The only rebuttal given by AGW proponents is that the scandals of the IPCC don't negate the science (i.e., unscrupulous behavior by a few don't negate the rock-solid science), so it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science. Climate science is very complex, and AGW proponents dismiss the scientific arguments unless the data are contained in journal papers that are "peer-reviewed." Read more
Another smoking gun: The Missing Hotspot
Also out today, an article on the solar/cosmic ray/cloud connection, subject of a recent hockey schtick post:
"We’ve known for a long time about a high correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature. However, a high correlation does not mean or prove cause and effect; a mechanism is required. Early IPCC reports correctly used lack of a mechanism as the reason for excluding the subject. There was no mechanism, at least with solid scientific support, for the first two IPCC Reports. A mechanism, now known as the Cosmic Theory, was well developed when the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001 was released and better documented by the Fourth Assessment Report (FAR). Although discussed briefly in TAR it was essentially ignored in FAR.
Sunspots and Cosmic Radiation...reliable sunspot records only appear after Galileo used his telescope on the Sun in 1610.Considerable research on sunspots identified various cycles including the 11-year Schwabe cycle and the 22-year Hale cycle. The most notable event was the period from 1645 to 1710 named the Maunder Minimum by John Eddy after the solar scientist E. Walter Maunder. Eddy’s Scientific American article “The Case of the Missing Sunspots” brought the issue to the wider public in 1977. People like Hubert Lamb, founder of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), associated this period of few sunspots with the cold period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA) centered at the end of the 17th century.
And a Newsweek Article: Iceberg Ahead: Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.Christensen and Lassen, published a 1991 paper in Science titled, “Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate.” Work progressed with the involvement of Henrik Svensmark, and a joint publication with Christensen in 1997 titled “Variation of Cosmic ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships.” Subsequent articles appeared in 1998, 2000 and 2003 long before the IPCC deadline for the 2007 Report. Svensmark and Calder detail the history of the idea in their book, “The Chilling Stars”. Read more
Also Recommended: The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick
Orac, dare I call him "The Oracle" has published today a wonderful and somewhat heart wrenching blog about corruption in scientific practise. I was particularly impressed with his description of how science today is and should be practised. This seems most appropriate when you consider all the 'fudged' data coming out of the IPCC. TIME IS NOW to do away with the myth of AGW. Like your blog.
Thanks for your compliment. I read the Oracle piece and agree. I think there are many scientists who would like to speak out but feel that they can not do so without suffering ridicule, loss of grant support, or worse like death threats that some vocal scientists have received!ReplyDelete