Now it’s back to a “select” group? Well, if your criticism is only about a select group, then fine. There are plenty of scientists outside of that select group we could listen to.LeafByNiggle:
The alarmism is symbiotic between the media and a select group of AGW scientists.
Mann etal could change the media tone by not publicly calling their opponents ‘DENIERS’.
You mean the scientists they’ve discredited and ostracized by labeling as ‘DENIERS’??
No, I mean the scientists who are saying the same thing as the “select group” is saying as far as global warming theory.LeafByNiggle:
You mean the scientists they’ve discredited and ostracized by labeling as ‘DENIERS’??
OK, so they exercise no control over climate scientists, other than that control that comes with being recognized for doing good work. Not the sort of control that enables them to subvert the scientific community and bend them to their maleficent will. The IPCC reflects what scientists are saying. It does not force what they are saying.
A suggested agenda can be ignored, since the scientists are not under the direct control of the IPCC. If they do follow the agenda of the IPCC it is because they want to.
Why it is a plum position, if the IPCC has such a bad reputation? I mean, if they are recommending stuff that scientists know is wrong, they would not think it so great to work with the IPCC.
Your opinion.
How can modern instrumental readings tell us what global temps were 1,000 years ago?
Why is it necessary to prove that the warming is unusual? Their is enough of an instrumental temperature to give evidence to the the link between burning of fossil fuels to CO2 and warming from trapped IR radiation. That together with the fact that the fundamental mechanism for CO2 trapping heat is understood is strong evidence.
Can’t because there was no such conspiracy.]
OK, just collusion
They want to be able to say that the warming since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented, because then they can point to the sudden release of CO2 from the burning off fossil fuels as the most likely cause. It also helps make the case that the warming will be dangerous.
This is just the kind of report that demonstrates all the issues being discussed. Here is a government report put out that makes the case for man made global warming. The problem is it appears to be more than a little scientifically deficient despite the scientific aura that surrounds it.
It is unprecedented since the dawn of instrumental readings, which do go back somewhat before the industrial revolution. That is enough to give evidence as to the cause, and it is only part of the evidence that supports the theory.
It has not gone anywhere.
If I cited a book that I said would convince you that global warming was real, would you go out and buy it? No? Well, don’t expect anyone else to go out and buy a book just because you say it will support your point. If you want to use Montford as a reference, then you can copy out the relevant passages and post them here and then people can read them.
Nothing you have written here supports your contention. There is nothing to a argue. You think the report is unreasonable - for some reason…?anikins:
This is just the kind of report that demonstrates all the issues being discussed. Here is a government report put out that makes the case for man made global warming. The problem is it appears to be more than a little scientifically deficient despite the scientific aura that surrounds it.
This is the Fourth National Climate Assessment Report in a string of reports of dubious quality.
the first Assessment used models that were worse than a table of random numbers when applied to 20th century coterminous U.S. temperatures, and the chief scientist for the report knew it and went ahead anyway!
That the first report was an acknowledged dog doesn’t necessarily mean the fourth one is as well, although that seems quite probable. The report is based on model predictions, but:
The models predict that there should have been a huge “hot spot” over the entire tropics, which is a bit less than 40% of the globe’s surface. Halfway up through the atmosphere (by pressure), or at 500 hPa, the predicted warming is also twice what is being observed, and further up, the prediction is for seven times more warming than is being observed.
Believing that warming is accelerating and that man is responsible simply because a government report makes that claim, despite evidence to the contrary, doesn’t seem…reasonable.
I would have thought pointing out that since the report is based on model predictions, and the models in a key section predicted seven times more warming that actually occurred, it might have made the point about the politicization of science. Noting that the first such report was obviously flawed, and that the head “scientist” was aware of the deficiencies yet published the report anyway simply reinforces pretty much everything iggypkrebsbach has said about the shenanigans and misbehavior of the alarmists.