I am not going over it again, it is simply a top academic rebuffing the Al Gore bandwagon by pointing out that each little man 'doing his bit' ain't going to affect matters relating to our position . Big solutions needed and needed now, enormous decisions to be taken and put into action now. Fossil fuels - OUT. If we don't want here a windfarm twice as big as Wales, then nuclear without delay. Other wise , stop the greenwash. Yes, that's what I said, the Greenwash. I didn't write the book; I'll try to find the reference. (Television news discussion , involving Al Gore's presention. Greenwash - everything to do with Al Gore.) We can't prevent Global warming, and while we can learn to live with it, the Greenwash is futile .


I am not getting into arguments as I have not yet had the chance of reading the book, so I have to wipe my sword for the time being. You will hear from me again on this one.

Alright here's my issues with the data you represented.

Here's the full report of Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities in gridded global climate data (I assume you know what this means without looking it up).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
Have fun going through all the formulas.
I just wished they had used better language choice in the report. It sounds a bit defensive in some parts and they really could have done without it.

If you can't deal with it here's the report for common folks:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGR07-background.pdf

Below is the link on climate scenarios on the homepage of the two Dutch researchers that the main report above refers to. I hope you understand some Dutch. Or you can use some online translator which can help a bit.
http://www.knmi.nl/klimaatscenarios/
You should check out their FAQ. They do not forecast climate because they know it's a very complicated system where MANY different results are possible and has an incredible range of variables. Probably more to it but my Dutch isn't THAT great or anything.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Alright here's my issues with the data you represented.

Thanks for that, I understand what you are getting at now. It seems that their study includes the effect of mild urbanisation/agriculture, time bias and station closure.

I don't know is the honest answer, it seems on the face of it to be a professionally research piece of work, although it would take some time to examine the details.

The only issue that instantly come to mind is that most of the earth is water and many temperature measurements are by ship which should not be sensitive to this effect. The other factor is when do you accept the temperature as a bias, if it is over a wide enough district then the temperature is what it is rather than unrepresentative. Our direct heat emissions have a small effect on global warming although this shouldn't be enough to cause the anomaly shown in the report. They should be aware of these issues though so I would have to read further.

A better critique than most I have seen anyway.

The simple fact remains, that for every argument supporting man's influence on GW, if one cares to look, and is willing to accept the word of one "expert" against another, there is always an equally vehement argument disputing the data of the first, and vice versa.

We can argue until we're blue in the face and fill the pages with graphs and data, but as yet there is still no proof that man is influencing our weather patterns to any significant degree if at all, and even if he was, there's a better than even chance that we couldn't turn it around even if we went back to living like cavemen.

I don't like it either, but I feel that we'd better get used to it. In the meantime we'd better get serious about finding ways to live with it. If our plans work we may survive without too much pain, if the trend goes into decline, we're a mile ahead technologically.

It may not be Win/Win, but I feel it's our best hope for the future.

On the note of the high seas, seas can actually be extremely hot. There are regions over oceans which actually account for "desert" regions because they get little to no precipitation. In fact, exposure to the sun is a killer on the high seas when it comes to people on life rafts. Yeah, you wouldn't believe what it's like to be out in an open area with absolutely no tree cover. Surrounded by sea water or not. Plus, decks of ships can get real hot during the day. So again, we have variables, unknowns and uncertainties that are truly real. Plus, we don't know at what altitude they are taking in the information. In the military we had temperature sensors at two different heights and it wasn't made that way for fun.

This is the way I see it.
Whether or not people have a direct and major effect on global warming or if the warming is as bad as many people claim... I don't know the answer to that. I don't think anyone really does.
But this is how I see it.
Pollution IS bad. There just isn't any two ways about it. When you fill the air with noxious gases that cause acid rain, asthma, sore eyes and plain pissed offness on my part, it's not a good thing. So we should cut down on pollution anyway. Improper disposal of wastes can cause infestations and disease. Garbage in the streets, parks, beaches etc. look real lousy and actually affect the property values.
So be responsible, reduce trash whenever possible, try to walk or take a bike if it's practical, use public transportation as much as you can, buy a SMALL car. Dammit, isn't it hard enough to park as it is? The only reason for a regular Joe to have a big car is to fill his damned ego for his small mind.
I don't think we should have environmental laws that are so stiff that industry and businesses find it so uncomfortable that they pack up and go elsewhere (usually China).
We have to stop taking politicians who ride on this environmental message too seriously. Would you believe a politician who makes a documentary on open heart surgery? I wouldn't think so.
We got to respect our environment and stop poisoning ourselves. That's the way I see it. Global warming or not.

I feel that the last 2 posts, one by Seno and one by Redneck, draw the line just right, and this seems to be point of academic Mackays latest figures. Live with it, and hammer our politicians to face the big decisions. Of course it is sensible to cut down on electricity use, etc. - it is damned expensive. Of course recycle as much as possible. Of course avoid pollution. Just don't impose yet another new fascist philosophy of state control to go with the others, and undermine many very personal freedoms. Much of this imposition has the reverse effect - increasing pollution by encouraging fly-tipping and increased rat population etc. And don't allow it to become a personal bandwagon for ambitious politicians , bureaucrats, and their empire building.

But in coping with the problem, press for the big solutions that can match the size of the challenge.

Invest in education.
It'll save you TRILLIONS of dollars on useless crap later on.

Personally I'd try to make education the #1 place to put government money.
This is why.

#1 You don't have to waste time on setting up protectionist laws to save your people from their own incompetence.
#2 Smart people figure out things themselves and realize it's not worth making a fuss about it. Rules stay simple, therefore efficiency is high.
#3 A smart work force is a strong work force. Local companies can grow because they will have a good talent pool and foreign companies will want to invest so they too can hire competent employees.
#4 The high tech industry will benefit and that means improvement in everything including the military.
#5 People will no better than to believe everything in the newspapers.
#6 You will attract excellent teachers because the pay will be attractive and it will now be a position of respect.

And so on and so forth.

The problem with investing excessively in education is the spending where it's not needed. Teacher's would spend more on their luxury items while working than on actual education material. I don't know if more education money is required vs. better micromanaging of how it's spent.
However, so I don't too far off topic, I'll stop there and recommend going to buy more SUV's and guns since we cling to them.