G'day Daniel,
I have provided a URL to a study whose conclusions were based on data that pretty much is indisputable.
The 1979 study actually had a value because it did show how hard it was to get accurate data. It also used data that went back as far as 80 years. Since when is a study of no value because it happened to have been done 30 years ago? It simply does not tell you anything about what has happened in the last 30 years. If someone were willing to provide me access to raw data I would happily update it and submit it for publication.
As I said, I will provide references as and when I find them. I have already provided one, which I thought was precisely on point to your opinion.
You haven't provided a single URL by the way so it is somewhat unfair to point out my flaws when you do not do so yourself.
I'll happily discuss any particular study with you providing I can gain access to that study and look at either the data or how it was collected.
I have no firm opinion as to global warming. The opinions I expressed in response to Justine where not firmly held views but my current thoughts based on my current knowledge. But I do believe that all studies should include some thought that starts with the opposite premise. For instance to a global model of warming it should include: "There is no conclusive proof to global warming. Prove me wrong." Not, ?we all agree that global warming is a big deal now let's do research that shows this?.
I do make a number of sweeping generalisations. But at least I do so in a field which I have particular academic expertise in, and an interest that has continued from well before global warming was even a concept.
Historic ice age coverage is of particular interest to me because we were developing a theory (along with a number of others in the same field) relating to what really happens with the advance of a glaciation. What we found was you had to go into a great many scientific disciplines to find evidence of ice coverage. You needed knowledge in biology, vulcanology, geology, and many other fields. There was evidence of snow and ice coverage in parts of the US and Europe for instance 12,000 years ago of which there is no trace left on the landscape but it was darn hard to find. But how do I show this to you as evidence? It is knowledge I picked up over some years a long time ago. As I said it is still contentious, although the area of my studies has pretty much disappeared. After all who wants to fund a study on the transition between glaciations and interglacial periods that really is only of academic interest when you can fund studies on warming that is happening right now? So it is going to be hard for me to find current studies that back many of my sweeping statements. I do think, however, that I do differentiate those statements with those that I make relating to specific studies. This is a discussion forum after all and opinions are important to any discussion.
I still find our discussion interesting and think I've said it before but I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong by showing a study that actually has underlying data that is without dispute. I found one for you. Your turn.
Oh, and what filter would you suggest for the search you suggested that will eliminate all but scientific studies? I know you have significant computer skills but so do I and I'd really would appreciate your instruction in something I have not been able to figure out.
I think you misinterpreted my working background with a degree - actually the most important expertise for much of my working life was the in the legal field. I already said I do not have a degree in engineering. I have included more information at the end of this as, unlike you, they are not available online anywhere but since there is no way for a reader to verify them, I will say they are of no value in any discussion here but since they have now been mentioned more than once, I will clarify.
As to the length of these posts, for those that find them too long, my apologies. I suffer from a medical condition that allows me only limited times to do things such as this and can only do so at the peak of medication cycles. This keeps my brain active and its fun but it is also very difficult so I have little time to actually put much thought into what I write in the sense of keeping it concise. I?m afraid my typing abilities ? I type much faster than I talk ? mean that I can write a great deal but then find my mental acuity waning when it comes to editing. So I either don?t say anything or say perhaps way too much. I?m not looking for sympathy by the way. I have an OK life and a wonderful family and am grateful for the abilities but thought some explanation for the long posts was in order.
Daniel, I am greatly enjoying our discussions and hope we can continue for a while as long as I can present research and my thoughts on it that is of interest to you both in favour and against your arguments and if you wish to do the same but if it gets onerous, I do understand
Regards
Richard
Fields of study:
BA: Political Science, Earth Science, History of Religion
BSc: Earth Science, Climatology
MSc: Computing
JSD: Tort law ? including insurance law reform and legislative reform/restrictions
