I consistently hear AGW supporters claim "consensus" as if it is scientific proof. But how can any individual call the science "beyond discussion" when many of the AGW claims have been proven wrong.
In 2001, the IPCC's report used "Hockey Stick" as proof man was the problem. However, this evidence was completely debunked. A main piece of evidence which is completely disproved does not lend itself to a science that is already "solved".
In the USA, 1998 was proclaimed as the hottest year in history by NASA and James Hansen. After scientist studied the data, it was found an error existed in NASA's calculations and 1934 was the hottest year. Again, the science is not past discussion.
Another example, in Al Gore's movie, he said, "Do these graphs fit together?" He then went on to explain that the data showed CO2 drives temperature. Again, scientist studying the data discovered that CO2 lagged temp by about 800 years.
Why do people claim the science is settled, when obviously, it is not?
2007-11-08
12:09:02
·
5 answers
·
asked by
CrazyConservative
5
in
Environment
➔ Global Warming
Sorry, the hockey stick was totally and completely debunked. It is not even close to correct. It has been shown to be incorrect both in the data and the model it used.
As for the global temperature, who has the best and most comprehensive system in use? The USA. How many countries measured data closely in 1930's. Not to many. How much global coverage is there sine 3/4 is covered in water, and the poles were never measured till recently. Same with Africa and most of former USSR. We are the drivers of these temps, and we are wrong.
As for the 800 year lag, the point is that in your sides opinion, the "science is settled". But, as we all know it is far from being settled.
2007-11-08
13:46:29 ·
update #1