OK, fine lars. I'll debunk your op-ed. As I've said before, it's too bad you never show the same skepticism toward random people that you do the actual scientists.
Point 1.
Quote:
| So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 |
There's debate over whether this one article out weighs numerous studies (yes it is possible, but usually the data show why), and note "until". It still says we're warming the globe and it will continue to warm because of us.
Linky. So much for point one of "we don't warm the earth".
Ok..lets debunk..your debunking.
Translation. The jury is still out. The data is conflicting. So much for the consensus. BTW..I have not been the camp that human have ZERO impact..just not as much as the model show. This has been shown through the data..ie..you need to reread Spencer, NASA and water vapor.
Because the models are not showing what they where supposed to predict. Hence, if the data continues as is warming is likely to be mild and capped. Because C02 only has limited warming power ..the rest is dependant on water vapor feedback ..which is NOT happening. Whiff 1
Point 2.
Quote:
| A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. |
I won't bother arguing the evidence from one snow cap. If you think you have a point, carry on. You don't. So much for point two.
Not basing my arguement on snow cap. Merely pointing out what he said is true. . Stike 2
Point 3.
Quote:
| Two weeks ago, as North America emerged from its coldest and snowiest winter for decades...March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years. |
{gasp} You mean there's year to year variations (not sure how precipitation matters anyway)?? Yeah, again, not relevant. In fact we know why the northern hemisphere (hey not global) winter was cold and snowy. ENSO. Yep weather. Strike 3.
Again, Not basing my conclusions on this..But the author does have the FACTS correct. Whiffed again.
Point 4.
Quote:
| Mr McIntyre is the computer expert who exposed the infamous "hockey stick" graph |
The hockey stick exists. McIntyre is wrong. Sorry. Strike 4.
The hockey stick was flawed. Proved out..author is getting the fact correct ...again you whiff.
Point 5.
Quote:
| What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded.. |
So we're now comparing arctic ice trends over years with ice from one region for one year that we already know was colder for weather reasons not climate. Strike 5.
Key data was left out to give the impression that ice pack was less than it was. In fact the ice recovered beyond what was orginally there. Author points out misleading info. Correct. Strike
Point 6.
Quote:
| (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal). |
Yeah, well score one for those models that don't work. They predict
Antarctica will be colder during this time.
The model have gotten many things wrong. The biggest to data is the non-existance of a positive water vapor feedback loop. Without warming is mild at a worst going forward and barely noticible at best.
Pointg 7.
Quote:
| The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe. |
See point one. Still don't know what to do with that extra energy re-radiated back to the earth. We've known the oceans were heat sinks for some time.
The author points out accurate data..what you know.. he got right again and you got wrong.
Point 8.
Quote:
| debate is almost entirely overlooked by the media, and is instead conducted largely on the internet, through expert websites such as those run by Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts. |
50 years ago Martin Gardner pointed out cranks operate outside the scientific discussion. Congrats. Welcome to the club that include diviners, mysitics, etc. And see my previous post. The discussion occurred and continues to occur.
I would say that much of the debate is happening on the net. Which is not a good thing but true. However, some of the media is waking up. As evidenced by this aritcle.
Point 9.
Quote:
| On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24). |
As I said before, if this is true you should easily show the graphs showing the diverging curves.
Sorry no graphs to make it simple for you. Just that more and more is coming out in the form of reports, studies and articles. That is true.
Point 10.
Quote:
| The fact is that what has been happening to the world's climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998, |
As I've pointed out before, this is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. 1998 was an unusually warm year, just like some others in recorded time. We are continuing to warm. Stop confusing weather with climate.
Well, here you could have a point. But the data does seem to be flat in tempature. The jury is still out on this one. The author may or may not have it correct.
Point 11.
Quote:
| In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late. |
See above.
True..we need less bias
Now gee lars, why don't I go through every link of you deniers point by point? Maybe because I waste my time rehashing the same BS and it wouldn't sink in. You'll once again claim warming stopped in 98. You'll again claim it's solar cycles. What's the point? As is evidenced from Poly's post, you guys are no longer rational about this.
And for the record I did respond to Spencer's Aqua data. I said he's a legit scientist. Lets see what the other scientists have to say. That's different from your response which was to quote a biologist who works for a conservative think tank.
Once again you bias comes through. But that is expected. The data is conflicting at best and the models are clearly not up to par. Significant research is still being done. The key to the whole warming thing is water vapor and possibily natural varitation and solar output. Those are all factors not accounted for as of yet.