lee wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 11:15am:


Yes, of course I read it.

You are suggesting that because a group of experts looked at a variety of models and data when deciding what the most likely outcome is that in fact the entire premise is completely incorrect? Do you think they are just making it up as they go along?

Models have a predictive power, but we currently don't have the computing power or sensor data to achieve a high degree of fidelity. As the data and resources improve, so too does the power of the models. This isn't a reason to dismiss them.

Basically reviewer one rejected the paper because it made the mistake of saying "here is an inconsistency" rather than doing any meaningful analysis of why. Yes there is inconsistency, but it is expected because methods and what is being measured varies. There was no identification of what caused the variations, or exploration of how meaningful such variation is.

The second reviewer goes in detail, basically saying the paper is unclear and seems to use the wrong formula.

It's not surprising or suppressing that an important journal might reject a paper. It's certainly not sufficient evidence that climate change is entirely wrong. It raises questions about details, but that's the point of science.

It amazes me how you would be willing to accept the word of the author of one rejected paper over the the near entirety of the field as correct. I can only assume it's because it suits your beliefs.

progressiveslol wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 11:13am:

Actually, there is.  The evidence for it is very clear and unambiguous and has been for many decades.

Denying this is simply silly.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 11:57am:


Well spotted.  However it would take a particularly cold snap to not break the May record, and forecasts are predicting the same hot weather for the rest of May.

It may be out on a limb for deniers, but I think "hotest may on record", or at the very least "one of the hotest mays on record", is a lock.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

At the begining of course

Quote:


A little over 4000 years according to most deniers.

Quote:


Good question

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

Fairy muff 

No, but seriously, cheers for data: data is good but there is always not enough 

greggerypeccary wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

No Greggery.  Sydney has records going back well over a century, and in the context of Sydney and its built environment, "the hottest May on record" is significant.

The planet is warming.  To deny this is silly.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 26^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

Yeh, it's news-worthy but when push comes to shove the truth is it's all about the 'heat content' of a system and that system does not include state boundaries.

Temperature is an indicator of the 'heat content' of a system, basically! The 'heat content' is not always uniform throughout the system and in the case of the earth it obviously is not!

- not meaning to be dry or anything,