Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
Agreed, sciences vs cartoons isn't going to do it. Time for another blog or something. How about ... it was colder today in Ottawa than it was yesterday? There's a start.
Oh ... Looksie. I'm a skeptic and I can roll my eyes when I make things up.  . Well young skeptic ... you are just plain ..... WRONG! 
Data is discussed in chapter 2 of the report which is linked in my previous post.
And looksie here. They're even saying that the data is available to save the hacking trouble. 
And what's this? More data? What's going on? Loads and loads of it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Surely there must be ample here to make a strong argument against the science ........ or at the very least come up with a witty cartoon or two or a decent blog.
Have at er ...
and Photon ... you beat me to it with the 95% of the data being available.
Told you this was just like the creationist/evolution debate. I've linked years and years of data, CRU has always had their data available. But the crucial missing link is the 5% that hasn't been released yet.
Yet there is zero evidence of one credible criticism using the data that has been available from all corners of the globe for years. |
Check the references on the actual study! Well....lookie, lookie.
IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IPICS 2008. International Partnerships in Ice Core Sciences - white papers. In: Wolff E, Brook E (eds).
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/ipics/steeringcommittee.html.
MANN, M. E. and JONES, P.D. 2003. Global surface temperatures over the past two
millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30, doi: 10.129/2003GL017814.
JONES, P.D. 1995. Recent variations in mean temperature and the diurnal
temperature range in the Antarctic, Geophysics Research Letters, 22 [11], 1345-
1348.
Sheesh...
Maybe Mann and Jones peer-reviewed themselves on this study?
So far from you we have gotten basically
1. Your science sucks
2. You don't know anything
3. Check the real science out
without even considering what we are saying. That data from the CRU has shown that Phil Jones(about to be investigated) and Michael Mann(under investigation) and those that work for them have, at best, been very incompetent, dishonest and unethical. At worst, they have committed fraud, fixed data to torque the results to get huge grants (95 billion!). When you lose Monbiot as a booster for the 2 biggest proponents of the AGW theory.....and saying what I have just typed. What do you have left?
AGW
theory has to be considered very suspect. Until more and better evidence is presented showing something to the contrary, the Earth has warmed due to natural phenomena and committing trillions to to combating AGW is idiotic.