Refuting The Age global warming "proof"

Here are some reasons why I am skeptical

Global Warming Watch was kind enough to provide a link to a graphic published by The Age. I'd like to take a few moments to respond to the specific questions raised by the graphic.

1. Global warming is a natural thing.
Interesting bit here, they freely acknowledge the criticism but they don't dispute it. Instead they refer you to a the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scary part here is that there has been dissent in all the reports issued by the IPCC, and the 2001 "final report" was doctored by the politicos before release. Copies of both versions of the report exist on the internet, I encourage you to read for yourselves. Since the value of the report is consensus, shouldn't the press at least mention the nay sayers?

Again, natural cycles aren't disputed by the graphic. Last night in Flagstaff it was 27 degrees F, yet today it will be 58. Is that 30 degree change in temperature because of global warming or just because of the natural cycle of day and night?

2. The Hockey Stick is Wrong
Well, that is an interesting claim, especially since the debate still goes on. One of the criticisms that hasn't been addressed is that the statistical methods used produces "hockey sticks" when the raw data doesn't support it.

There is also the question of how much other factors influence the measurements, which the original "hockey stick" analysis specifically excludes.

This also raises one of my favorite issues, the "hockey stick" analysis only covers about a thousand years. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.. Even if we confine ourselves to only the last billion years, that is still only .0001% of the time. Take a yardstick, assume that somewhere around 20 inches there is a nick. What does that tell you about the space between 12 and 14 inches? What about between 27 and 36 inches? How about other yardsticks still at the store?

Just as a bit of a side note (and certainly one of the reasons I'm paying close attention), two of the original critics of the "hockey stick" were put on an unofficial blacklist and six editors of Climate Research (the journal that published the criticism) were made to resign. That was when I started paying attention to the politics behind the global warming claims.

3. Satellite data shows a different trend
That should be amended to say that satellite and balloon data shows a different trend.

Here is a classic example of how different interpretations can arise from how you measure. Even the graphic admits that the results are cherry picked. Bit of a puzzle there since we are talking global warming.

There are theories in abundance, but there aren't facts. The numbers have to be "goosed" to fit existing models. At the very least the models have to be revised, if not replaced entirely.

4. Computer models aren't good enough
Here is a central argument, I find it interesting that it got buried at number four. That is an old advertising trick by the way. The value of a model is how well it replicates current conditions and predicts the future. Let me repeat that because it is very important to understand.

The value of a model is how well it replicates current conditions and predicts the future.

Take the models, not the data, but just the models. Feed in all the data up to 1955. Now, how well does it predict the actual conditions we had in 1959? 1962? 1967?

Feed in all the data up to 1971. Now, how well does it predict the weather we had in 1980? 1995? 2001?

This is absolutely critical, because if the best weather and climate models available today can't predict the weather as it happened, then there is no possible way those models can predict future weather and climate.

It is a guess.

It may be an informed guess, but it is a guess.

5 Emissions predictions are wrongly calculated
I quote. "But scientists agree that the economic assumptions need further discussion."

Okay, so where does that put us? First, we need the debate. If we're really going to make a good choice for ourselves and the planet, we need to know the consequences. It's not enough to say that global warming happens because of increased carbon caused by human activity, we need to be sure EXACTLY that is the case.

If the global warming argument is correct, then we need to find practical ways to cope.

If the global warming argument is not correct, then we need to move on to the next bit.

Science and rationality are the only guides we dare accept here. Fear-mongering has no part in the debate.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - April 24, 2006 at 04:58 AM  Tag

 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library

Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved