Clmategate prof admits no warming since 1995(dailymail.co.uk) |
Clmategate prof admits no warming since 1995(dailymail.co.uk) |
The quote actually is: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
Also I wonder how many people will read it to the end instead of just the headlines.
By the way, citing the Daily Mail doesn't count as providing an extraordinary amount of evidence. The Daily Mail has made their position on this issue very clear, and has shown that they will lie and cheat to embarrass scientists at every turn. Since their reporting here does not cite original sources, the article simply cannot be taken at face value. Even if they were being completely honest here, one scientist saying something to a reporter does not contradict the massive body of peer-reviewed studies demonstrating AGW. What it would show at the absolute worst is that you have a scientist that is willing to say stupid shit in front of a microphone. In order to support your claim, you would need at the very least to show that long-term warming has not occurred, or that if it has, it is completely natural. Since both such claims run counter to all that we know about the climate, you would need a lot of data on temperature records, CO2 levels, etc. and to convince us as to why all collected data is invalid.
By the way, when you refer to "the climategate scandal," you really don't do yourself any favors. There is no "climategate scandal" other than that a well-coordinated group of hackers (in the negative sense of the word) committed criminal acts in order to embarrass scientists and undermine the perceived validity of their work. Indeed, in that sense, "climategate" is much like the Watergate scandal, and you seem to be throwing your lot in with the villains of this story. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't evil, manipulative or duplicitous, but merely ignorant. There's many good (read, well-cited) sources dedicated to debunking the poisonous myth that is "climategate," such as http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/the_climategat.... For more general information, please see http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/giss-adjustments-in-au...
The models have obvious warming biased 'adjustments' built into them and there is no model, which when given the correct inputs at a point in time would successfully predict the climate for a following period of time. The 'Hockey Stick' graph, which eliminates the Midieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age is the most obvious sign of how bad the models are.
On the issues of the the Hockey Stick, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, there is decidedly more to say that has been said by people much smarter than I. In particular, the scientists at realclimate.org have prepared excellent resources for those interested in learning more about these topics. For instance, with respect to the MWP, their guide available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/mediev... cites studies which show that the MWP is at least partially an effect of strong regional variations in temperature. Moreover, the same guide cites a review that provides evidence that the MWP is not an anomalous warming period. They have a similar guide for understanding the LIA available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little....
Finally, I would refer you to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-... for more on the Hockey Stick, since you haven't provided me with any specifics on your claims that it has been manipulated to hide the MWP and LIA. In lieu of more specific claims, I think that the best I can do is to refer you to that comprehensive guide.
Is it responsible to keep assuming, then, that the ideas presented at RealClimate.org are a legitimate indicator of the state of scientific opinion on this topic? Can you provide links to other sources?
You should also moderate your tone. A lot. I've been reading and talking to people about global warming since the early 90s, and I'm strongly predisposed to take scientists at their word. If the stridency in your writing can make me want to close my laptop and take a nap, it's certain to stir up angry feelings in people who vehemently oppose to the idea of global warming. They will respond in kind, HN will get a little less civil, hence a little less useful for everyone. And you will bear part of the responsibility.