Quote:
Originally Posted by Argonavis
The Antartica data was always the GW archilles heal. Recently someone claimed to have recorded increases in temperatures on the continent. If this is true, it does give substantial if not irrefutable support to GW. Irrespective of this, the hysteria is still well ahead of the science.
|
Many thanks for that link Argonavis, it contains a lot more detail than most of the sources I've been following over the past few years.
Now, apologies for the capitals: EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD SHOULD READ ALL TEN PARTS OF THIS ARTICLE AND CONSIDER THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ... or should I say, relative lack of evidence for catastrophic GW.
I think I can be forgiven for posting a juicy extract from Part 3 "The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science" as an appetiser:
"Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting."
" the IPCC called (him) to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, his specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007."
"Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, (Landsea) discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited him -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed (Landsea): "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, (Lansea was) certain. He had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.
As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to (Landsea's) knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, (he) knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin."
"To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record. And until (Landsea's) new work would come out, in 2007, the IPCC would not have a new analysis on which to base a change of findings."
My changes to make the text more sensible in this context are in ( ).
The URL (already posted) is:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=
22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0