Unsettled Unscience

The science behind global warming is taking more hits than Jean-Pierre Koopman against Mohammed Ali:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife.

Sounds bad.

However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Long story short; humans do cause warming – where they live:

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Do you think a weather station surrounded by strip malls and houses is going to be warmer than one out on the lone prairie?

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

In other words, he was part of that universal consensus, before he wasn’t.

10 thoughts on “Unsettled Unscience

  1. Really two scientist who have switched sides and are not refuting the consensus. “John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.” and “The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.”

  2. Christy is the weather satellite guy. He’s been on the side of the AGW fanatics but he’s been trying to figure out why his data (large scale atmosphere & ocean temps) differs from what is shown by the ground stations.
    Weather predictions for small geographic areas in the short term are too noisy to predict accurately. On a medium scale the weather is somewhat predictable. Meteorologists do better when predicting weather the coming winter will be hotter or cooler, wetter or dryer, than what the weather will be like tomorrow in a single location.
    Some climate scientists believe that this means that the longer the time period, and the greater the area, the more accurately they can predict what the climate will be like.
    They could be wrong. It’s entirely possible that medium-scale climate predictions can be made accurately, but large scale climate predictions can’t.

  3. More boxing/AGW connections….

    Ali’s brother sold his heavyweight belt to buy dope and booze….I see ALGORE Jr. pawning dad’s Nobel, selling teh gay Prius and buying a 1988 Trans Am.

  4. Jean-Pierre Koopman — wow, there’s a name from the past. Ali fought some, ahem, interesting opponents in those days. Meanwhile, Antonio Inoki was unavailable for comment.

  5. Yet teh peevee/deegee/flush/AC/et al still claim the debate is over and are pushing the cap and tax energy tax. (how “progressive” of them, heh heh heh)

  6. I like to say the whole darn AGW thing is a classic case of GIGO. But the I think we’re going to find out in time that BIG money was at the root of this scam of biblical proportion. These “scientists” are scrambling to cover their ass with excuses that the lost and manipulated data was just inadvertent accidents. These same “scientists” will continue to claim that even though the data is nefarious it still proves the debate on AGW is over…..SCOUNDRELS!!! GET A ROPE!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.