Mainstream fightback:
Since I wrote this blog comment a new BBC science page has come on line which shows all the main 'sceptics' arguments and the counter view to them. It doesn't show of the science supports the counterview but its apparently fair.
The Summary of the Sceptics Top Ten Arguments covers all the points, and I admit I am wobbling, but still not entirely convinced that its a human led event. It covers the following subjects:
- EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR
- IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED
- THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST
- COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE
- THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT
- CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN
- A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE
- LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS
- WATER VAPOUR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO2 IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT
- PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING THAN CLIMATE CHANGE
They have also added this article on the sceptics views.
The Original Blog:
In a spirit of fairness I have editted an old blog because the BBC, true to its word, has published a new article on the solar influence on climate. Of course its an article purporting to prove that this influence is negligible or non existent.
Frankly I found it unconvincing because although the last 20 yrs data shows a divergence from trend for 13 of those years, but in reality it has the same weakness as all the pro CO2 (as main driver of global warming) brigade. That is that it relys on data from a very small time scale of the last 50, or even 20 yrs, upon which to base an assumption of trend for the next 300 years.
This is just not sustainable in any other scientific context, where a 20 year blip in a trend taken out of 5,000 yrs would not be considered significant, and certainly not enough to refute a long term set of data.
In fact this is rather a good illustration of how we are being driven by an unscientific agenda on what should be a wholly evidence drven discussion.
NB: Recent studies have found that the ice never completely melted when the last warm period occurred and that some parts of the solar ice caps got thicker (hence the survival of Polar Bears?) ... there is evidence that this is occurring even now. The jury is still out in my world.
***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views.
if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen.
You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.