Apparently positive cloud feedback is assumed as a given in all climate models as used by IPCC. Casting PCF into doubt, as Roy W Spencer does apparently effectively, as covered in this article by him at the Climate Science site, serves to weaken the veracity of the models put forward to support the IPCC's conclusions.
He maintains that there needs to be progress made in data collection methodology before the issue can be solved, and goes as far as to say "Until that progress is made, I consider the existence of positive cloud feedback in nature to be more a matter of faith than of science."
For the IPCC and others to base (what they consider to be) critical decisions on nothing more solid than faith is a pretty big accusation. In science that's tantamount to fraud.
Incidentally, Roy is no stranger to the concept of faith, being on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a coalition "committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment". Their slogan is "For the Stewardship of Creation".
An attempt to find a reasonable position for a lay person on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
About this blog
It has been put to me by someone much smarter than my good self that those who question the seriousness of human-induced carbon emissions are likely to be corrupt hacks funded by carbon-emitting industries. At the very least ignorant bigots. I'd assumed that there were two sides to the story.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(40)
-
▼
January
(40)
- Bob Carter
- Popular Mechanics
- Richard Lindzen
- Roger W Cohen
- The Cornwall Alliance
- Roy W Spencer
- Continuous adjustment
- Walter Cunningham
- Tim Lambert
- Trends
- American Physical Society
- Jon Jenkins
- Plan B
- Nature again
- World Climate Report
- Nature
- William M Connolley
- McKitrick paper
- Climate Audit
- Subtotal
- Consensus?
- Source data
- Richard L Smith
- Stunts
- Something unexpected
- Friends of Science
- The Met
- Science Daily
- David Bellamy
- James Annan
- Scientific American
- David Evans
- Joanne Nova
- Don J Easterbrook
- New Scientist
- The benefits
- Denial immoral
- Interference
- MIT
- The first juicy seam
-
▼
January
(40)
No comments:
Post a Comment