In article ,
Unfortunately the two other databases cited used the UK database for
"calibration" it was the master. The space instruments were all
calibrated on the East Anglia data and unedited data from East Anglia is
Reminds me of the situation where everyone was sure that power lines
caused cancer. The study was very clear on that. Scientist all agreed
the data presented showed it. Three different databases all came to the
same answer. They were all calibrated from the same (altered) baseline.
The author of the cancer study should be getting out of prison about
now. He "cleaned up" the data to make it easier for others to see the
link between cancer and power lines.
While I think there are things going on with the climate, I am
scientifically literate enough to know that if the calibration data set
is altered, all the others are...
Think of it this way - cut one stud 1 inch short without noticing (we
will call this the calibration stud) and mark all the others with that
stud. No matter what you do, if you use that calibrated stud to cut the
rest they will also all be 1 inch too short.
"Intelligent"? Too bad that the clearly stated basic premise of this
"opinion" piece (when they finally get to it) just happens to be
misleading spin: "Doubters insist that the Earth is not warming."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What "doubters" are insisting is that politics and science do not mix,
and any result that mix is to be viewed with suspicion.
There is simply too much that is "non-scientific" between the data and
the conclusions that fosters "doubt" in the minds of those of us who
have had at least a modicum of training in scientific method.
"Doubters" DO believe that it is this unresolved "doubt" that exists,
possibly in either direction, which makes it imprudent as a basis for
proposed massive government intervention.
Not to mention, IMNSHO, that a warm bucket of spit has more currency
than any "opinion" piece from the LA Times, fercrissakes!
"And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed
anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced
and discussed both papers."
The "facts" are that the modeling data, which was the basis of the above
statement, appears to have been destroyed/"misplaced", making peer
review, if not impossible, too difficult to pursue.
This is very dubious "scientific method", and invites suspicion and doubt.
Are they that sloppy in their scientific method? Or do they have
something to hide?
Come now, if they can't do a better job than this, "respect" does enter
into the discussion.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! ?Prediction
is very difficult ? especially if it is about the future.? - Niels
When you by them books and they eat the covers............
ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into
the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release
about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the
atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the
sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller
than the sources from human activity."
So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on
an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's
an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually
and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what
that volume of co2 is.
Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5
atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human
contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X 2000 lb/
ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =3D
7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And
Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to
our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. Try to wrap
your head around it, kay?
I will be back with more.
Whoops! pv=3D nrt. Forgot to factor in the 0.5 atm. Double that
Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really