Submitted by ucodegen on February 20, 2007 – 6:54pm.
Wow.. a lot of ‘stuff’ posted since I checked..
Ok, real quickly. I have noticed how realclimate.org has been put up as an example of truth while junkscience.com has been put up as a site that misrepresents the truth. Big problem though. realclimate.org does not footnote or show references for the underpinnings of its statements. On the other hand, junkscience.com has a considerable number of references as its underlying work. As far as how scientific papers are really written, junkscience.com is doing it right and realclimate.org is doing it wrong. It has to do with strength of evidence.
which article on junkscience.com are you refering to?
this is one i skimmed and found lacking in references. notably:
“How big a deal is this indirect cloud effect? Huge, actually. In just 5 years it was responsible for a 2% decrease in low clouds (the kind that reflect incoming solar radiation by day) which, in turn, equates to an increase in surface warming of 1.2 Wm-2 from incident radiation — equivalent to some 85% of the IPCC’s estimate for the effect of all carbon dioxide increase since the Industrial Revolution. ”
vague comments like this are off putting. which 5 years? is it a pattern? does the pattern match the cycles of sun spot activity? does it correlate with the temperature data?
not to mention this:
“So, now we know that the more active sun warms the planet directly with increased incident radiation and indirectly both by reducing low cloud and likely by elevating the proportion of gaseous water — the most important greenhouse gas. ”
he omits the fact that water vapor is also a component of exhaust.
In addition, any scientist would know that doing all your references from one site, a blog no less (realclimate.org) would get you laughed out of the scientific community.
