About This Blog
Most people have accepted as fact the notion that the earth has warmed over the last century, even if they debate the reasons behind it. The last IPCC assessment deemed global warming to be "unequivocal." When I have discussed global warming previously on this blog, I always accepted as fact the underlying idea that the earth has warmed slightly, though I was skeptical of all the doomsday rhetoric being spewed by the global warming alarmists.
But British scientists and others are now saying the earth may not be warming at all.
The London Times has reported new studies examining the unreliability of temperature measuring stations around the world. Here are the findings of a peer-reviewed study:
“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.
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.”
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.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
In other words, temperature measuring stations that used to be in the middle of rural fields are now in or near urban areas, so they register the warmer urban temperatures.
I only hope Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Al Gore, and company won't call the London Times anti-science flat-earthers for reporting this information. They don't think any of this stuff should be aired. They think the science is settled, the matter decided.
Isn't that THEIR problem ? Doesn't that make THEM anti-science ? I'm just asking.