Since temperature records appear to be unreliable, will scientists re-think their positions on global warming?

Question

With the data providing the very backbone of the man-caused global warming argument appearing to be seriously flawed, is it time to clear the slate and start over?  Is it time for certain scientists and 'spokespersons' to finally admit that the science of man-caused global warming is seriously flawed?  Is it time to rein in some of the Billions of taxpayer dollars being doled out to study remedies for what appears to be a non-existent problem?  Your opinion?

"World may not be warming, say scientists"
Jonathan Leake 
February 14, 2010

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
 
In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”. 

However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
 
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. 

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. 
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. 
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. 
“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.” 
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. 
The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods. 
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said. 
Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic. 
His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. 

Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator. 

Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets. 

In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings. 

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal. 

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said. 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

Dr Jello · Accepted Answer

Probably not.  Never forget that science has almost nothing to do with "Global Warming".  "Global Warming" is political, not scientific.

Scientists working to advance an agenda put together scientific sounding babble to make it appear that there work was grounded in science.  Fortunately, there were many good true scientific minds that saw this game and rejected the cause even though they had to endure years of being dismissed and having their funding cut for not accepting the motive.

The political movement will be hard to kill off.  Soon you'll read posts that will say it doesn't matter if "Global Warming" is real or not, we still need to save the planet, blah, blah, blah, like accepting their faulty premise is the only way to save the planet.

Only with a change in the political leadership to a party or person who has the will to stand up to this foolery will the belief of man harming the environment change.

Anonymous · Answer

I live within walking distance of the Pacific Ocean, and I have lived here when the alarmists/leftists were proclaiming global cooling. Over 30 years ago they started chanting global warming and predicted that where I live would have a serious rise in ocean levels, flooding lowlands, that would happen within twenty year or less. That was 25 years ago and I'm still waiting. Nothing has changed, not the ocean level, not the water temperature. The state climatologist, George Taylor, exposed the scam, and he is a real scientist, not a politician. The state governor read Taylor's report, and fired him, or tried to. Taylor wasn't politically correct. Also, I studied Earth Science in college as a minor. Also, I'm not new to science; I've spent my live working in Science and Technology. All my friends are scientists or technologists. So, don't repeat Al Gore's lies to me. This climate change hoax runs along leftist political lines, and it is fed by liars and morons. Believe it!

Baccheus · Answer

Christy's own data shows warming beyond ever before recorded.  According the the UAH database we are warming dramatically.

Unfortunately the Times' writer did not provide context for Christy's statement which is disputed by his own data.  I don't believe Christy would make such an embarrassing statement without further explanation.

John Christy and Roy Spencer, both at UAH, provide there own daily temperature information which confirms other sources and shows warming.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002


Terry Mills, the quoted economic statistician found statistical confirmation of the affect of CO2 in his last published study, 2007 in Climate Change.  

"This result is robust across the sample period of 1850 to 2000, thus providing further
confirmation of the quantitative impact of radiative forcing and, in particular, CO2
forcing, on temperatures."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4l71047t3175826h/

I suspect that both Christy and Mills were quoted out of context.  There own published records do not fit the words the writer put in their mouths.  Nothing in the work of the two quoted in the Times story does anything but support the massive evidence of man on climate.

Bob · Answer

The temperature records are not considered unreliable by most scientists.  You can quote a few, but the vast majority disagree.

In part that's because the temperature record is created by so many INDEPENDENT sources.  Weather organizations all over the world.  Satellite data.  Data from the oceans (80% of the total, and measured in multiple ways).  And more.  They agree.

In part it's because the evidence of warming, measured by COMPLETELY different scientists, confirms the temperature data.  Melting Arctic ice, sea levels rising, earlier Springs, secies migrations; the list goes on and on.

In scientific terms, the database is ROBUST, insensitive to any error in one part of it.  The idea that one organization could fake it is utterly ludicrous.  It's correct, or it's the biggest conspiracy the Earth has ever seen.

Facts Matter · Answer

The Times is a denial advocate, which scrabbles around for such support as it can find. However, reading on past what you quote, we find:

"Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.” The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.” "

pegminer · Answer

This seems like a rehash of standard denier garbage from the usual suspects. What is supposed to be new in this "news"?  By the way, you're violating a copyright in your question, although at least unlike Richie you give the attribution.

EDIT: I do know that what you have done exceeds "fair use." I suspect you think you fall in that category if you know anything at all about copyright.

mr hankey · Answer

they are not going to admit they are wrong or have fudged the numbers, they need to make a living too they would lose grant money if found incompetent. these people are so arrogant they believe their own lies and will do anything to back their failures.

Anonymous · Answer

Scientists will -- and always have.

"Climate scientists" will find new ways to support their same agenda.

Anonymous · Answer

It has been shown that deniers see no temperature record as reliable, as they all show warming, even Dr. Spencer's satellite record. However, all the temperature records will suddenly become reliable if they show cooling.

Rob · Answer

Scientists continuously re-think their positions. The alarmists never will. That would be heresy.

Trending News

Since temperature records appear to be unreliable, will scientists re-think their positions on global warming?

11 Answers