Quote:
Originally Posted by GoNative
Sangetsu I reckon I could probably guess the psuedo-science websites you're getting that BS from (it's practically word for word I've seen on some sites). It's the same BS that all denialists circulate over and over again throughout the internet. And for people with no background in science (I guess you have little to none) it's impossible to guage what is right and what is wrong.
In actual fact warming has continued unabated through the naughties with global average temperatures surpassing the average of the 90's significantly. 2010 was the equal warmest year on record globally (equalling that of 2005). 9 of the top 10 warmest years on record were recorded in the 2000's.
State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
You state that not one single climate model has proven accurate. In fact the opposite is true. The latest models have been supprisingly accurate in their forecasts with actual temperatures following the models well. It really depends on what you mean by inaccurate. Will they exactly predict the temperature in years to come? Of course not, hell we can barely forecast weather a few days out with a great deal of accuracy. What they have been pretty good at is showing likely trends. To test accuracy of models they do a thing called hindcasting. This is where they run the model say from 1900 and see how it does against the actual temperature record. If it does pretty well then it is reasonable to have some confidence that it will be somewhat accurate if continued on into the future. The IPCC has used a fair number of models and got a range of expected temperature and sea level rises out to around 2100. So far the actual observed temperatures and sea level rises have been right at the upper end of the forecasts of the models. So if anything the IPCC has probably underestimated and understated the likely effects.
Yes there has been many 100's of millions of dollars put into the science around global warming and guess what? It has had results! We now understand climate and weather far better than we ever did and the fact the mankind is affecting the climate (warming it) through increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is not even debatable anymore. There's virtually no government in the world now that doesn't agree with the scientific concensus on this (especially now that the old mate of the oil industry Bush is out of the picture). You talk about the money involved in research on climate change as though it's a large amount. It is but a small drop in a vast ocean when compared to the money involved in the fossil fuel industries like oil and coal and the downstream industries these support. That's the gravy train that has the most to lose and has been muddying the scientific waters for years with pseudo-science and misinformation (just like the tobacco industry did). |
The data for your article was derived from ground temperature stations, which have long been subject to manipulation. Nearly two years ago Russia filed a formal complaint with the UN stating that IPCC scientists cherry picked temperature data from Russian weather stations, and used data only from stations where increases could be found, and disregarding those with showed neutral or cooler readings.
Look at the GSS satellite record for world temperatures, they are available to the public. The GISS satellites measure temperatures from the upper atmosphere, and are not subject to the same fudging which occurs with readings from ground stations. Look carefully and tell me which way the trend is running. Since 1998 world temperatures have decreased, have they not? And, if temperatures have not increased, where is the global warming? During this time, Co2 levels have increased about 5 parts-per-million. According to the established "science" of the UN, temperatures should have increased, but they haven't, have they?
It was this specific flaw in global warming theory (and it is A "theory") that necessitated the change in terms from "global warming" to "climate change". I don't need to read articles from alarmists or skeptics when I can see the data myself. Just as Bob Dylan said "you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows...".