Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
There have been several ways of measuring global temperatures, and in ONE of them the warmest year on record was 1998. It is not so much the "correct" data as it is one of several different methodologies. So to claim that one set of data is falsified is, well, false.
In a similar vein, I would love to know the name of said famous climatologist who has had his research rejected because people don't like the results, as well as the rejection letters for said research. It is very easy to claim that one's research was rejected for political reasons, as opposed to simply being shoddy research.
|
The bit about 1998 being the warmest year on record is indeed an artefact of the measurement scheme chosen. However, NONE of the other schemes of which I'm aware show a later year than 1998 being warmer (excluding local environmental models, which by definition aren't global in scope and are inherently unreliable). Choosing the data stream that shows 1998 to be the warmest on record may be somewhat artificial, but it is probably the best data available, and is widely accepted as the basis for global warming forecasts.
Please note
I believe in global warming. I'm on the fence about human-mediation of it is all. But the logical upshot of my position is that we HAVE to act as though it's happening, and that humans are causing it. It's a simple 2 x 2 matrix... It's Happening or Not by Do Nothing or Do Something.
If it's not happening and we do nothing... big deal.
If it's not happening and we do something... we waste a little effort and improve efficiences & develop technologies sooner than otherwise.
If it's happening and we do something, then we avert a crisis (possibly, but it's our only hope).
If it's happening and we do nothing... catastrophe on a biblical scale. So this is not an option.
The problem with the Hadley/CRU leak is that scientists colluded to insert made-up data that fit their needs, to the exclusion of data that didn't, but was the actual measurement. They also colluded to boycott journals that would publish contrary findings and discussed how to discredit scientists with contrary opinions
without addressing the contrary findings/theories.
As for the Russian model, I've been trying to find a link to his site/model. I read his findings about 4 years ago when I was much more involved in the effects of global warming, and stupidly didn't keep it (I've gone through several computers since then). I don't say I believe him (I don't)... it is just that at that time, his computer model was providing the best forecasts of world temperatures (global scale).