OT: Global warming deniers debunked

There was a discussion some time ago regarding a paper by Spencer and
Braswell that criticized observations of global warming and the theory
behind. Now the editor of "Remote Sensing" responsible for publication of
this paper has resigned because he didn't see the flaws of the paper at the
time he decided to publish it:
"Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim
is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer
review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify
fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many
climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate
pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and
Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely
problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro
and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I
would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a
result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]"
formatting link

Reply to
Han
going on since the ice age. Ant then there is that season that immediately follows winter every year.
What the real confusion here is that global warming enthusiasts/greenies have only considered data that does not include enough information to make a reasonable assumption one way or the others. Two hundred years worth of data is simply not enough to make any type of accurate prediction.
What I find funny is that global warming was not a problem until
a. It became a politically popular topic. b. Al Gore and his types found a way to profit off the "theory". c. Pleasing the greenies by cleaning up the environment has brought global warming to the light of day. Global warming was not a thought in any ones mind prior to laws being passed to clean up the environment.
Reply to
Leon
Can you document that, show with credible evidence that scientists studying climate change haven't looked any further back than 200 years? And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any further back.
If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it?
Assuming that the only people who would be interested in a clean environment would be "greenies" (whatever they are) or other left-wing radicals is an odd way to look at it. From what I've seen Ducks Unlimited isn't a group dominated by raving leftists, and yet they seem to think protecting the environment is a worthwhile goal.
Reply to
DGDevin
I am only using common sense, I am not regurgitating anything that I have heard. Do you personally know of any period prior to 200 years ago when electronic instruments were being use to collect data like it is being collected today? You see 200 years ago most data that was collected was being done so very sporadically and with inconstant results from much more crude mechanical instruments.
Se above, again common sense prevails.
Yeah! Lets let Ducks Unlimited be the "End All" to all the problems in the world.
Reply to
Leon
Let's be fair and report on Roy Spencer's response:
formatting link
, do you know anymore about the actual truth of the matter than you did before writing the above headline?
Reply to
Swingman
Can you document that they have?
The same qualification you ask for below apply to your response, should you deign to give one.
> And no, something you read in a blog or heard on a radio show doesn't > qualify as documentation, what is needed is primary sources like the > authors of a scientific study stating that their data doesn't go any > further back. > > If you cannot demonstrate that this claim is valid, why do you believe it? Ditto ...
Reply to
Swingman
The thermometer dates back to the 16th century and writing has been around for thousands of years, so while it is true that detailed weather record keeping is a more recent state of affairs, that does not mean human observation of weather cannot be trusted more than a couple of hundred years back. There are also other ways to study weather/climate such as examining the growth rings of trees which can tell scientists a great deal about temperature and rainfall in the past. Bones and even fossils can be used as well by showing what kinds of plants and animals lived in various locations, that's how we know that areas that are desert today were once arable. Even archeology can contribute to climate studies, e.g. the remains of what people ate hundreds or thousands of years ago tell us what kind of crops they grew and that certainly tells us about the climate in the area at the time. Consider the clear evidence of what is happening today with species associated with warmer areas moving north and living at higher elevations due to increasing temperatures--you don't need weather records to see that these species are on the move as the climate changes, and thus it is possible to apply that knowledge to the distant past. In other words you do not need detailed records and electronic instruments to figure out what the climate was like in the distant past. *That* is common sense.
See, the way it works in the grownup world is you respond in a rational manner to what someone actually posts rather than making up something silly and responding to that instead. Or not, your choice, and clearly your choice is to sidestep anything that doesn?t agree with your views.
Reply to
DGDevin
Scientists can tell us what the climate was like thousands of years ago in parts of the world that today are deserts, for example by the remains of the plants and animals that lived there including human beings who grew crops where today that would be impossible without irrigation. How do you suppose they do that without detailed records made with electronic instruments? Is it *really* so hard to figure out that they have other methods of determining such things? If scientists haven't studied climate changes throughout and prior to human history, how come you can go down to the library and read books about them doing exactly that? If as Leon claims scientists haven't looked at climate past 200 years, how they they do things like this?
formatting link
cores, growth rings in trees, sediments in oceans and lakes, preserved remains of plants and animals including those in human settlements--who could have guessed such things existed and have been used to study climate going back hundreds of thousands of years, what a revelation.
Seriously, when did ignorance become the preferred state for so many people?
Reply to
DGDevin
The paper under question deals with the correlation (actually the lack thereof) of recent satellite temperature monitoring results, with computer climate model methods, using data from both between 2000 to 2010 ... NOT with tree rings, or any other form of attempts to interpolate temperature reading when temperature recording devices were unknown.
The latter is nothing more than a red herring rabbit trail ...
Reply to
Swingman
Anybody lives close to Leon? Buy that man as many draught beers as he's likely to consume in a sitting and send me the bill.
Because that is SPOT on.....
Reply to
Robatoy
WRECK only
P.S: A copy of Ian Pilmer's book, _Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_ is on its way to me. It contains 2300 footnotes to peer-reviewed papers.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Reply to
Larry Jaques
Don't just quote lies, sTwo, go hither onto the Internet and read the real background on Algore's book/movie farce. It shows that the researcher he used grabbed (supposedly at random) 90 out of 900 papers on the subject and most 'just happened to be' alarming. Now research the other papers and find that there are a whole lot of ifs in there and a whole lot of deniers, not just alarmists. Feh!
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Reply to
Larry Jaques
Don't just quote lies, sTwo, go hither onto the Internet and read the real background on Algore's book/movie farce. It shows that the researcher he used grabbed (supposedly at random) 90 out of 900 papers on the subject and most 'just happened to be' alarming. Now research the other papers and find that there are a whole lot of ifs in there and a whole lot of deniers, not just alarmists. Feh!
Then there was the "hockey stick" stuff in that whole conversation.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Reply to
Tom B
In article ,
Which of course is completely different from what we are talking about, what impacts on climate change of any sort and, even more important, how man could change it. That is the current point of the debate, not what is happening, but whether it is man-made or naturally occurring or some combination of both.
I
Again, largely shows us the what, but not the why. (Although ice cores may be most helpful in this manner since they show precipitation and thus atmospheric conditions.
Reply to
Kurt Ullman
In article ,
And we can't use computer generated models to forecast tax receipts, the economy, or even the Super Bowl winner. Most systems are too complex to be modeled accurately, but that never stops anyone from trying and pretending the models actually mean something.
Reply to
Kurt Ullman
Robatoy wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
Sorry, nonsense. With all due respect for both Leon and Rob, all available data indicates that manmade greenhouse gases contribute to the warming of the earth, globally and averaged, over sites and time (i.e. 3- dimensional averaging and drawing a line that is an average of several years, following that with time. The fatc that global warming has happened since the last iceage is correct and irrelevant. The superimposition of the manmade components has added an order or two of magnitude to the rate of increasing temperature. We can fight and discuss all we want, the proof of the hotsoup will be there in another 35, 50 or 100 years. But then my teeth won't hurt me no more, and it will be a problem for the Chinese or the Arabs (no discriminatory intent, just a semi-educated guess at who will be in power by then, the US having selfdestructed much, much faster than the Romans).
Reply to
Han

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.