[LMB] CO2 (OT:)
francis.turner at gmail.com
Fri Jun 27 11:59:46 BST 2008
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Andrew Barton
<andrew.157barton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> Andrew Barton wrote:
>> Here's another website of interest ...
>> This describes the deliberations of several hundred climate science
> professionals, with input from every member government of the World
> Meteorological Organisation.
>> These are guys that do this stuff for a living.
>> Why should we second-guess them?
Because many of them seem to have a poor grasp of statistics and
statistical methods. Given that almost all their long term studies
depnds heavily on statistical analyses of large amounts of data of
variable (and sometimes questionable) accuracy this is a worry.
If that wasn't enough certain of the 'leading' scientists have been
guilty of both Suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. In the former by
oddly deleting or 'losing' raw data or algorithms that are
subsequently challenged and totally ignoring altrnative explanations
such as solar activity, in the latter some have been recorded saying
(and I paraphrase) that they are deliberately conflating very bad low
probability events caused by very high temp rises with higher
probability far less bad temperature rises.
And there is the fact that none of them appear to have done any
The earth has probably warmed up slightly during the 20th century,
this appears to be a gradual warming from the previous little ice age
of the 17th century. It does not appear to have reached the
temperatures seen during the roman period c.2000 years ago or the
medieval warming period 1000 years ago or did I miss the reports of
grain being grow on Greenland?
Faber's Fourth Law:
Necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows.
More information about the Lois-Bujold