Thought I pointed out that science has a higher standard than the absence of malfeasance, as you say.
Really? So for science people are automatically assumed to be guilty of fraudulent manipulation of data
until they prove they are not?
That's interesting. Because I've been doing science now for almost 30 years and I didn't realize that logic went out the window with science.
Science doesn't work by consensus, either. Just in case that's your next argument.
How about some "logic" for you:
Science does not utilize consensus as a metric of value. BUT a valid hypothesis can be expected to develop a consensus around it.
It's necessary but not sufficient in a sense.
It is not required to find "truth", but if an hypothesis is true it will far more likely develop a consensus around it in the fullness of time.
Doesn't matter how many people agree with you, unless the results can be independently verified.
ANd thankfully over the past 100 years since the agw hypothesis was first proposed the science has generally found that the effect is likely true. And further thanks to the hard work of countless thousands of individual independent scientists over the last 60 years of solid research we've found the most likely mechanisms and found the most likely effects. Repeatedly.
So I guess we don't have to worry.
But if you want to question the science, you certainly are encouraged to. But even though consensus is not
required you will have to put your bona fides up against the approximately 97% of the world's climate professionals who feel this is real.
At your prodding, I went in search of that verification of results ... corroborating data, if you will ... even found some at the Skeptical Science website, a website supportive of the global warming argument:
This chart shows compiled satellite temperature data taken since about 1980, overlaid with terrestrially collected data. The use of satellite data is important because that data completely removes the argument about data manipulation of earth station measurements - the very issue of "climategate". It can be seen here that while the terrestrially collected measurements show approximately 0.6C change, the satellite data shows much less, only about 0.2C change. While the satellite data offers "support" for the global warming claims, by itself it hardly proves that claim. The satellite data indicates, at most, a much much slower trend.
Please tell me you aren't merely subtracting the last point from the first point to draw your conclusion, right? I would like it if you provided the actual location of the discussion of this point rather than just the picture. It's hard to debate against a single graph overlain by your interpretation. I find that usually the science is a bit more detailed. So please provide either the original article this is from (usually Skepticalscience will give you a link to the actual peer reviewed literature) or provide the Skeptical science
article on this graph. Thanks!
gonna go there, then don't we really need to talk about why the earth was substantially warmer prior to 1550? I really don't think that had anything to do with manmade global warming ...
No one, and I mean
no one who has even a modicum of earth science training will disagree with the claim that the earth has had different climates. In almost every case it is due to various factors we can ascertain. And prior to humanity of course they would be more "natural forcings". So what we know about how CO2 can affect temperature is, in many cases, predicated on use of
paleoenvironmental data which predates mankind!
So why can't mankind be a new method of forcing the climate? Well, apparently he is!
This is a bit of a logic game I like to play with skeptoids:
1. Gunshot wounds to the head often result in death.
2. Bob is dead.
3. ERGO Bob was shot in the head.
Do you see what I'm getting at? The fact that the earth's current climate is changing (almost no one disagrees with that point, the data is really hard to fight against) does not mean that previous changes
had to occur for the same reason!
That would be the height of absurdity. But for every Skeptoid I hear trot out the "earth was warmer in the past" I have to point out that much of the reason we have an idea that
man is currently involved in this warming is precisely due to
the data around the earth's climate long before man came along!
We know a lot about the CO2 climate sensitivity precisely because of things man had no control over! So when humans dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to significantly alter the
isotopic composition of the C in lock step with what one expects from the massive burning of fossil fuels then we know what will likely happen!
but who knows? And what the heck was that bit about global cooling between 1950 and 1980?
This is called the "Mid Century Cooling" and is largely thought to be related to human emissions of sulfates which act to cool the surface. It's called "mankind's pollution". It's not the only reason but it is a big one.
Try hitting
Meehl, 2004 and
Wild et al, 2007
Just stuff to think about ...
Well, when you start off not knowing much about what has already been out in the open for years I guess it is something to think about! But more important to
learn first, and then start to complain.
Like the whole thing about "Leeds". It helps to know the details of the discussion before one starts complaining about how they are wrong.