One thought on “TBTE20110224”

1. “But physical explanations and observational evidence are precisely the weak points of the global warming dogma. The whole global warming theory began with mathematical computer models. But the actual observational data isn’t there. Climategate helped produce revelations about the corruption and unreliability of global temperature data, which in any case has shown a lack of continued warming over the past decade. In one of the Climategate e-mails, a consensus scientist complains that it is a “travesty” that they cannot explain recent cooling. In another, Phil Jones* gives the most notorious line of the scandal, explaining how he is manipulating a graph of proxy temperature data to “hide the decline” it shows in recent decades.”

   The irony of this article is that it has no evidence for its own assertions. That the author uses the phrase “global warming theory” shows that he doesn’t actually understand what is being discussed. The idea that climate could change in response to human actions was first put forward by Svante Arrhenius in the late 19thC, and was developed over the early and mid-20thC well before there were any computers to do any modelling. The observational data is abundantly there, across a wide range of data sets (not simply global surface temps). The hacked emails helped produce revelations of grumpy scientists but have not led to the retraction of a single published paper. The earth has continued to warm over the last decade. The travesty line is not at all about “recent cooling” and this claim demonstrates a basic inability to read. And Phil Jones was “hiding the decline” of one proxy which was widely acknowledged to have departed from the recorded temperature data in recent decades.

   This Gish Gallop of denier memes without any evidence makes for an ironic addition to a piece about the importance of evidence to back one’s claims.

   Loading...

Comments are closed.