It's interesting to compare these extracts from two recent posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenc
... The climate-science community, together with the entire environmental movement and a broad alliance of opinion leaders ranging from Greenpeace and Ralph Nader to Senator John McCain and many US evangelical Christians, has been advocating meaningful action to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions ...
... The IPCC report, released in Paris, has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiroch
... as past IPCC reports have shown, the summary is not written by the scientists whose names appear on the cover, it's written by politicians and bureaucrats. Indeed, some of those scientists after the fact have complained that their work has been grossly misrepresented.
In 2001 two scientists complained publicly that their work was misrepresented by those who wrote the summary, including MIT physicist Richard Lindzen.
In June 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, wrote with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
He continued: "This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."
|
I know which version makes more sense.
If our science and future society is in the hands of 'opinion leaders', evangelical christians, Ralph Nader and Greenpeace, heaven help us.
In 2004 , 20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, who were in a position to understand the global warming issues, signed the following statement:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Oregon Petition Project
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)
Obviously these 20,000 are not part of the "climate-science community".
Forget the junk science and 'opinion leaders' and look at some real data from satellite measurements:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
These data are collected at 30,000 points covering 80% of the earth's surface every day. The polar orbit rotates so that 100% of the earth's surface is covered every six days. The satellite data have been validated by comparison with balloon-borne measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere using a completely different physical process.
Since 1979, although surface-station measurements show an 0.2 deg C rise per decade (probably due to the 'heat-island effect'), the NASA data show only 0.1 deg/decade.
That's 1 deg. C per century. You don't need to travel far north to experience this rise in temperature. As far as I know, everyone in Port Macquarie is doing just as well as I am here in Sydney.