Your wrong RC, the scientist Piers Corbyn doesn’t qualify as a crank, see here: http://www.sciforums.com/How-can-we-tell-if-someone-is-a-scientific-crank-t-5752.html as his colleagues, in this picture, will testify too, as well: http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact1&fsize=0The IPCC is not a crank weather forecaster with no prove track record of results that are different from chanceDon’t you even notice your double standards and bias? I guess not H.
If you look at these recent videos, he comes across rather well.
Piers Corbyn of Weather Action & Francis Wilson of Sky News discuss current weather conditions Sky News 10th January 2010
"Brilliant from Piers Corbyn. More people should listen to this gent, the only sensible voice amongst all this madness"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl-1jEMlb4U&feature=player_embedded
Piers Corbyn Weather Interview by Nick Ferrari on LBC (London) News - 15th January 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc6ky0G5ulY&feature=related
Piers Corbyn interview on the BBC News Channel August 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C65hDa1qjnY
Piers Corbyn - ABC interview Weather Action 27 June 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iPg5Z_hVlE
Wonder why he upsets you AGW people so much, maybe it's the, PC 5-0 Met Office?
Piers Corbyn isn't in the top ten list but this quote, from the list, could be about him:
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics :-
The media portrays climate scientists as having delivered a final verdict on global warming. They haven't.
There remain some holdouts who say this consensus is little more than conformity to a politically correct idea. Perhaps even more surprising is that a few of these global-warming skeptics are actually respected!
No matter where you stand on this debate, you should know who the major skeptics are and what they think.
Physicist Freeman Dyson has been a giant in his field for decades. But the British-born, Princeton-based professor has gained notoriety for his "heretical" views on climate change. While he does acknowledge the mechanism by which man-made greenhouse gasses can influence the climate, he claims current models are way too simplistic to capture what's really going on in the real world. In March, he was featured in the NYT Magazine for his controversial views.
Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish-based scientist, famous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. Like Dyson, he's not an outright denier, but rather he thinks the current approach to global warming is misguided and that the costs of drastic, short-term action are too high. Instead, he thinks we should focus on becoming more adaptable, while putting more effort into such real-world tragedies as AIDS and malaria.
Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community. Ebell works for the free-market thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute and, according to his own bio, has been called a climate "criminal" and a leading pusher of misleading ideas.
Japanese scientist Kiminori Itoh is the author of Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. Like many others, Itoh does not reject the notion of global warming entirely, but instead claims that the causes are far more complex than the anti-carbon crowd would have you believe. You can read an introduction to his views here at Climate Science.
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a thought leader, per se, in the climate skeptics scene -- but the mere fact that he has come out as being a skeptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important. His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity.
Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.
In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:
The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
Australian professor Ian Plimer is the author of Heaven + Earth, a book that purports to debunk all of the major global warming "myths."
Here's the blurb for his book, laying out his general beliefs:
The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.
The famous author Michael Crichton has, of course, passed away, but through his fiction and non-fiction writings he remains an important popularizer of scientific ideas, so we're including him. His 2005 speech to the National Press Club arguing for global warming skepticism can be found here.
Here's what he says about scientific consensus:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Alan Carlin is an EPA economist who wrote a paper calling global warming a "hoax." It's not really important what he said or what he believed or even whether his argument makes any sense at all. What's important is that he's become a right-wing celebrity over the belief that he was censored by the EPA for being a heretic (hence getting to appear on Glenn Beck)
Patrick Michaels is a CATO scholar and a GMU professor who's widely quoted as a global warming skeptic. His basic belief is that we're in a long-term warming trend and that Carbon Dioxoide has got little to do with it, as each additional greenhouse gas molecule has less and less of an effect.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7#freeman-dyson-1
Ah! But have you got the t-shirt? Your just not looking hard enough RC, try again: http://climaterealists.com/ Of course they have ALL been rebutted and debunked in these:500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html and NO I haven’t finished reading them. Please give the exact references to the 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers with the citations to the scientific papers that "rebutted and debunked" the scientific papers cited on 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers.
Please do as you do? But ALL your doing is “copy and paste” from “Sceptical Science” even I, with my limited time, could do that. That aside, I’m not sure you’ve even read them! or read the 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
RC, it actually shows the fraud in the global temperature record but you go on "believing" what you want. For the skeptics to suggest that our star, the Sun, which has 99.85% of all the matter in the solar system and supplies the light, heat and energy to sustain our planet, could, possibly, be the main driver of climate change, is a bizarre idea, right?
Scientists find errors in hypothesis linking solar flares to global temperature http://www.physorg.com/news189845962.html
“we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence. However, the only scientifically valid strategy to confront these new hypotheses is to shoot down every new missile as they come in, using the most advanced weapons at hand. We believe that this operation was successfully accomplished with respect to the complexity linking hypothesis, but there will be many more battles to be fought until the issue of the contribution of solar variability to recent global warming is settled.”
This is the language of the “faithful” defending the “only true faith” from the heretics and that’s not a good sign. Is AGW your religion RC? It clearly is for these followers IMHO.
As for the so called “errors” in the science, who better to show how wrong and confused they are but NASA. One more time (my bold added):
February 5, 2010: For some years now, an unorthodox idea has been gaining favor among astronomers. It contradicts old teachings and unsettles thoughtful observers, especially climatologists.
"The sun," explains Lika Guhathakurta of NASA headquarters in Washington DC, "is a variable star."
Over longer periods of decades to centuries, solar activity waxes and wanes with a complex rhythm that researchers are still sorting out. The most famous "beat" is the 11-year sunspot cycle, described in many texts as a regular, clockwork process. In fact, it seems to have a mind of its own.
"It's not even 11 years," says Guhathakurtha. "The cycle ranges in length from 9 to 12 years. Some cycles are intense, with many sunspots and solar flares; others are mild, with relatively little solar activity. In the 17th century, during a period called the 'Maunder Minimum,' the cycle appeared to stop altogether for about 70 years and no one knows why."
"The depth of the solar minimum in 2008-2009 really took us by surprise," says sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "It highlights how far we still have to go to successfully forecast solar activity."
Enter the Solar Dynamics Observatory—"SDO" for short—slated to launch on Feb. 9, 2010, from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
"'Solar constant' is an oxymoron," says Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab. "Satellite data show that the sun's total irradiance rises and falls with the sunspot cycle by a significant amount”
At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum. That may not sound like much, but consider the following: A 0.1% change in 1361 W/m2 equals 1.4 Watts/m2. Averaging this number over the spherical Earth and correcting for Earth's reflectivity yields 0.24 Watts for every square meter of our planet.
"Add it all up and you get a lot of energy," says Lean. "How this might affect weather and climate is a matter of—at times passionate—debate."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
Yes, DD
Actually, I’m here to learn, and I have. Sure, there’s been a bit more devil than advocate at times but that’s me just trying to draw out the best arguments and not the usual decent into the ad hom rubbish. I’m still an “unsure” but Project Astrometria along with CLOUD, PC and the others, including NASA, will provide clear evidence shortly, I’m sure. The AGW side is still a disappointment with the bad taste of the IPCC AR4 lies/mistakes/politicing and climategate emails that don't say what you think they say (isn't that a line in Star Wars? the old Jedi mind trick bit)
I have responded, just look again at my posts, you just don’t like my answers.
This thread isn’t about Piers Corbyn, he just features because he supports Project Astrometria’s view of that Earth cooling in a LIA and that the main factor is the Sun.
The replies to your statistical analysis are in my last post, you just don’t like them, that's tough. You failed to give your view on the OP, and that’s a pity.
Sure man
What is Science?
To analysts Broad and Wade the "scientific paper is as stylized as a sonnet" and its framework "is a fiction designed to perpetuate a myth." It is also socially conditioned, riddled with personality and culturally relative, which is why Schlegel says that "science is altogether a human activity," while Karl Popper adds that in science "the authority of truth is the authority of society."
http://poweressence.com/what-is-science
The Global-Warming Debate
The opposite side of the Global Warming debate is typically never heard. Here is a very logical and data-supported argument against the claims to global warming. Global-Warming proponents such as Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, along with their self-proclaimed henchmen such as Bill Nye the Pseudo-Science Guy must have some stake in the businesses generated by this possible scam, else they are simply deluded into believing the scam. Why else would they push a fraud? Why would Al Gore purchase a multi-million-dollar condo on land that will be under water according to his Convenient-nonTruth propaganda? It doesn’t make sense unless he and everyone that pushes the Global Warming fiction as fact has an agenda! Follow the money trail and it typically leads to deceitful corruption.
http://poweressence.com/the-global-warming-debate
Well done you!
You never responded to this, I wonder why?
I wonder how many of the scientists involved with the IPCC reports actually support it? Maybe, they just need to pay it "lip service" to get the funding for their research?
"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that "motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their "green" credentials in defence of their statements”
He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...e_science.html
What about this?
Scientists abandon global warming 'lie' 650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference
"A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion."
(snip)
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
Here are some choice excerpts from the report:
* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11383
Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End
"One of the catastrophic results of global warming always cited by climate change alarmists is the melting of the ice sheets covering Greenland. Some even speculated that global warming had pushed Greenland past a “tipping point” into a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and rapidly rising in sea levels. Now, from the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, comes word that Greenland's Ice Armageddon has been called off."
(snip)
"Consider the tropospheric temperature data shown in the graph below (half way down), data collected by NASA satellites."
"Don't misunderstand, the IPCC and their ilk will not go quietly. They have been riding the government funded global warming gravy train for most of their professional lives. It is going to get nasty out there."
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/greenlands-ice-armageddon-comes-end
Attempt To Discredit Cosmic Ray-Climate Link Using Computer Model
"Two computer modelers from CMU have written a program to simulate the interaction of cosmic rays with Earth's atmosphere. Because the model failed to predict significant increases in cloud cover, global warming activists are claiming the theory linking cosmic rays to climate change has been discredited. Climate models have failed to accurately predict the current downward trend in temperatures and now we are asked to accept a model as proof of how the Universe works. In truth, the paper cited is nothing more than a study of a computer program, and has nothing to do with the physical reality of how Earth's climate functions."
(snip)
“The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area” says the CLOUD spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby of CERN. Kirkby is shown below with a sketch illustrating the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. An interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia will perform the experiment. We will know if Svensmark is really on the right track when the CLOUD project starts producing data in 2011."
"Remember, they are attempting to establish the existence of new causal links, new phenomena that have not been considered previously by climate scientists. And here come Pierce and Adams' computer model, “a global atmospheric computer model of the sort used to model climate,” in a preemptive strike on real science using the same discredited techniques as the IPCC global warming cabal."
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=con...-cosmic-ray-climate-link-using-computer-model
