Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[EternalOptimist]

maybe you could define "quality"

Blooming heck. Pirsig wrote a book about that, even he struggled a bit

[sasguru]

maybe you could define "quality"

In this context:

Being straight to the point.
Answering the questions put to one.
Not ignoring stuff that doesn't fit into your argument.
Using credible sources
Citing your sources, not simply cut'n'paste

I don't think Mr. Bates has been guilty of any of the above.

[sasguru]

Blooming heck. Pirsig wrote a book about that, even he struggled a bit

His book was crap. And why do you say "even" Pirsig, like he was some kind of Nobel winner instead of a deluded hippy.

HTH

[sasguru]

my education may be lacking, but at least I answer questions directly without wriggling.

A few years ago you believed that AGW was causing the Himalayan glaciers to melt away.
Now you believe that AGW is causing the Himalayan glaciers to thicken

is that true ?

No.

HTH.

[BlasterBates]

I find this quote aptly sums up pro AGW climate science:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Kevin E. Trenberth

[EternalOptimist]

No.

HTH.

oh, I wonder which of the two statements you do not agree with

when the IPCC said that the Himalayan glaciers were melting away, did you agree with that ?

The point I am making here SasGoru, is that whatever happens in the world is bad, and whatever happens is down to AGW
That is propoganda, not science

[TimberWolf]

oh, I wonder which of the two statements you do not agree with

when the IPCC said that the Himalayan glaciers were melting away, did you agree with that ?

The point I am making here SasGoru, is that whatever happens in the world is bad, and whatever happens is down to AGW
That is propoganda, not science

Scientific evidence suggests that change = bad and staying in an ice age = good. No one wins if the climate warms or changes.

[pjclarke]

My exact words were a new survey now might throw up a handful of papers that question some aspect of the scientific concensus, that is how science progresses: but the ratio is still overwhelmingly (as in > 100:1) in favour of AGW. . And I think that is probably correct.

The 'propaganda' is compiling a list of papers, without indicating which aspect of the concensus they are supposed to contradict, whether they are peer-reviewed or not (ie published in the 'News and Views' or 'Forum' sections of journals), or whether they have been found wanting by further research. To choose one (rare) up to date example from a reputable journal:

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

which included the statement 'shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation'

But the methodology of this paper was demolished in short order and a comment is in press at the journal http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cach...en&as_sdt=2000

By failing to mention the comment, not to mention the inclusion of utter scientific garbage, the 'list' loses practically all credibility as a reliable source, reminiscient of Marc Morano's list of 'several hundred prominent sceptical scientists' that turned out to include Alan Titchmarsh!

The Trenberth quote, like most of the CRU soundbites doing the rounds is, of course, lifted out of context and spun around 180 degrees. Trenberth was discussing small variances in the the planetary heat budget, which all agree is in imbalance. He was complaining that our observation systems lack the resolution to determine with the accuracy we would like, how much of the additional heat is entering the oceans, how much the atmosphere etc. Not many scientists would disagree with that. I commend his paper on the topic.

[EternalOptimist]

Scientific evidence suggests that change = bad and staying in an ice age = good. No one wins if the climate warms or changes.

so

glaciers melt = AGW = bad = lack of water in Pakistan
glaciers thicken = AGW = bad = lack of water in Pakistan


contains no contradiction then ?

[DimPrawn]

pjclarke, you seem to know what you are talking about and you haven't called anyone here thick or a cretin.

Can I ask one question?

What are you doing here?