Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, when they follow a proper policy of peer review, I might call it good science, yet like their research the peer review process done with much of your AGW science has been shown to be as sloppy as the methods the research it reviews applies. You don't read about this issue much do you?
Do you realize how much research in that field is published without releasing its data? You know, a process required to even be published? Maybe you explain that one to me? BTW, how long did Briffa take to release his data after he published? Want to take a guess?
Another example is the prestigious journal Science recently published a study in arctic regions, average temperatures are found to be higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. Result may well be true, but the way the researchers conclude that raises questions. Proxy-material has been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, glazed, and the combined - for example, own and my colleagues collected data from Finland in the past has even turned upside down when the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific falsification, which has serious consequences.
But hey, you know that "Peer review is the cornerstone of good science."
...and once again for the benefit of those that have no idea of the difference between weather and climate...
The Important Differences Between "Climate Change" and "Global Warming"
Global Warming — An overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface.
Climate Change — Changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events.
Let's explore the differences between these two concepts in more detail
It's worth remembering that global warming is based on an increasing average global temperature. Some parts of the planet (such as the Arctic) are getting warmer much faster than other areas. It's even possible that some regions could actually experience regional cooling at the same time the planet as a whole is experiencing global warming. Here's how.
I found this little part of the Grinning Planet article you posted very interesting.
We think of the Central Valley of California as a lush, agriculturally productive landscape, but central California's climate is actually quite dry. Without intensive use of irrigation, the land would not produce the volume or variety of food it does now. So, what if increasing temperatures cause less snow pack to accumulate in the mountains each year, leading to lower river flows and less water available for irrigation in California's agricultural areas? What if changes in rainfall patterns make central California's climate even drier? How much would crop output fall?
So very true and those horrible people at Fox had Hannity go out to that very place to interview people and to tape what the valley looks like today. For some reason, well actually a tiny fish, they have been stopped from irrigating for some time now. The food, the jobs, and the fertileness of the valley are gone because of a tiny fish in a stream they irrigated out of. It seems to me that environmentalists have interrupted that supply of food, the jobs of those who worked there, the money that was made by farmers, and the whole economy of that area because of a fish that couldn't be so important to the survival of all of us. It sounds so much like the snail darter controversy in the TVA years ago. The same thing happens in all kinds of places that need water from flowing streams and the way environmentalists actually injure the economy of whole states for inconsequential animal life.
Actually, Penn State just released a study that showed we are experiencing the most hurricanes than any time in the past 1,000 years.
Sadly, this issue has become so politicized that if we take action to slow or reverse our impacts on the climate, naysayers will say there was never a problem.
We have an extraordinary opportunity to create the industries and innovations to simply stop polluting - which is bad for us whether our mouths are wrapped around exhaust pipes, whether we live in a city where pollution doesn't blow away, or whether we live in, for example, L.A., which has 25 percent of its smog blown in from China.
It's a global society and it's time for action, no matter what you believe about GW research. Stop fighting these silly fights and create a solution.
I found this little part of the Grinning Planet article you posted very interesting.
We think of the Central Valley of California as a lush, agriculturally productive landscape, but central California's climate is actually quite dry. Without intensive use of irrigation, the land would not produce the volume or variety of food it does now. So, what if increasing temperatures cause less snow pack to accumulate in the mountains each year, leading to lower river flows and less water available for irrigation in California's agricultural areas? What if changes in rainfall patterns make central California's climate even drier? How much would crop output fall?
So very true and those horrible people at Fox had Hannity go out to that very place to interview people and to tape what the valley looks like today. For some reason, well actually a tiny fish, they have been stopped from irrigating for some time now. The food, the jobs, and the fertileness of the valley are gone because of a tiny fish in a stream they irrigated out of. It seems to me that environmentalists have interrupted that supply of food, the jobs of those who worked there, the money that was made by farmers, and the whole economy of that area because of a fish that couldn't be so important to the survival of all of us. It sounds so much like the snail darter controversy in the TVA years ago. The same thing happens in all kinds of places that need water from flowing streams and the way environmentalists actually injure the economy of whole states for inconsequential animal life.
Peer review is the cornerstone of science. Find one post of mine where I defend the peer review process of the Gorebots.
My apologies. Somewhere I mixed your response up with the numerous people who proclaim peer review as their backing, yet have no understanding of how poorly this is in the climate science field atm.
Actually, Penn State just released a study that showed we are experiencing the most hurricanes than any time in the past 1,000 years.
It is customary to provide a proper reference or link when objecting to information and making a claim as you have. Could you provide the source to this?
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park and the study's lead author, says that the results suggest that the annual number of hurricanes will continue to increase as a result of global warming.
Really Mann? Are you sure? Would this be like your MBH98?
Sorry, this guy is a joke. Sure, we should look at his data, but look at the following...
This one is good:
Quote:
But Mann says that the statistical model used in his study takes into account the possibility that historical hurricane counts could have been inaccurate, yet the results still show a peak in activity over the past decade.
Oh really? You don't say? I guess you didn't read that part Bluefly? Umm... sorry his credability is in the trash, he has already been shown to allow extreme bias in his past work. Is this why you only referred to it vaguely?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Sadly, this issue has become so politicized that if we take action to slow or reverse our impacts on the climate, naysayers will say there was never a problem.
We have an extraordinary opportunity to create the industries and innovations to simply stop polluting - which is bad for us whether our mouths are wrapped around exhaust pipes, whether we live in a city where pollution doesn't blow away, or whether we live in, for example, L.A., which has 25 percent of its smog blown in from China.
It's a global society and it's time for action, no matter what you believe about GW research. Stop fighting these silly fights and create a solution.
The rest of your response is alarmist and invalid. Try staying on the "science" part of this issue. You know, that "real science"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
