This story should be required reading for all the hysterics out there.
What is really funny is hysteric-in-chief Scott Morrison's attempt to distract when confronted with the facts.
But then, when it comes to xenophobia, facts are usually irrelevant.
6 comments:
I would accept your argument 1735099 if you would accept the same logic when applied to global warming.....
Boat arrivals are falling, therefore the govt's plans must be working (and Abbott is wrong)
The earth has not warmed for 10(?) years therefore there the scientists' consensus (and their modelling)should be reviewed.
Cav
"No warming in the last 10 years" is a scam.
See - http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/07/global-warming-has-stopped.html
It is advanced by people lacking any understanding of basic statistics.
BTW - any government's plans about refugee policy are marginally significant only. It's the push factors that make the difference.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/
Your turn
The data posted on the site I linked too is not GISS data. It is an average from a variety of independent sources including NASA and BOMs all over the globe. We're talking about global temperatures, not arctic temperatures.
Funny thing is, all the graphs he posted trend upwards. He's using the old meme "if one aspect of the data is wrong, then it's all wrong", and follows the confected climategate story.
It follows therefore that whether the GISS data was manipulated or not is irrelevant.
I take my information on AGM from scientific journals, not bloggers.
Pierre Gosselin is a Yank living in Europe. He holds an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College (equivalent to a Diploma in this country) and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
These qualifications have nothing to do with climate science and make him about as qualified to have an opinion as I am.
I don't rely on opinions. I dig up the facts from the relevant scientific literature. It's a pity a few other bloggers and journalists didn't do the same.
If you're interested in pursuing this, you could subscribe to a few of the following -
Reviews of Geophysics - publisher: Springer, for the American Geophysical Union
(Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science publisher: Annual Reviews
Climate Dynamics - publisher: Springer
Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) - AGU journal series with seven sub-disciplines, five relevant to climate science:
JGR - Atmospheres
JGR - Biogeosciences
JGR - Earth Surface
JGR - Oceans
JGR - Space Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
American Journal of Science publisher: AJS, at Yale University Dept. of Geology and Geophysics
Earth Science Reviews - publisher: Elsevier
Paleoceanography - publisher: AGU
Global Biogeochemical Cycles - publisher: AGU
Journal of Climate publisher: American Meteorological Society
International Journal of Climatology (IJC) - Publisher: Wiley, for Royal Meteorological Society
Theoretical and Applied Climatology - publisher: Springer
Climate Research publisher: Inter-Research Science Center
While I read yours why don't you read these....
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/nasas-global-warming-evidence-page-filled-with-lies-half-truths-and-highly-suspect-data/
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/Lesson1_graphs.htm
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/Lesson2_graphs.htm
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/Lesson3_graphs.htm
and finally really up your alley...
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/teachers.htm
Cav
If you can refer me to published peer-reviewed scientific articles in the appropriate disciplines, I’ll read them. I don’t read material posted on blogs sponsored by individuals who have a political axe to grind either for or against AGW.
If I want to research current trends and issues in teaching, I read educational journals, not political blogs.
Any graph, statement or data set that can’t be referenced to a source is most likely bogus. The first site you referred me to is a hodge-podge of assertions, quotes referenced to individuals, and extracts from newspapers. That is not rigorous scientific analysis, and completely worthless.
The sites for schools are even less reliable as they are funded by Sovereignty International, an American group who believe that the UN is a conspiracy to secure world government. Any teaching source should be apolitical and scientific, and this crew is neither.
Post a Comment