G'day Dan,
I challenge your reply. I simply find what you say extremely difficult to believe. How did you look at the research I referred to? Since the research is not on the Internet for the most part, you actually went to the trouble of obtaining hard copies? You really expect me to believe that you did this in two days or so.
Apparently you decide what is relevant because you apparently are "not easily distracted". The research I cited was specific to particular aspects of climate change. Pick another specific aspect and I'll provide more but it seems it doesn't matter what I provide, you don't care.
What study are you talking about by the way? Your post makes little sense. Some study was "referenced here". Huh? The study that suggests global cooling? I would be loathe to agree with that, although it makes an interesting point.
I give up. I am not going to respond to further posts by you unless they relate to a specific study or actually address a point I have raised or the cited studies raised.
Read your posts in this thread and tell me how you have even once actually addressed this topic or the general topic of global warming aside from name calling and news article or opinion links. Somehow that is twisted around to you needing to drag me back to the topic. Sheesh. All I want to do is discuss the topic but as I said, I give up. Happy to respond to anyone else or even you Dan, if you address an issue in global warming aside from opinions of others.
There really is nothing more that I can do. I have led you by the hand to the data and explained the problems with it, yet you have not once addressed this even in passing. And data analysis should be right up your alley.
What proves global warming if not glaciers, temperature variations, ice sheet melting or thickening, sea level rises? There is not much else left. I've referred directly to records on sea levels and temperature. I've cited "peer reviewed" published research on ice sheet melting/thickening and glaciers. What else is there?
And please do not say that you need to see a peer reviewed research paper on the temperature data before you will even consider that it is faulty. I've already indicated that this is one area where there is no published research, aside from the numerous comments stating flaws in the data in various pro global warming research.
By the way, the questions in this post are rethorical. I do not expect you to address them because you managed to answer only one of my questions thus far, the one concernig the citations in the post above and I have considerable reservations about your answer to that one.
And to anyone else still reading these posts, my wife raised an interesting point with me, not ever having had anything to do with science ever. Her question: "What makes you think you are right?" A terrific question. The answer is I don't think I am right. I have put forward a proposition. Scientific method follows that the proposition should be open to challenge and can be found wanting. I have no trouble with that. I would be happy to be proved wrong. As I have said a few times, I originally was of the view that there was little doubt the earth had warmed from 1980 on and overall had warmed from about 100 years before that. What I doubted was weather this was due to CO2 because that proposition seemed to have some holes, including the major cooling trends when the CO2 concentrations increased the most, and the US data being in such conflict with the world data. I had a reasonable understanding that the US data was much more likely to be accurate than much of the rest of the world. It is only because I have had to look at specific research and the methods used that the problem with "average" and just how big a margin of error this can introduce was highlighted to me. I always had a doubt about how good weather station data was, simply because we had so much trouble finding weather stations with consistent data when I had to do this for a project in the 70s but didn't realise just how bad it possibly was.
I assumed that the ice sheets were melting a bit. It seems logical if the world has warmed a bit but looking at those studies only showed up flaws in how ice sheet volume was determined before satellite data and just how unreliable that data was likely to be.
I did not know, for instance, that there was a a few sets of ocean air and sea temperature data that contradict pretty much every general study on those temperatures. The trouble is the sets that show no warming trend at all are the ones more likely to be comparable(and a significant cooling trend by very accurate measurements in the last few years - and I'm happy to cite the peer reviewed published research on ocean temperatures dropping should anyone care to look at this aspect).
All I have asked of Mr Morgan or anyone else who wishes to discuss global warming issues is to demonstrate where my logic is wrong, where there is accurate data, where I've made a mistake and some major study demonstrating global warming has no scientific method flaws.
When I taught, I had a very bad habit of starting a course with what sounded like an absurd premise and saying: "Prove me wrong". I got this from a professor who started an earth science course with "The flip between glaciations and interglacial periods takes seven years. Prove me wrong." So myself and some fellow students set out to do just that. It was because of this attempt that we all learned so much about just what evidence was available about the change over period between the two climatic states.
Yes, and I'm creating another long post, probably too long for most to bother reading it. So I'll stop.
Regards
Richard
alias RicS
or ' The Climate Change Zealot'
