An Inconvenient Ruling for An Inconvenient Truth

[pinhead]

Originally Posted by skylord

Pinhead lets do it your way. Lets read what you posted.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

This is an article written 12 years ago based on information gathered 10 years before that. It seems to me if the data where a little more recent it may be different but what do I know....I just read that I'm not smart enough to understand.

Once again we have someone commenting on things where they don't have all the information. This is not a matter of intelligence.

Scientific Journals are subscription based. The cost for subscriptions can be ridiculous amount. They very rarely allow access to their articles over the internet unless you are a subscriber. I happened to do a quick search internet accessible articles and came up with that article from 1995. Proper research would require you to access a university library that subscribes to these journals. One tool you can use at universities is is a database called metalib. By doing a search on just one of their many subject databases I came up with 23 references to ice cores & climate, seven of which were published in 2007. Proper research would involve more searches going to the library to read these journals.

You also seem to associate the American Geophysical Union with OISM and the Heartland Institute. AGU was formed in 1919 and is an international organization of over 50000 geophysists - not a group with a PO box and 2 of the 8 listed faculty dead.

Originally Posted by skylord

The article was published by the American Geophysical Union. So what I did was research them.Their position statement on climate change was written by 3 people, Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel and starts saying " Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

Read this statement carefully. "natural influences cannot explain" means humans are responsible! That was Christy's position in 2003.

By 2007 his position had changed as illustrated in the quote from the discounted
http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1517515.ece
"Great Global Warming Swindle"

Christy's position on global warming in the documentary was based on the analysis of satellite data that was collected in the 1990's. There were errors in the way data was collected and analysed http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6778

He has not yet made a statement based on analysis of more recent data. Will he change his position again? Falsifiability (discarding) past hypotheses is a key to the scientific method

Originally Posted by skylord

What I see that troubles me most is that if anyone doesn't agree with you they arn't informed well enough to understand "the" truth. Scary!
Scott

- Don't agree with me.
- Be a skeptic but be skeptical of both sides. I consider myself well informed and I have done my research. I looked at the question with an open mind and have found overwhelming evidence.
-Show me some research to help me change my conclusion. - just don't give me yet another source from someone other than a climate scientist.

My conclusion is the based upon the scientific method which is tried and tested for the last 400 years. That is the "truth" that I understand.