How will the global temperature develop?

[Gropes]

Mike, I agree there are many reasons to doubt the accuracy of the temperature record, but then again many of the climate datasets are disputed in one way or another. I think the fact that the CRU record shows the 60-year cycles so clearly argues that it is roughly right, even if the increases in the second half of the 20th century are exaggerated. Nonetheless, even by taking it at face value (as in the graph), it still contains no convincing reasons to accept AGW alarmism.

'Even if', is this a stealthy attempt to inject doubt in to scientific understanding? Isn't that a common way FOX news manages to get it's point across. I'm sorry, but have you evidence the increases in the second half have been exagerrated?

[Philip]

... is this a stealthy attempt to inject doubt in to scientific understanding?

No, it is more an acknowledgment that some climate scientists have some concerns over some aspects of the temperature record I used for my graph. BTW, please feel free to offer your own answer to the question in this thread. This is meant to be a free for all .

[Gropes]

... is this a stealthy attempt to inject doubt in to scientific understanding?

No, it is more an acknowledgment that some climate scientists have some concerns over some aspects of the temperature record I used for my graph. BTW, please feel free to offer your own answer to the question in this thread. This is meant to be a free for all .

In other words, is it purely speculation what you just wrote?

[Philip]

In other words, is it purely speculation what you just wrote?

Sorry, are you talking about the suggestion that some scientists have expressed concern over possible inaccuracies in the temperature record? If so, then this is not speculation.

Or are you asking about my suggestion that many climate datasets are disputed? This is not speculation either, but a matter of record (e.g. ACRIM vs PMOD, tropospheric temperatures, sea level measurements).

Perhaps you are asking about my suggestion that the CRU record is reasonably accurate? If so, then yes you have me there - this is simply my opinion.

[Philip]

PS: Perhaps it is the phrase "even if the increases in the second half of the 20th century are exaggerated" that has bothered you? I am not claiming this is the case (although I am not denying it either). It is simply that some people have suggested it is true, and I am trying to make it clear that my conclusion (that AGW is not a problem) doesn't depend on it.

[Philip]

Gropes: Now we (hopefully) have that misunderstanding cleared up, why not offer your own answer to the question in this thread?

[Gropes]

PS: Perhaps it is the phrase "even if the increases in the second half of the 20th century are exaggerated" that has bothered you? I am not claiming this is the case (although I am not denying it either). It is simply that some people have suggested it is true, and I am trying to make it clear that my conclusion (that AGW is not a problem) doesn't depend on it.

Who are these some people? Is the 'some people say' commonly found by FOX news presenters.

[Gropes]

Gropes: Now we (hopefully) have that misunderstanding cleared up, why not offer your own answer to the question in this thread?

Yes, let's clear this misunderstanding up, who are these 'some people'?

[Mike Davis]

CHIA Groupie:
I for one have seen evidence that the temperature records are little more than guesses. If you are not aware of claims the records are wrong then you need to research for your self. I will not as you seem to be attempting to divert this thread just as you have all the other threads you get involved in.

The question to you is How do you think the temperatures will develop in the future?
If you had read what I wrote you wold have seen why the records are suspect.

[Mike Davis]

Philip:
Here is a link to some other views about future climate:
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/ ... n-be-over/