The warmers are becoming skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
A.A.Alfie said:
Sigh:(

The facts are that the world is abuzz with this stuff. There is undeniable evidence that public opinion is swaying and this scandal (fwoaw) is impacting adversely.
There are many warmers in their own form of denial about that.
Public bodies are moving to review data, scientists are distancing themselves from East Anglia, political opinion is moving and heads are being called for.

None of this changes the science, true. But it is going to take some time (three years has been mentioned by the Met) to review the data to confirm the data is correct.

Only time will tell what that will show.
To think anyone can know the results now should apply for the $1m
Click to expand...

I'll do it. The results will be substantially the same as they are now.

That link again.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/explained5.html
 
A.A.Alfie said:
See above. He says otherwise.
Click to expand...
OK I don't mean to contradict him. But the newspaper he was deputy editor of for years was and is (A)GW agnostic so Crook did not represent personal views fully in print.

Crook is correct IMO that "The Economist" is too dismissive of the UEA debacle. Neither deniers who see that as a killer blow nor warmers who see it as nothing look much other than politically blind to me.
 
Francesca R said:
OK I don't mean to contradict him. But the newspaper he was deputy editor of for years was and is (A)GW agnostic so Crook did not represent personal views fully in print.
Click to expand...

Fair enough

Francesca R said:
Crook is correct IMO that "The Economist" is too dismissive of the UEA debacle. Neither deniers who see that as a killer blow nor warmers who see it as nothing look much other than politically blind to me.
Click to expand...

I agree and this is totally my take on this. The warmers who think this is nothing are kidding themselves. And I have also stated numerous times that it proves nothing with regard to the science in itself.

And only time will tell what the full impact will be.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
You keep putting this up.

The Mets' announcement has come after this effort of Stotts.
It is redundant.

Clearly they have had a rethink between this article of Stott's (dated 2nd) and their announcement regarding the review of the data which has come since.
Click to expand...

And you keep not reading and comprehending what it says.

These work independently and use different methods in the way they collect and process data to calculate the global-average temperature. Despite this, the results of each are similar from month to month and year to year, and there is definite agreement on temperature trends from decade to decade (Figure 1). Most importantly, they all agree global-average temperature has increased over the past century and this warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s.
Click to expand...
 
a_unique_person said:
And you keep not reading and comprehending what it says.
Click to expand...

My reading is fine btw
It's simply I wonder, why have a complete review of the data if they are so confident of its' integrity?
That statement of Stott's is redundant/not valid/out of date/superseded/kaput

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

Get that?
without "absolute confidence"

Now, tell me who has trouble reading and comprehending?
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
My reading is fine btw
It's simply I wonder, why have a complete review of the data if they are so confident of its' integrity?
That statement of Stott's is redundant/not valid/out of date/superseded/kaput

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

Get that?
without "absolute confidence"

Now, tell me who has trouble reading and comprehending?
Click to expand...

Once again, you don't comprehend. There are three completely different temperature records referred to in that article. Two of them have absolutely nothing to do with the CRU. Even if the met reviews it's records it changes nothing with them.

Apart from that, the Met Office will never be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend, and I doubt they would even use that wording. Once again, the wording is from the Times article, which does not actually quote from the press release. "absolute confidence" and "shattered" appear to be paraphrasing from The Times.
 
a_unique_person said:
Once again, you don't comprehend. There are three completely different temperature records referred to in that article. Two of them have absolutely nothing to do with the CRU. Even if the met reviews it's records it changes nothing with them.

Apart from that, the Met Office will never be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend, and I doubt they would even use that wording. Once again, the wording is from the Times article, which does not actually quote from the press release. "absolute confidence" and "shattered" appear to be paraphrasing from The Times.
Click to expand...

Then why do they need to do the review?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I don't think too many of us are saying there is no global warming. More that the A in AGW is in question.
Your post is redundant - sorry.
Click to expand...

So upon what data do you base your belief that the world is warming?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Then why do they need to do the review?
Click to expand...

Forget about the review. There are two more completely independant temperature records out there, that already say pretty much the same thing. The only reason for the review is because the 'scandal' has undermined public confidence. It will come back with pretty much the same result as the other two already have, and CRU had.

It's pretty much the same story as the Australian temperature records tell.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=5
 
a_unique_person said:
Forget about the review.
Click to expand...

Forget about the review?!:jaw-dropp

picture.php
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
Forget about the review?!
Click to expand...

Once again, you dodge the point I made. Laughing dog = nonresponsive.

Are there, or are there not, two completely independent temperature records from the CRU? Do they or do they not offer a very similar story for the temperature record. Does the Australian BOM also have a temperature record for Australia that substantially tells the same story?
 
uk_dave said:
You DO believe that the world is warming though, don't you? What is it, gut feeling?
Click to expand...

I've said it dozens of times.
I believe the earth is warming. I remain skeptical about humans being the (primary) cause.

My reasons for this are based on what I see, read and hear.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I've said it dozens of times.
I believe the earth is warming. I remain skeptical about humans being the (primary) cause.

My reasons for this are based on what I see, read and hear.
Click to expand...

So your belief that the earth is warming isn't shaken by 'climategate' and "Hide the decline" at all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom