Very interesting. Thanks for the link. I will say, one thing that did catch me eye while reading it was this following statement: "Approximately 5%
of the respondents were climate scientists." Ergo, 95% of the respondents weren't specialists in the respected field. Also, it would be handy if
they provided names, just so I could double-check a few of them.
For example - the people constantly running around ATS so sure of themselves that it's not a big deal because "climate change is a natural
cycle" are the ones who don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about. They think the answer is so obvious, but they never bother to
consider the fact that in real science you don't just get by with a simple observation - you also need an explanation of that observation.
Exactly. And personally, I think that scientists like Svensmark, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Bernard Bond and Friis-Christensen have come up with good
evidence that the climate over the last century is due to natural forcings (PDO, cosmic rays, solar activity, El Nino's, etc).
In the case of the extreme warming of the last century
I wouldn't really describe the warming last century as extreme. It was only 0.7C, which is well-within, established long-term climate trends and much
of that 0.7C has been lost in the last decade as temperatures have been in a steady decline. According to the Central England Temperature Record,
during the early 1700s temperature rose by 2.2C in just 36 years, which puts the warming last century in perspective.
There is NO explanation other than human influence.
You sure about that? Have you read Svensmark et al 2007 and Soon et al 2009?
There are no 30,000 scientists and 9000 PhD's. Anyone who wants to can add their name to that fake list.
Of about 30,000 signatories they were only able to cite about a dozen whose authenticity might be suspect.
All these stories you heard about "hiding the decline" were just deliberately out of context soundbites that have since been thoroughly
What do think they meant when they said "hide the decline" then? Seems pretty much self-explanatory to me. If the guys over at the CRU aren't
frauds, then they're terrible scientists, because when they were faced with FOIA requests to release their data in which their computer model
projections were based, they conveniently 'lost' the raw data.
[edit on 27-7-2010 by Nathan-D]