Sounds reasonable enough. What do you think of this article: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100194166/man-made-global-warming-even-the-ipcc-admits-the-jig-is-up/ Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up
By James DelingpoleEnvironmentLast updated: December 13th, 2012 3839 CommentsComment on this article Could this mysterious glowing orb have something to do with climate change? Surely not! Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. Here's the killer admission: Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties. As the leaker explains, this is a game-changer: The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself. --- On Mon, 12/17/12, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Monday, December 17, 2012, 4:33 PM Harry, I will be honest with my limitations. I neither have the knowledge or the requisite background to make sense of raw data, as I am not a climatologists. Neither are you, unless you can correct me. In fact, I don't believe there are any climatologists in this list. But like I said. If people would do the suggestion I've outlined, it will go a long ways in minimizing controversy and "settle" the science. First, Don't fudge the data. (At least, don't get caught fudging the data. LOL...) Second, Open up the discussion. Don't stifle research into contrary views by unilaterally declaring it "settled science". This is the best way to bomb your credibility. By refusing to discuss as if you have the last word on the subject. That is what Bob Parks, et al, do with cold fusion, and don't you think it is "so" annoying. Third, Open up the raw data to other experts. Open up your models. Discuss your data gathering techniques. Don't hide these things and only put out your "conclusions", which is just your opinion. What is wrong with what I am asking. You will convince me and people like me if people would simply implement these suggestions. The more you hide behind your "settled science" position, the more people like me become more recalcitrant and stubborn. People instinctly know you are trying to pull a wool over their eyes; and this AGW propaganda smells of that. Jojo
