G'day Dan,
So the citations I provided where not worthy of your enquiry? And the suggestion you look at the data sets is not worth doing?
Mr Morgan, you have provided links to no research, just news articles. How come your links to opinion news articles somehow correlate to "research" yet my citations directly to research do not mean anything? Doesn't seem particularly fair.
As I said, pick a topic and I'll provide citations to research papers that dispute global warming in relation to that field.
And just so I understand Mr Morgan's statement of facts, it would include the conclusion that the several hundred research papers I have in my database are all done by crackpots and cranks. I'd go on but this is simply a circular argument.
Mr Morgan, you do not wish to actually debate or discuss any scientific issues, only quote news links and denegrate anyone who does not agree with you. Post some links to research and I'll be happy to continue a discussion.
I find it amazing that, while I do post considerable text which is my opinion, it also includes direct discussion on research that you have referred to, or is used to "prove" global warming. You do not counter any of this except to say that I am a crank.
I personally do not care what you think of me and have patiently addressed any direct issue concerning global warming you have raised.
I don't hold a position because I like the position particularly. Do you think it is fun to worry every day that your funding promise will be yanked because your results are just so unpopular? It isn't actually. As I have said so many times it is probably not worth repeating because you, Dan, simply will ignore it, my only concern in relation to climate studies that relate to the present is the problems with scientific method and the use or misuse of data. I would much rather go back to what most interests me, and that is the cause of flips between glaciations and interglacial periods and the time it takes for such events.
Perhaps, instead of calling me a crank, and a crackpot zealot you might like to address any one of these points:
1. Show one single study relating to temperature where the data is not seriously flawed.
2. Have a look at the GHCN data set. Here is the link to NASA's site that uses it:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ . Try the random test I suggested and then tell me that the GHCN data set really is reliable and you did not get more cooling trends than warming trends by picking sites at random.
3. Find any ocean temperature records that show global warming AND are comparable against themselves over time.
4. Dispute NASA's findings that the Antarctic ice coverage is actually increasing. Since you seem to prefer news articles to research here is a selection:
?As climate shifts, Antarctic ice sheet is growing? ?Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2005
?Scientists link global warming to Antarctic?s ice cap?s growth? ?Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2005
?Antarctica ice cap thickens? ?Pittsburgh Post Gazette, May 20, 2005
?Warming is blamed for Antarctic?s weight gain? ?New York Times, May 20, 2005
?Ice sheet confounds climate theory? ? The Telegraph, May 20, 2005
?Antarctica ice cap thickens, slowing rise in sea levels? ? Pioneer Press, May 20, 2005
5. Pick any aspect of climate change such as glaciers, sea levels, anything and actually argue your case that this aspect supports global warming without the data being manipulated and with proper scientific method applied. I really would like to see such research. There must be some out there, surely.
But you will not do any of this, Dan. You will simply call me another name and say that I'm not providing any links to research, even though that is actually a pretty serious misrepresentation of what I have actually done. Either Dan, you will not respond at all, or you will have some comeback that includes an insult or derogatory comment. Let's see. Perhaps it will be something along the lines that this post is nothing but more waffle on my behalf and contains nothing by my worthless opinion. Or parhaps I am being overly harsh because continiuing to address each issue Mr Morgan raises is met with yet another less than complimentary post and no science.
And the reason why I have even bothered to respond yet again? Because there are more people on this forum than those that simply wish to denigrate other's positions and they actually might wish to think for themselves. I really hope so.
Regards
Richard
PS. For those actually interested in the issues, the very substantial increase in the volume of the Antarctic has been confirmed in more than one study. This is one: Curt Davis (University of Missouri-Columbia), 2005, published in ScienceExpress. And then there are several about the reduction in mass of the western part of Antarctica. An example would be John O. Stone of University of Washington's team finding that the WAIS deglaciation began 10,000 years ago and is not related to present climate events. To quote one of the other authors, Ackert: "Recent ice sheet dynamics appear to be dominated by the ongoing response to deglacial forcing thousands of years ago, rather than by recent anthropogenic warming or sea level rise." (I think this research was partly published in Science two or three years ago, but cannot find the direct reference right now).
And of course Stone, Ackert and Curtis are zealots and cranks, by the criteria of Mr Morgan.
As to whether I cherish popularity or supporting a position because the evidence supports it, I would refer you to my current signature quote by George Bernard Shaw.
