back to article Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees

The UK's Parliamentary climate change select committee has just issued a written endorsement of the latest, alarmist UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. However, two MPs - the two most scientifically qualified on the committee - have strongly disagreed with this position. The IPCC's latest AR5 report …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Ragarath

    No Surprise

    I'm still waiting for the people with the supposed knowledge to come to some consensus as to what is really happening.

    Being a layman I am not qualified myself to speculate only to back those that seem to present what to me appears to be happening around me. At the moment I am with the sceptics.

    But with all the hoo har about numbers being fudged on both sides of the debate who are we laymen supposed to believe?

    1. Pete 2 Silver badge

      Tax attacks

      > some consensus as to what is really happening.

      What is really happening is that the government has identified a "thing" that the general public believe in and that they believe it is a bad thing -- one that should be stopped.

      In other words, reducing carbon emissions is not only popular but taxable too - as british governments only know one way to curb "bad" behaviour: booze, ciggies, CO2: and that's to tax it.

      If that new revenue stream just happens to avert a global crisis while raising loads-a-lolly? So much the better, they can take full credit for that, as well

      1. DJV Silver badge
        Unhappy

        @Pete 2

        "What is really happening is that the government has identified a "thing" that the general public believe in and that they believe it is a bad thing -- one that should be stopped."

        I have identified a "thing". It is called the government and, over recent studies, I have determined that it is definitely a bad thing. Question is - can it be stopped?

      2. Charles Manning

        Re: Tax attacks

        Even better:

        CO2 is invisible, no taste, no smell and can't be touched, felt or measured except with specialised equipment and everyone emits it as part of daily life.

        This is almost like a "sin tax" of old.

        1. dan1980

          Re: Tax attacks

          @Charles Manning

          You need 'specialised equipment' to measure many things - resistance, current, temperature, electromagnetic radiation, humidity, seismic activity - so what?

          You can measure the levels of CO2 yourself and consumer-level equipment isn't expensive at all - $200 USD or there abouts. As with most measurement devices, you can get cheap ones for casual use and super-expensive, super-precise ones for professional and academic use.

          All the things mentioned above are not evident to humans at small magnitudes, just like CO2, but one can still measure them with the appropriate instruments.

          Sure, you can feel temperature but you can't detect a 0.1 degree change unless you use a suitably accurate thermometer. Likewise seismic activity, which occurs near-constantly but goes unnoticed except by the 'specialised equipment'.

          CO2 is no different. If you think you can't 'feel' CO2, you may be right depending on your definition of 'feel', but you can certainly feel the effects at high enough concentrations. Try breathing in the fumes from dry ice. Not toxic, but can give you a big headache.

      3. RealFred

        Re: Tax attacks

        Its not only the British government that behaves like this, its all governments. They need more money to fund their social programs. I have started researching agenda 21 and I'm starting to think thats their endgame.

      4. Fluffy Bunny
        Angel

        Re: Tax attacks

        "If that new revenue stream just happens to avert a global crisis while raising loads-a-lolly? So much the better, they can take full credit for that, as well"

        Actually, if you averted a global crisis, it would be a bad thing. You would have to stop taxing people. However, if nothing happened and the crisis could be extended indefinitely, you could tax people forever. Much like is happening today.

        1. Jtom Bronze badge

          Re: Tax attacks

          There is a published, peer-reviewed paper that examines the impact of temperture change and CO2 sensitivity on crops. This is their result:

          No temp change + no CO2 change = unchanged crop yields (baseline)

          No temp change + increased CO2 = much higher crop yields

          Higher temps + increased CO2 = unchanged to higher crop yields

          Higher temps + no CO2 change = reduced crop yields

          So, what will the result be if we reduce the CO2, and the higher temps have actually been caused by other natural variations (e.g., El Ninos)? Potentially, mass starvation due to declining crop yields.

          Just be aware that there are serious consequences if any part of the AGW theory is wrong and we take action based on it.

    2. plrndl

      Re: No Surprise

      "I'm still waiting for the people with the supposed knowledge to come to some consensus as to what is really happening."

      One of the major problems with "climate science" is that there's no such thing. The drivers of climate that we know about cover a great many different disciplines. There could be many other that we don't even know about, other “butterfly in Beijing” effects.

      1. Raoul Miller

        Re: No Surprise

        The fact that "you" don't know is not the same as the scientific community.

        And I think the committee that awarded my PhD in Palaeoclimatology might be surprised to hear that there is no such thing as climate science.

        Your ignorance does not equate to the scientific community's ignorance.

        1. you are idiots
          Happy

          Re: No Surprise

          goody an expert!.

          Can you explain how you separate the all variables (rainfall, amount of light, sheep piss, to name just some) in tree growth to make them accurate thermometers?

          Was the temperature warmer than now in the past and relationship to Co2?

          how many cyclic patterns have been identified (sun, water, orbit, sun spots etc)?

          1. Mike 137

            Re: No Surprise

            I spent a few years working on this (blind denoising of tree ring width series) in the '90s. The only moderately reliable first order separation was between signal components common to multiple concurrent series from a specific site and signals uniquely present in individual series. The assumption on which my work was based was that individual variation is less likely to be driven by a common influence, so removal of individual variation should leave a better approximation to the common signal indicating the common influence.

            Admittedly this is a fairly loose argument, but my work did show fairly conclusively that high frequency components tend to be local to individual series and low frequency components have a better chance of being common to all the series. Unfortunately, the then (and I believe still) common practice of "detrending" by normalising each individual series to its own low frequency spline before any analysis tends to mask the lower frequency components that might be some of the most interesting in terms of climate change.

            However tree rings are not alone in providing rather tenuous and noisy signals. All currently used climate proxies suffer from this, each in their own way, so using them has to be done with a great deal of caution.

        2. Pete 2 Silver badge

          Re: No Surprise

          > there is no such thing as climate science

          You'd be surprised how many people study things that don't exist.

          For a start: philosophy. You can't point to it or observe any side-effects of its existence (or not, he said - getting all philosophical). Art is another one that exists only in the mind of the individual, yet everyone has an opinion of it and lots and lots (too many?) of degrees are awarded in it every year,

          Finally, there's history: which the renowned (and gorgeous) tudor historian Suzannah Lipscomb has gone on telly to tell us is: "the study of something that doesn't exist"

          So simply because something doesn't exist is no reason why people shouldn't dedicate their lives (and lots of other people's money) to its' study. After all, if something doesn't exist; nothing you say about it can be wrong, can it?

          1. Fluffy Bunny
            Angel

            Re: No Surprise

            history: Terry Pratchet noted that without historians, history would simply consist of one thing happening after another.

          2. kwyj

            No history?

            "Finally, there's history"

            What do you mean history doesn't exist? Of course it does. Without our study of history, how else can you explain our detailed knowledge of the Starks, Lannisters, Baratheons etc.? We know so much about them that there's even a documentary on TV about them. (and don't get me started on that evil little Joffrey bastard.......)

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: No Surprise

            ooo, Suzannah Lipscomb. I had to Google her. And it was worth it, thanks.

            Alas it also came back with results for that reknowned nob head David Starkey. But I just hissed at his pictures and went back to Suzannah. Ahh, bliss.

            Thanks!!!

        3. RealFred

          Re: No Surprise

          RM,

          What, you can get one of those. One of my friends who has one says it stands for piled higher and deeper.

        4. Tom 13

          Re: No Surprise

          Please provide links to your alma mater, your actual PhD, your thesis, and the names of all the people on the committee who granted your degree.

      2. ItsNotMe
        FAIL

        "One of the major problems with "climate science" is that there's no such thing."

        @plrndl...another "expert" heard from...NOT.

        Really? So my brother and sister-in-law...who both have PhDs in Climatology...and my sister-in-law runs a world renown University laboratory that analyzes ice cores to study climate change...aren't in "climate science". Right.

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climatology

        1. Fluffy Bunny
          Devil

          Re: "One of the major problems with "climate science" is that there's no such thing."

          "brother and sister-in-law...who both have PhDs in Climatology" You can get a degree in something without it being a science. At best climatology is a half science.

          You can observe the climate to death, take all the measurements you want, predict whatever you like. But at some stage you have to be able to conduct an actual experiment. A repeatable experiment, and this can't be done with a single planet's climate.

        2. James Pickett

          Re: "One of the major problems with "climate science" is that there's no such thing."

          "a world renown[ed] University laboratory that analyzes ice cores"

          Would those be the ice cores that show CO2 as an effect of warming rather than the cause? I seem to recall Al Gore glossing over that one...

    3. Raoul Miller

      Re: No Surprise

      We (the scientific community) came to consensus decades ago.

      People like you don't want to hear it because it may cause some minor inconvenience to your lifestyle. Don't pretend to be skeptical for any other reason than convenience.

      1. Killing Time

        Re: No Surprise

        RE RM

        I agree us mere ignoramuses shouldn't make sweeping comments regarding the sum of scientific knowledge however it’s fascinating that you feel compelled to comment on behalf of ‘the scientific community’. I always understood science to be a continually evolving debate with fact being established through experimentation and prediction. Even then, it’s a case of test and retest.

        I am sure you worked very hard for your PhD in Palaeoclimatology, as no doubt did the committee which awarded it to you however I think it’s a valid point that without an issue such as Global Warming ( I have deliberately dropped the ‘man made’ as everybody else does now), your area of expertise becomes a tad less attractive to scientific funding.

      2. Shaha Alam

        Re: No Surprise

        "We (the scientific community) came to consensus decades ago."

        i might've missed something in the conversation, but if, as the article states:

        "About one third of all the CO2 emitted by mankind since the industrial revolution has been put into the atmosphere since 1997; yet there has been no statistically significant increase in the mean global temperature since then,"

        ...then surely the decades old 'consensus' is out of date, no?

        am i missing something obvious here?

        1. Jabberwolf

          Re: No Surprise

          Nope, you sir actually read the article.

          The main basis of climate change argument is that CO2 emissions have increased thus global temperatures will directly increase because of this. They dont take into account (or maybe not until recently) any other variables that might be dissipating the excess energy. They don't even take into account the massive temperature increase we should be experiencing with methane increases.

          That basically, the argument of CO2 should be increasing temperatures is valid, the amount that temperatures have increased is very small and seems not to be corroborated by the amount of CO2 that has been put into the atmosphere.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: No Surprise

            "the argument of CO2 should be increasing temperatures is valid, the amount that temperatures have increased is very small and seems not to be corroborated by the amount of CO2 that has been put into the atmosphere."

            Your information is out of date. We now know that a lot of heat has been going into the deep oceans - and that average surface temperatures have risen more than orignally thought as some arctic measurements were not included.

            "Coming back to the global temperature record: the past decade is by far the warmest on record. Human induced global warming really kicked in during the 1970s, and warming has been pretty steady since then. But while the overall warming is about 0.16°C per decade, there are 3 10-year periods where there was a hiatus in warming. From 1977 to 1986, from 1987 to 1996, and from 2001-2012. But at each end of these periods there were big jumps. We find exactly the same sort of flat periods in climate model projections, lasting easily up to 15years in length. Focusing on the wiggles and ignoring the bigger picture of unabated warming is foolhardy, but one promoted by climate change deniers. Global sea level keeps marching up at a rate of over 30 cm per century since 1992 (when global measurements via altimetry on satellites were made possible), and that is perhaps a better indicator that global warming continues unabated. Sea level rise comes from both the melting of land ice, thus adding more water to the ocean, plus the warming and thus expanding ocean itself."

            http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/has-global-warming-stalled

            1. david 63

              Re: No Surprise

              I'm glad you proper scientists know the heat is in the oceans.

              The Met Office in its paper Implications for Predictions says:

              "whilst the second report suggests that the recent pause in surface warming may, in part, be due to internal variability in the oceans and how heat is taken up below the ocean surface."

              I guess the "may" and "in part" were put in there to instil some confidence?

        2. Ian Easson

          Re: No Surprise

          Yes, you are indeed missing something.

          The "hiatus" in global warming the last decade or so has now been scientifically explained, independently by researchers in Australia and in Canada.

          As most of us know by now, the average yearly global temperature is predicted, to about 90+% accuracy, by the level of CO2 in the air. But there are two other factors that moderate this secular trend: Oceanic currents (e.g., El Nino) and major volcanic events. These two last factors have impacts that last anywhere from 2 to 10 or more years, and then die out.

          As a result of these factors, every 20 to 50 years, there is a "hiatus" that temporarily halts the upward climb in average global temperatures. The latest one has recently been shown to be completely consistent with this phenomenon.

          Of course, it has been seized upon by the oil industry and their cadre of climate change deniers to attempt to discredit science.

          Here's a small reference to get you started:

          http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vindicates-climate-accused.html

          1. Fluffy Bunny
            Devil

            Re: No Surprise

            "The "hiatus" in global warming the last decade or so has now been scientifically explained"

            Explained away, I think you mean. The argument given was so weak I completely ignored it at the time. I didn't expect to to be regurgitated as if it was fact now.

            "As most of us know by now, the average yearly global temperature is predicted, to about 90+% accuracy, by the level of CO2 in the air"

            Actually this is completely wrong. The CO2 in the air has been going up steadily year-on-year, but the temperature hasn't. Therefore this theory is wrong.

            "every 20 to 50 years, there is a "hiatus" that temporarily halts the upward climb"

            Take a careful look at the temperature graph of this "temporary" hiatus. At the far right-hand edge, it is not going up, is it? NO, it is going down.

            "seized upon by the oil industry and their cadre of climate change deniers"

            As oposed to every little storm that is seized upon by the warmists trying to scare the gulible public into paying ever more pointless taxes to fund ever more research into something that isn't happening?

          2. Jtom Bronze badge

            Re: No Surprise

            Let me see if I understand your claim. You can predict with 90% accuracy what next year's global temps SHOULD be based on CO2, EXCEPT for the contribution of two natural variables which cannot be predicted, only examined in hindsight. So you CANNOT predict what next year's temps will be, only offer up an excuse next year as to why reality did not meet expectations.

            You have created a non-falsifiable theory with an on-going ability to apply whatever fudge-factor is required to make reality conform to your theory. That is not science and is totally useless. Given all the natural variations that impact climate, Mankind may never see the rise in temperature predicted by amplified CO2 warming as described by global warming scientists, even if such a thing does exist.

          3. Smig

            Re: No Surprise

            So, it's not man made then?

            "Every 20 to 50 years". Are you choosing the timescale to fit the hypothesis?

            Oh no, thermometric data is not good, it doesn't fit the warming hypothesis between 1879 and eleventy past 12. Quick! Look! Tree rings! That'll confuse the buggers!

            Oh no, tree rings don't fit the result we're funded to find between halfpast paris and 1879. Quick! Look! Use that frozen elk piss! That'll confuse the buggers!

            By the way, Graham, did you enjoy your factfinding trip to the Seychelles?

            1. Tom 13

              Re: Oh no, thermometric data is not good

              Oh it's worse than that.

              A friend of mine has been working on a new project at work. Somebody waved some money at them to develop some algorithms to predict when an earthquake might be about to occur using water moisture data collected from satellites. According to him, the underlying scientific premise is valid. If you look at the data where an earthquake has occurred you can see the changes over the preceding weeks. The problem is the same one Mike 137 referenced: the signal is fairly low compared to the data. Specifically, if it has recently rained in the area you get similar signals. Now, if you take the appropriate precautions, you can still work around that issue. He thought he had one: compare the output of his algorithm using data from their satellites and compare it against other models that aren't using data from his satellites. So if the other models say it hasn't rained in the area but his says it did, it's probably an earthquake. And then he ran into an insurmountable problem. With all the data integration and sharing happening with all the weather supercomputers he can't find a model that isn't contaminated with his data.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No Surprise

          "since 1997; yet there has been no statistically significant increase in the mean global temperature since then,""

          Utter rubbish. Average global temperatures are still rising. June 2014 was the warmest ever recorded, and this year is on target to pass 2010 as the warmest ever by average global suface temperature.

        4. LionelB

          Re: No Surprise

          "am i missing something obvious here?"

          Yes - the science (and possibly the shift key on your keyboard).

        5. Gordon 11

          Re: No Surprise

          ..then surely the decades old 'consensus' is out of date, no?

          am i missing something obvious here?

          Well, yes.

          As any experimental (rather than theoretical) scientist will tell you, if you change the input parameters of an experiment then you are quite likely to get a different outcome.

          Catastrophe theory (which can also be demonstrated practically) will show that things can appear to be static until they suddenly fall of a cliff - and there is then no easy way back.

          And changing the constitution of the atmosphere at a (geologically) fast rate is one hell of a risky experiment.

      3. Tyrion
        FAIL

        Re: No Surprise Er...

        >> We (the scientific community) came to consensus decades ago.

        I've seen no evidence of consensus. Only that fraudulent 97% John Cook et al paper that dismissed over 60% of climate based abstracts. Regardless, there's no such thing as a consensus in Science. It's an appeal to Argumentum ad populum - a logical fallacy.

        I'm not at all surprised that the non-scientists on the panel all agreed with the IPCC. They're the ones pushing for the carbon taxes and punishing of ordinary people.

        1. catprog

          Re: No Surprise Er...

          Would it be more accurate to say that less then 2% of papers studied had an opinion that humans were not responsible for climate change?

          1. Tyrion
            Stop

            Re: No Surprise Er...

            >> Would it be more accurate to say that less then 2% of papers studied had an opinion that humans were not responsible for climate change?

            Would it be more accurate to say that only 0.5% of abstracts assessed agreed with the IPCC's position that human activity is responsible for over 50% of warming over the past century? Because that's the real figure when the wide range of opinions aren't conflated like John Cook et al did to arrive at his 97% consensus. That's right, only 64 abstracts out of 12000 made that assertion. Not quite a consensus that mankind is the primary driver of climate change is it?

            That's what many people fail to see in the alarmist argument. They hear about anthropogenic global warming, and assume all warming is due to man's activity (Co2). That fails to take into account natural variability. The reality is that even the IPCC has had to reduce its climate sensitivity figures (forcing effect of a doubling of Co2). It's still too high though.

            Will a doubling of Co2 cause some warming? Probably. Is it responsible for all the warming observed over the past 150 years? Certainly not. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. We know this because if Co2 was the primary driver, then the last 15 years should have seen large temperature increases (we're pumping out more Co2 now than at any other time). As we all know, that hasn't happened. The models failed to predict it because they assumed climate sensitivity (to Co2) was much higher than it is.

            So whenever someone tries to conflate the arguments that a doubling of Co2 causes some warming with mankind being the primary driver, take pause and and ask does correlation imply causation. That's the argument being presented here.

            Similarly, if someone suggests that the majority of (often quoted as 97%) scientists agree that we are the main cause of warming, don't take that at face value. It's a statistical lie. They conflate a broad range of opinions, most of which don't believe that mankind is responsible for more than 50+% of observed warming, into a single "Endorse" result. So you'll see something along the lines of:

            '97% of scientists endorse manmade (or anthropogenic) climate change'. This implies that they all support the idea that we are responsible for most of the warming. That's completely fallacious. That statement would include scientists who think we probably contribute 1-2% of the warming. A trivial amount. It gives a completely false picture of a consensus.

            1. NomNomNom

              Re: No Surprise Er...

              "Will a doubling of Co2 cause some warming? Probably."

              It's certain that a doubling of CO2 will cause some warming.

              "Is it responsible for all the warming observed over the past 150 years? Certainly not. We know this because if Co2 was the primary driver, then the last 15 years should have seen large temperature increases (we're pumping out more Co2 now than at any other time). As we all know, that hasn't happened."

              That doesn't logically follow. If the observed CO2 increase since 1900 caused 1C warming, then it would be responsible for all the warming since 1900. The last 15 year period of data cannot rule that out.

              The last 15 years in hadcrut4 shows a trend of 0.067C/decade, and uncertainty in the data means it could be even higher than that. It's not the case that you can conclude there's been no warming.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: No Surprise Er...

                "then the last 15 years should have seen large temperature increases (we're pumping out more Co2 now than at any other time). As we all know, that hasn't happened."."

                ~90% of that energy is going into the oceans - and more than was expected is going into the deep oceans due to specific wind conditions. Average global temperature is still climbing.

                1. Tyrion

                  Re: No Surprise Er...

                  >> ~90% of that energy is going into the oceans - and more than was expected is going into the deep oceans due to specific wind conditions. Average global temperature is still climbing.

                  Actually it's not. The measurements taken (even deep sea), don't support that theory. The testimonies to MP's confirms this. Professor Lindzen was on that panel.

                  And it begs the question, why? So for 100+ years, the full effect of Co2 warming has been reflected in observed temperatures, but all of a sudden, when they become stagnant, it's all going into the oceans? I'm sorry, even to the most ardent and unquestioning AGW believer, that must seem very convenient.

                  Proponents of AGW theory are in a scramble trying to explain and account for the distinct lack of warming for the past 17 years. They're claiming everything from the oceans, to the wind patterns are responsible for absorbing the extra heat. Is it not possible that climate sensitivity to Co2 was actually very low all the time, and the warming we have observed over the past 150 years is primarily due to natural variability? You'll never hear any of them admit to that being a possibility.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No Surprise

        Sorry you don't get to decide why I am skeptical (your wrong!)(next your going to tell me I'm right wing).

        But the fact you mention "consensus" and you went into "Palaeoclimatology" is telling.

        "consensus" tells us you are incapable of thinking for yourself, follower, forced to agree with your lecturers opinion or fail the PHD, you'll deny it, but that's the way degrees work.

        "Palaeoclimatology" tells us your already had a environmental streak, so biases already formed, combined with a I need to save the planet, I'm its savior attitude, means your quite happy to accept corrupted data as long as it's on message.

      5. Jabberwolf

        Re: No Surprise

        "We (the scientific community) came to consensus decades ago." - are you meaning kids serving fries ?

        Or are you talking about the same scientific community in the 80s that thought we were heading for an ice age?

        Did you read the article? Some major scientists basically said and showed, that there is statistically no related change to the CO2 increase that the Alarmists are pointing to.

        By the CO2 alarmists, we should have risen by 4+ degrees, we havent, not even close.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No Surprise

          "Did you read the article? Some major scientists basically said and showed, that there is statistically no related change to the CO2 increase that the Alarmists are pointing to."

          No - that's not what they said at all. There are almost no scientists - for instance zero science delegates to the UN - that deny that global warming is hapening and that increased CO2 levels are the primary cause. That's an argument that is long dead and you need to go do some Google searches if the overwhelming observable and recorded evidence if you havnt realised that yet.

          "By the CO2 alarmists, we should have risen by 4+ degrees, we havent, not even close."

          I assume you refer to the IPCC worse case predictions. That was by the end of the century - i.e. in another 86 years or so...Since 1880 global average surface temperatures have risen by roughly 0.9 degrees - and we are currently on target for ~ another 1.4 degrees rise by 2100 as current average temperature are rising by about 0.16 degrees / decade - making 2.4 degrees of total rise by 2100 - howeve current climate models expect the rate of rise to accelerate - 4 degrees of total rise being towards the worst predicted case.

      6. Fluffy Bunny
        Devil

        Re: No Surprise

        "We (the scientific community) came to consensus decades ago"

        Actually you didn't come to a scientific consensus. That would require supporting evidence. Ignoring decade and a half of no warming doesn't cut it. The consensus you reached was that there is one born every minute and you want to take advantage of their ignorance.

        1. dan1980

          Re: No Surprise

          @Fluffy Bunny

          First, kudos for the alternating icons - amusing : )

          That aside, I think I found out the misunderstanding you are working on, which is that one single data set - "global mean surface temperature" - is all that is required to settle the argument one way or the other.

          If you think this then you are mistaken. There are numerous measurements that go into assessing the broad catch-all of 'global warming', which is better understood as the system retaining increased heat energy.

          Demanding that all this heat energy must manifest neatly as the most easily understood (for us lay-people) measurement of 'surface temperature' is to either fail to understand the depth and breadth of the science or to deliberately misrepresent it. I will give you the benefit of assuming the former and suggest you do some serious research on all the various measurements and variables that are tracked. Specifically investigate the measurements of ocean heat content, which relates to heat energy stored at depths to 700m, in contrast with the few millimetres recorded by the satellites measurements used for the surface temps.

          1. David Stone

            Re: No Surprise

            Ocean heat is another non-falsifiable theory, generated to bolster up the failed CO2 causes upwards temperature movement theory. To use this theory you must first provide justification of why it did not kick in until 17 years ago, and how it can cause temperature reduction of the surface. Well???

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: No Surprise

              Climate skeptics don't seem to understand statistics.

              Warming since 1997 not being statistically significant does not mean warming hasn't happened.

              Again and again I see climate skeptics asserting that there's been no warming since 1997.

              This is actually wrong.

              1. Tom 13

                Re: Warming since 1997 not being statistically significant does not mean

                Actually it does. That's why all real science uses statistics to prove their models.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: Warming since 1997 not being statistically significant does not mean

                  "Actually it does. That's why all real science uses statistics to prove their models"

                  Are you really claiming that a trend of +0.07C/decade since 1997 not being statistically significant PROVES the trend is <= 0C/decade?

                  Because that's what your claim that there's been no warming amounts to.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019