In this report Lord Stern claims that climate sceptics are muddled. Perhaps he needs to get his own facts straight - yes there is evidence of climate change. No one doubts that the climate is changing and will continue to do so.
But this does not mean that CO2 increases are responsible, and neither Lord Stern, or anyone else has yet produced any convincing evidence that it is. It is not up to me or any other sceptice to provide an alternative hypothesis.
It is for those who support the CO2 hypothesis to provide the clear evidence - and put all their data in the public domain so it can be checked. I hope this is clear to Lord Stern and all the other alarmists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm
ReplyDeleteAttribution studies done in depth. I'm not saying I understand yet all the details there, but at the very least, I think we're only arguing here over what counts as 'convincing evidence'. These attribution studies, at the very least, demonstrate the scale of the work done in carefully weighing all involved factors.
It's also worth noting that Svante Arrhenius' calculations of co2 effects on mean temperature - in 1896 - were about the same as they are today. The science of radiative forcing is well-established. Most scientists are now arguing over the details, not whether co2 is mainly responsible for the warming.
As for data -
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
What other data would you like? And what do you think should happen with that data once acquired?
All the data, including any so-called 'enhancement' must be published. Until real peer-review by those who will give it critical analysis is carried out in a transparent way we should not trust it.
ReplyDeleteOf course the general principles are accepted. As they say - the devil is in the detail!
I'm not a climate scientist, but I don't think I need to be one in order to understand the scope of this politico-religeous movement.
ReplyDeleteIt's been apparent to me from the first statement by Schneider in the late 1970's about scientists having to "choose between being effective and being honest", right up through the last "purloined" e-mail, that there has always been a consensus among leading climatologists. This stunning paucity of peer reviewed dissent is for me the ten thousand pound gorilla in the room.
There has never been anything else but an ineluctible certainty about Climate Change Catastrophe among all of the most "powerful researchers" at The CRU GISS NASA NOAA and other facilities from the very instant they realised that a global cooling scare wouldn't get the job done.
Transfer of wealth, Sustainability, Social Justice are the are the real goals of these idealogues, and I think the seminal history of their cupidity should be called "PR of the Gods!"
There is a lot in what you say, Tim. I trust you are not related to James?
ReplyDelete