Snake Oil Suzuki fails simple science test.
Everyone interested in climate science knows of the main data sets for measuring global temperature; the two satellite data sets, the remote sensing system (RSS) and the set from the University of Alabama Huntsville. The other data sets are NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and and from the Hadley climate research unit the two HadCRUT sets with different methods of tweeking HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT 4.David Suzuki has made a career out of travelling the world pushing the alarmist view of climate change. Surely then he would be aware of these global temperature data sets. And yet on Q&A last night when asked about them by Bill Koutalianos he seemed to be unaware of them.Bill: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself? Suzuki: …yeah well don’t know how, er where er why you’re saying that. The 10 hottest years on record as I understand it have been in this century. In fact the warming continues, it may have slowed down but the warning continuous and every body is considering some sort of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong – as far as I understand – we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us they’re thinking. Bill: UAH; RSS, HadCruT, GISS Data the shows a 17 year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory. Suzuki: What is the reference – I don’t er….. Bill:Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC uses…. Those Data sets show a 17 year flat trend which suggest there may be a problem with At this point Suzuki interruptedSuzuki: There may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville Alabama who has taken the data and come to that conclusion.It seems it first, Suzuki, this snake-oil salesman, appears not to know about the datasets that all the climate scientists use, then, when he hears you UAH he refers obliquely to John Christie and denigrates him although Christie has been a former IPCC author. Christy was a leadauthor of the 2001 report by the IPCC.Later, Suzuki refers to the suppose consensus. Much has been written of the fraud studies of the consensus. Just last week a new opinion piece came out:Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warmingApart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That’s the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.Suzuki referred to the Naomi Oreske piece that appeared in Science in 2004. A curious choice considering the flaws in that piece of science fiction. From SPPIhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensuswhatconsensusamongclimatescientiststhedebateisnotover.htmlWhat Oreskes got wrong:Dr. Peiser used “global climate change” as a search term and found 1,117 documents using this term, of which 929 were articles and only 905 also had abstracts. Therefore it is not clear which were the 928 “abstracts” mentioned by Oreskes, and Science did not, as it would have done with a peer-reviewed scientific paper, list the references to each of the “abstracts”. Significantly, Oreskes’ essay does not state how many of the 928 papers explicitly endorsed her very limited definition of “consensus”. Dr. Peiser found that only 13 of the 1,117 documents – a mere 1% – explicitly endorse the consensus, even in her limited definition.
Sent by gReader Pro