There are lots of problems with the global warming pseudoscience. Here are a few:
1. The IPCC has ignored the urban heat island effect. Cities absorb heat more than rural areas. Temps measured in cities typically run about 2 deg. C warmer than surrounding rural areas. Surveys of just rural stations show no warming. So the temps the IPCC shows are bogus.
2. A survey of about 1,000 of the 1221 weather stations in the USA showed that 89% were not properly located, with 11% having siting errors that could read as much as 5 deg. C high. Siting problems include locating weather stations on the south sides of buildings, near parking lots, near air conditioner vents and other sources of heat. And most of the problems with siting relate to infrastructure built since the 1950's or so, when the alarmists say the earth started warming.
3. An early IPCC report (in 2001, I think) showed the medieval warming period and the little ice age that ran from about 1300-1850 (some use 1500 as the starting point), but in the 2007 report they erased both episodes to make recent temps reflect an upward trend. Then the alarmists tell us that it is warmer now than at any time in history, but it was actually warmer in the 1930's, which they were forced to admit. Big time fraud.
4. The most important greenhouse gas is not CO2, but water vapor. They don't have a very good handle on water vapor effects, so in their models they just say rising CO2 will warm the planet and increase water vapor, making things worse faster. But an expert on clouds at MIT says they don't have a clue about water vapor and it could go the other way.
5. Past CO2 concentrations and temps are estimated by looking at ice cores and tree rings. But the process of extracting the ice cores releases CO2 into the atmosphere, giving lower readings for the past, making it look like we have more CO2 today than before. And tree rings only reflect growing season conditions--what about temps during the rest of the year? They don't have a clue.
6. In about 1960, tree ring data started to show cooling compared to actual temperature measurements. Hmmm...What to do, what to do? They can't both be right. So they threw out the tree ring data for the recent past and went with the measurements. If the tree ring data is wrong for the present, it is wrong for the past, but that's where they get their temps for the past. Bogus, bogus, bogus. That's what the "hide the decline" statement was all about in the Climategate emails.
7. Alarmists say the models are right because they all agree. But they are all pretty much suing the same research to build their models, so of course they all agree. And if you want funding to continue your research, you don't want to be out in left field--you won't get any money. And there are 3 databases they use for temps. But, surprise! Two databases are based on the third database, so they are essentially one database.
8. The 2007 IPCC report is 2558 pages, with 29 pages of references. Virtually no reporters or politicians have read it and understand all the research. Furthermore, the research was cherry picked, ignoring the studies that contradicted their message. Except for the few people who know something about climate science and can identify the valid stuff in the report, those who talk about the IPCC report are just blowing smoke.
9. If the earth is really warming we can cool it by releasing sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere at relatively low cost. It's powerful solar heat blocker and releases from Mt. Pinatubo in the eruption of 1991 cooled the planet about 1 deg. C. We could then regulate the planet temps at relatively low cost until better technology comes along to allow us to have our standard of living without warming the planet. No need to screw up the economy by sending trillions of $ to third world countries whose leaders will send the money to their bank accounts in Switzerland.
What we need is good science, not advocacy "science". Hopefully, Climategate will force an objective evaluation of the situation and we'll get real science. But with the press and politicians believing the alarmists, don't hold your breath. The press in the US is pretty much ignoring the issue. However, the BBC has been forced to evaluate their reporting and will strive to be more objective.
