Hi Count,
Oh, they are scientifically sound.
It's just you don't hear them raised very often or if you do you don't see them put together.
For instance, can anyone on this site state that they knew how SAT data was collected and how the yearly averages were actually calculated - that is all the way back to the raw data?
And, unless I'm badly deluded, my current study will get published. But not an article criticisng GW science. You'd need to be someone of renown in Climate circles (not just a lowly BSc even where they are good at studying studies and has a working background that backs their expertise in the field of critical analysis of studies and the like).
The trouble is if you are of some renown in Climate circles, unless retired, you wouldn't dare raise all my points in an article submitted for publication. It would never get past the peer review either. Don't you know, Global Warming is an irrefutable fact. It would be chirlish to be critical just because a bit (well, all actually) of the science is a little faulty.
Think I'm wrong. Submit a brief summary of what I write to any scientific journal, saying the author can back everything written with sound scientific studies and lab research. I doubt you will even get a reply.
Try another tack. Global Warming uses one set of figures to get to the SAT (Surface Air Temperature) average for the earth. That is the GHCN data (either version one or version two). The data sucks! Not because of anything any of the persons responsible for collecting the data did, except that the GHCN data provides monthly averages of the data only with no indication at all just how that monthly average was calculated as it is calculated at the source. There is so many gaps in the data that you can use statistical analysis to demonstrate just how unreliable it is. I could write a comprehensive paper just comparing the GHCN data with raw data from specific locations and showing just how much it differs depending on how an average is calculated. That should make interesting reading since pretty much all arguments fundamentally come down to the world average Surface Air Temperature. If it is invalid, how do you argue anything about global change?
Is it possible to get a valid dataset that could be used to create an average. With a huge amount of work, you could at least produce a dataset that used the same method for all data for average and for how you average the averages. But it would still have urban effect and what I call "local urbanisation" effects. Eliminate all but rural locations and you do not have sufficient data for a valid comparison.
Even then you are still left with data that is full of gaps and has very few stations with contiguous records from 1880. Once you start combining that data, your maths better be impecible. Even still if the results show a cooling or no warming, the whole thing is going to be written off as a front for the Bush Administration or ExxonMobil and the peer review will indicate to the journal that you are a crackpot not worthy of publication.
My study is on studies and it is already hitting terrible hurdles. But lets assume that the plug is not pulled and it is finished. It will get published probably because of who is backing it but it will not be accepted. I personally do not believe I'll ever be allowed to finish it without getting funding elsewhere and that means it probably won't be accepted for publication. Who is going to believe that EVERY study on global warming is blatantly biased, or uses scientific methodology that is either suspect or just bad. No one will believe that. Scientists are much more honest than say politicians so a study with such a conclusion. I truly hope that I can point to exceptions or a statistically significant amount of studies that this does not apply to - I'm not trying to predetermine the outcome, only that I've now looked at a fair few studies with the same depressing results. I did not expect the results I am seeing. I thought all I would find was unintential bias that creeps into almost all science when the author of research holds a particular view on the subject.
I made this offer to Dan Morgan on this forum several times. Point to any scientific study and providing I can access the data used, I'll point out the flaw. Even without the data, I may still be able to point out the flaw. Mr Morgan has never taken me up on the offer. My only criteria is that it has to be pro-warming and not related to the sun or magnetic influence of the sun. Anyone else who thinks that the science I mentioned is faulty can take up the challenge. Now, I also have a condition. The analysis I do has to be considered by the challenger and if they disagree they have to also provide an explanation based on scientific principles or valid scientific methodology.
Look up "A Sceptics Guide to an Inconvenient Truth". (
www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf) The science is actually pretty good. The backer is terrible because they are known to oppose any legislation relating to global warming and have actually sued the US government over related issues. They are funded by the oil industry. So no one will believe a word that is written. It makes a great many points that I have been making for a while but a whole heap better argued and overall it is worthless.
Richard
