NOAA may not have been using as many stations as they could to measure temperature.

 

Source http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

 

These are the weather stations that make up NOAAs GHCN temperature data:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/source-table1.html

 

Many more than the 1,500 claimed.

 

Also from the table there are more than 700 North American sites listed in the NCDC set alone, making the paragraph about there being only 136 bizarre.

 

The article appears to be transparently false, and provides no references to explain where it has its information from. Besides which, one of the key predicates to its argument is refuted by Menne's paper in the post I made above.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Wildcat

[phpnukes]

Wake up the trees and plants and grass give out more CO2. Global warming lets look at waste first.

[cgksheff]

...........

 

A minor mistake, ..........

 

It transpires that it wasn't a mistake.

 

It was knowingly included and some peer challenges prior to publication appear to have been ignored.

[Wildcat]

It transpires that it wasn't a mistake.

 

It was knowingly included and some peer challenges prior to publication appear to have been ignored.

 

You can see from the publically available reviewers comments that one of the reviewers did ask for a reference for the sentence, a comment that was addressed by including a reference to the WWF article.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php

 

The moral to the story is that to be sure of our facts we should restrict ourselves to peer reviewed literature on the topic.

 

See here for another discussion of the topic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html

 

It is a shame the IPCC's critics don't have the same standards of integrity.

[truman]

The American press are catching up...

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

[Wildcat]

The American press are catching up...

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

 

This is about the fourth time someone has posted that link. It is still isn't credible.

 

When I start agreeing with a republican echo chamber, that will be the time I start to think I need to reconsider.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker

[truman]

This is about the fourth time someone has posted that link. It is still isn't credible.

 

 

Why is it not credible?

[Wildcat]

Why is it not credible?

 

Look at posts 1228 and 1246.

 

It is not peer reviewed, the report isn't completed, it makes claims that aren't referenced, the obvious place to look to check its information shows its claims to be false, and the premise on which its argument is based has been shown to be false in the peer reviewed report by Menne.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

 

 

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 

Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

 

Oh dear, looks like the chairman of the IPCC's business grants are under scrutiny.

 

Now the IPCC have admitted their 'mistake' (I wonder if they'd have done this if the mistake hadn't been outed in the blogosphere, the very same blogoshphere that wikicat so readily dismisses), will they be refunding this money?

Edited January 25, 2010 by convert