9 comments

[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 33.6 ms ] thread
I am more interested in the adjustment of historical temperatures by NOAA. The whole debate hinges on accurate temperature reporting. Of course we could also have an article about the politics of climate grant chasing as well. This whole issue has become less about science and almost entirely about politics.
That sounds like you're trying to weasel out of having to accept the science. However, since you mention your interest, you'll probably be interested in the work of Richard Muller / Berkeley Earth. Their research reexamined the temperature data underlying climate change, and despite initial skepticism they were able to rule out alternative theories.

The debate is of course of political manufacture, because the science is unequivocal.

The debate rests on more than just temperatures. Also, ice sheet thicknesses and extents, sea level changes, ocean salinity changes, and concentrations of CO2 and other atmospheric gases.
This is part of a scurrilous campaign by green activists to get solar physicist, Dr. Willie Soon fired from his post at the Smithsonian Institute. This campaign was apparently triggered by his co-authorship of a paper critical of the predictive skill of climate models.

"Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model"

http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml...

Hacker news is not a venue for rent-a-mob activity. Flagged.

Are you claiming that this is false:

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers."

> "solar physicist, Dr. Willie Soon "

You mean "aeronautics engineer".