Max doesn't agree with me about much, but she also feels the climate change skeptics have no credibility.
A BSc doesn't hold much credibility either in comparison to the skeptical PhD's and Nobel Prize winners.
Climate Change is an important and interesting area. It needs to be approached using scientific disciplines, relying on referenced and peer-reviewed material.
Absolutely! I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately, we already know from the Climategate emails between the comparative few running the show how the peer review process can be manipulated. How's that Hockey Stick coming these days? It represented a central, peer-reviewed analysis in support of climate change. It has been totally debunked for selecting data and processing with a specific conclusion intended. It took years to access the original data because the scientists involved did not believe in sharing. Considering the impacts, I would think that the alarmists would take great care in getting their facts correct, welcoming criticism and seeking replication. The actions have been extremely insular.
Anecdotes and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories add nothing to this kind of science.
Would that include
Al Gore's Sea water Swindle? Or Tim Flannery's
drought predictions; predictions of polar bear extinctions; ice free polar regions; the Sydney Opera House awash in ocean; huge methane expulsions from thawed tundra; Maldives disappearing under the waves; Himalayas being glacier free in just 35 years, and extreme weather events? Articles like
U.N. Proposes Global Taxes to Fund ‘Global Challenges’ Such As Climate Change do not bolster the UN's cause either. Let's not forget the deliberate alarmist tactics to release catastrophic warnings from questionable science papers to the media long before the peer review process is complete. Typically, the peer review process results in the deletion of the alarmist propaganda some months later, but there is rarely, if ever, an official retraction or correction in the media.
The graph does show a strong correlation between modeled and observed data.
Of course there's a strong correlation between modelled and observed data! It's easy to fit model outputs with past data. There's not much hope if the scientists get that part wrong. (Although if you go back far enough, they completely omitted the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods until it was pointed out. They argued that these were regional variations until evidence indicated they were global.) The validation comes in predictive outcomes and all the models are failing on that score. What has that graph done since 1998? Temperatures have remained stagnant while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise. The alarmists predicted that we'd be on track for unavoidable continually rising temps. It hasn't happened. So what's up? The alarmists said that we might see periods where world temperatures may level off or even decline slightly, at variance with the model predictions, but there was no way these periods would exceed 7 years...then 10 years...then 14 years...then...you get the picture how the goalposts keep moving. The model projections were correct for the first few years, as could be expected. They've now been wrong for longer than they were right. There are not a few astrophysicists currently predicting a cooling trend based on observations of the sun's activities. Unfortunately, (as I understand it) the CO2 effect in the alarmist models is programmed at a magnitude about 20 times greater than changes to the sun's output. Extended periods of cooling world temperatures are just not in the realm of possibilities for the alarmists.
The Greenhouse Gas curve also seems to correlate with rising temperatures since 1950, which is what is expected.
Maybe a little Freudism there? Surely you mean the rising temperatures seem to correlate with the Greenhouse Gas curve? It's important to get that right, otherwise it might be assumed you are supporting some of the skeptical arguments.
Half a century? What is expected? Of course it's expected when it suits your argument. Does it show where man's emissions are to blame? It certainly doesn't correlate over the last 15 years, but let's just ignore that. Must be black carbon, missing deep ocean heat absorption or some other furphy. According to the alarmists, we should also expect an atmospheric hot spot. Despite the billions spent looking for it, it still hasn't materialised.