log man said...Mark _australia said...Main thing I got from it is apparently you can make a 1000 year duration temperature graph from tree ring observations, then from 1960 to present use thermometer readings (even though they
disagree with the tree ring observations 1960-now) and tack the 2 together and THAT is science.
Hmmmm
And they can't understand why people were sceptical and a newspaper ran with it....
So I think Mr. Nurse's observations about finding one small point(of dubious relevance)of difference and then constructing a whole basis of thought around that point is true. it's unbelievable really that from a 1 hour doco that you found 1 point that fitted your belief .... so that's what you thought of the doco. By the way, did you hear the fella from East Anglia explain his graph ,the reason for it and the context it was used in? did you think that was reasonable?
Where did I tlak about my belief in that post? Actually I don't have a belief either way.
My point was not that I only took one thing on board from the doco. My point is that the doco was (1) pondering why people don't believe scientists anymore,and
(2) to convince us that climate change is real. Their example they wished to refute ("climategate" / data splicing in the graph, which you call
a small point) was not convincingly refuted at all.
All it does is show dubious scientific method.
The pro climate change community believe that temp readings can be taken from tree rings for the last thousand plus years.
Then they say that the tree ring data from the last 50 years does not match the thermometers. BUT they use the two sets of data in one graph,
which does up n down wiggles for a thousand years, then suddenly 50 years of rising temp like never before.
Sorry. That is crap. The blokes explanation for data splicing left a lot to be
desired. But forget data slicing, let's pretend it is great and it is scientifically valid, see blow.
The NASA section was hardly convicing. He showed they can predict cloud and
wind activity a week or so ahead, and then have what really happened on another screen and they are similar - that was remarkable.
But it reeks of a nice presentation based on what we know about the current world and last few years of weather,
to make people go oooh ahhhh and believe they must be able to model
historical data.
However flash computer modelling still does not change the fact that garbage in = garbage out and they
need to know the temps from thousands of years ago thru to present with
certainity before they can be sure of climate chage being man made.
Now how
good is that historical data when they take tree ring temps from a thousand years ago as gospel -
when they
know the tree ring data from 1960 - 2000
does not match the thermometer data
Then the flipside - the anti lobby reckon solar activity is reflected in the presence of a certain Carbon isotope
in stalactites and stalagmites, and it correlates with world temps for all of history,
thus it must be solar flares responsible for global warming.
Trouble is, all their research is from one cave! You'd need to do at least a variety
of caves - even better, northern, southern and middle latitude caves
if thinking about sun exposure.
It also ignores the fact that stalactites/mites
may not be that old,
considering they've been found in 100year old building
basements some may form much more rapidly that previously assumed.
.
