Real Global warming skeptics

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh.

Of course it is a report given to lawmakers. A compilation of the information from many peer reviewed studies. Every single claim it makes is based upon those studies.

That's exactly why I linked it... because it was an effective summary. Would it be better to link hundreds of papers, or a single one summarizing it?

EDIT: I checked up on the IPCC review process. It is actually far far more rigorous then the review standard for any scientific publication. Instead of 2-5 referees, there are literally hundreds of experts checking on it. Doesn't make it foolproof... but the important part is that the review process is there, and it is robust. The mentions of methodology are removed because they aren't relevant to the audience intended.

Please. There are no references to any real papers in that summary. They don't say where they got their figures, they don't say where they got their numbers, they don't say anything really. For someone wanting to judge the data, that summary is a poor read.

You're indicting the IPCC? Do you even know what it is? Someone has an awfully high opinion of themselves.

THEN you choose to quote wikipedia as your source for how they are incorrect. Bad idea.

You seem ignorant of the fact that weather balloons and ships have recorded a temperature increase in line with the ground sensors as well. Not only that, but if you had read the article that you linked, marine sensors exhibited a large agreement with the land sensors displayed on your map.

Before you try to indict one of the largest collaborative scientific ventures in the world, you might want to bring some better sources then wikipedia. In fact, your wikipedia article that I just read even mentions that no credible study has been done on UHI, and that it exists almost totally in popular literature.... aka- crap.

Not only that, but your rebuttal is basically "I have a problem with their methodology because although they have controlled for a variable that multiple peer reviewed studies have determined is not statistically significant in either the short term or long term, I feel that they have not done so enough to suit me."

Charrison, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The report you are referring to is the 4th IPCC report that is coming out in a few months, the report we are talking about is the 3rd IPCC report that came out in 2001.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Charrison, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The report you are referring to is the 4th IPCC report that is coming out in a few months, the report we are talking about is the 3rd IPCC report that came out in 2001.

Eitherway it is bad science to hold the data to make sure it fits the summary. The summary and data should come out together, otherwise it just looks bad....

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh.

Of course it is a report given to lawmakers. A compilation of the information from many peer reviewed studies. Every single claim it makes is based upon those studies.

That's exactly why I linked it... because it was an effective summary. Would it be better to link hundreds of papers, or a single one summarizing it?

EDIT: I checked up on the IPCC review process. It is actually far far more rigorous then the review standard for any scientific publication. Instead of 2-5 referees, there are literally hundreds of experts checking on it. Doesn't make it foolproof... but the important part is that the review process is there, and it is robust. The mentions of methodology are removed because they aren't relevant to the audience intended.

Please. There are no references to any real papers in that summary. They don't say where they got their figures, they don't say where they got their numbers, they don't say anything really. For someone wanting to judge the data, that summary is a poor read.

You're indicting the IPCC? Do you even know what it is? Someone has an awfully high opinion of themselves.

THEN you choose to quote wikipedia as your source for how they are incorrect. Bad idea.

You seem ignorant of the fact that weather balloons and ships have recorded a temperature increase in line with the ground sensors as well. Not only that, but if you had read the article that you linked, marine sensors exhibited a large agreement with the land sensors displayed on your map.

Before you try to indict one of the largest collaborative scientific ventures in the world, you might want to bring some better sources then wikipedia. In fact, your wikipedia article that I just read even mentions that no credible study has been done on UHI, and that it exists almost totally in popular literature.... aka- crap.

Not only that, but your rebuttal is basically "I have a problem with their methodology because although they have controlled for a variable that multiple peer reviewed studies have determined is not statistically significant in either the short term or long term, I feel that they have not done so enough to suit me."

Charrison, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The report you are referring to is the 4th IPCC report that is coming out in a few months, the report we are talking about is the 3rd IPCC report that came out in 2001.

I didn't quote wikipedia. I quoted the paper which I had to find myself, and looked at their data set. As that paper made absolutely no mention about filtering sites based on proximity to industrial zones, I chose to see if I could find any other reference to data being filtered that way. Seeing as how the paper you posted contains absolutely no references whatsoever, wikipedia was the best source I could come up with. And please note that wikipedia is the only source that even addresses the concern I have with this data set. The info I pulled off of wikipedia goes to SUPPORT the IPCC report as they at least mention some attempt to correct for the UHI effect.