Of the research I've seen, Roy Spencer's research appears to be more accurate than most.
Skeptical Science, The Guardian, Thinkprogress all try to debunk his theories, mostly by throwing him under the bus by mentioning his religious background (why?) the fact is he's monitoring the avg global temps from Satellites instead of on the surface of the planet, which is much more accurate and shows more detail in the southern hemisphere. Just in my own area, surface temp towers are placed in locations that are not ideal, like rooftops, or next to vent outputs which causes the data in be much higher than it's supposed to be. Just like gathering tree ring data in a valley or on top of a mountain range. The data is corrupted by the surface environments happening locally to where they gather the data. That is crappy science! Not saying it happens that way every time, but enough to skew the data. When you plot CO2 with avg temps of the globe there is not a strong correlation between the increased levels of CO2 versus temp change, unless you look at only the last 30-100 years. When you look at the last few 100 thousand years, the CO2 levels are still are gradually increasing, but the temps don't follow the same pattern, they're all over the place. That means one does not causing the other directly. However, when you plot the change in the Sun's activity (sunspots, increasing solar flares etc) with the temp changes on the planet, it show's a much more accurate path all the way back through our global past. If you look into the Milankovitch Cycles, it too shows that when the earth's distance to the sun in orbit changes or the tilt on the Earth's own axis adjusts, the temperatures change on the surface as well. I'm sure CO2 has some impact, but not anywhere near what they're saying it is. Scientists never "want" to be proven wrong, but there is way "too much" politics on the subject of climate change, which is why even good scientists can become corrupt. Remove the region and the political slant from the conversation and just look at the accuracy of the data. If the data isn't accurate, then you should be continuously asking why, which isn't what's happening. Just following someone's answer because they say their Climatologist or debunking someone because they aren't is ridiculous. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:363270 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
