Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 569:
Line 569: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 18:28, July 11, 2007
, 18:28, July 11, 2007→False claims of consensus?: Yes, that's what I said. If you have any info to the contrary, please present it
I allso got debressed when i read forward on the article, it's filled with same kind of mistakes, that are so blatant that they must be deliberatly made, for example in the talk about the "hockey stick" chart, to which you put too much emphasis anyways, it's in no way specially important to the study of global warming, you "forget" to mention that there has been response to all the critisism, and actually McKitrick and McIntyre are the ones who have some explaining to do. and thats not all, the Hockey stick graph has been defended afterwards by National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society. There is allso a new study by Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, who have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found that the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. i put the link to that study down below. So i hope all these facts get to the article as well, as they should if this site really tryes to be truthfull. But all this can wait, please answer first to my questions about the global warming consensus and then we can continue to this subject. [http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up ][http://alba.jrc.it/blog/climate/?p=61] [http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml] [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf] [http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/wall-street-journal-op-eds-distorting_06.html] [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:42, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I allso got debressed when i read forward on the article, it's filled with same kind of mistakes, that are so blatant that they must be deliberatly made, for example in the talk about the "hockey stick" chart, to which you put too much emphasis anyways, it's in no way specially important to the study of global warming, you "forget" to mention that there has been response to all the critisism, and actually McKitrick and McIntyre are the ones who have some explaining to do. and thats not all, the Hockey stick graph has been defended afterwards by National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society. There is allso a new study by Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, who have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found that the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. i put the link to that study down below. So i hope all these facts get to the article as well, as they should if this site really tryes to be truthfull. But all this can wait, please answer first to my questions about the global warming consensus and then we can continue to this subject. [http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up ][http://alba.jrc.it/blog/climate/?p=61] [http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml] [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf] [http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/wall-street-journal-op-eds-distorting_06.html] [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:42, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:I have responded to you, but you have talked past me in a "pot calling the kettle black" fashion so typical of liberals. The issue is whether there is a [[scientific consensus]].
:Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol assert that a scientific consensus exists, and that it favors the Greenhouse Theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Opponents say that the science is not settled.
:If you know of any surveys or petitions relating to climatologists on the issue, please point them out. Or simply add them to the [[Politics of global warming]] article.
:If you are less interested in consensus and more interested in science, we can change the subject back to the more important matter of whether there is any scientific support for the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]. Perhaps you could add a citation to a peer-reviewed journal article which shows evidence for AGW.
:But if you're only interested in political aspects such as what proportion of scientific papers support one side in the debate, this is not really the place. Our readers want to know how much global warming is occuring, how much of it is natural, and whether attempts to "stop" it will be successful.
:Readers of the politics article will be interested in who's on what side, but the scientifically-minded just want to know the facts - and whether there are any theories which can explain those facts. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:28, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
== Solar variation and global warming ==
== Solar variation and global warming ==