My scepticism regarding climate science grows apace. The website RealClimate preaches the orthodoxy and enforces it by censoring any adverse comments. Obviously, they base much of their 'science' on the records of weather stations around the world. This young man, a real scientist, decided to go and look at the weather stations themselves to see if there were any local conditions that might effect the readings, something none of the IPCC report-writers have ever bothered to do. One of the first he looked at and photographed had an old oil drum right next to it in which the janitor burnt his rubbish! Local interference? I think so but you'll never convince the fanatics at not-so-RealClimate. Well done to Anthony Watts for some excellent research. For those seeking a more wide-ranging and rigorous assessment of global warming claims, try Climate Audit which in the latest post (as I write) has a photograph of another weather station with a barbecue underneath the temperature sensor!
"You couldn't make it up" - but global warmers do!
I'm sceptical about Global Warming - the trans-rational belief that mathematical models of the climate are good enough for the purpose they're being put to, and the equally odd belief in the laughable economic arguments that are often advanced by the True Believers. However I'm not equally sceptical about global warming - it does seem to me to be possible that we are in a warm spell. Nonetheless, it is disconcerting that those whose job it is to check the instruments seem not to have done so very carefully.
Posted by: dearieme | Thursday, 07 June 2007 at 20:40
I can only quote what I believe are wise words from Steve McIntyre from Climate Audit:
"Let me re-state my view on these temperature series again: personally I have no doubt that temperatures are warmer today than in the 19th century. Are they warmer than the 11th century? I don’t know. Is it warmer now than the 1930s? Probably, but the size of the difference seems to depend to an alarming extent on adjustments. That’s not to say that the adjustments are wrong, but, if one is going to rely on specific estimates of the difference, one needs to understand the nitty-gritty of the adjustments that underpin the conclusion and why the adjustments are so different between KNMI [Royal Dutch Meteorological Society], GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies] and GHCN [Global Historical Climate Network]."
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1650#comments
McIntyre deserves the Nobel prize for science but won't get it, mostly because he's an amateur!
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 07 June 2007 at 21:01
Of course global warming is happening, think of all the hot air being put out by US Presidential candidates. That should be good for 2 or 3 degrees of global warming in the next two years by itself. And arn't you likely to have an election soon, just in time for the recovery from the hot air from the French election.
Unfortunatly to measure it accuratly some one would gave to listen to them. There is no one I dislike enough to assign the task.
Posted by: Hank_F_M | Sunday, 10 June 2007 at 03:27
"There is no one I dislike enough to assign the task."
You'll have to speak for yourself, Hank, because I have quite a long list!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 10 June 2007 at 09:04
Of course, getting a Research Grant to check some instruments would be pretty difficult and, even if one managed it, unlikely to advance ones career.
Posted by: dearieme | Sunday, 10 June 2007 at 22:58
'DM', I've said it before, you're a cynic before your time!
You should look at Watts' latest picture of a temperature measuring site on an airfield used by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)/NASA and whose measurements are one of the standards used by the global warmers. You can actually see the back end of a Mig jet (a working aircraft, not a museum piece) about 20' away from the box.
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 11 June 2007 at 08:29