The IPCC makes "statements that would never pass peer review" - agree?
A recent study by Dr Hatton, a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, proves that there has been no significant increase in global hurricane activity. Hatton says that IPCC statement that claims that there has been an increase in hurricane activity and that that can be blamed on global warming is simply wrong.
Unlike most climate scientists, Dr Hatton has freely made all his data, code and software tools available online, so all you warmists who want to debunk his work can now try and do so!
Have a read of the article and see what you think: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
EDIT - @ Bob
Yes, but that’s because the conclusions of WGII are falsifiable: you can test the assumptions and conclusions of much of what is said, and prove them true or untrue.
With WGI, you cannot do that as the assumptions made are simply unfalsifiable. You can’t add another 50ppm to the atmosphere and prove that the link is tenuous (or not).
Tagged with: assumptions • atmosphere • climate scientists • conclusions • dr hatton • fellow • global warming • hurricane activity • hurricanes • royal meteorological society • software tools • wgi
Filed under: Hurricane Questions
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Depends on which "working group".
WG1 covers the nature and cause of global warming. It’s work is extremely solid, backed by thousands of scientific journal articles, and would EASILY pass peer review (and has). It’s accepted by courts as authoritative.
WG2 covers possible future impacts. It’s sources include both scientific journal articles, and other sources. Natural enough for a group whose output admittedly involves future speculations.
ALL of the recent controversies involve WG2, NOT WG1.
The fact that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us, IS NOT AFFECTED. Speculations about the nature of future impacts are just that.
Peer review means nothing.
It looks like comparing apples and pears.
We should distinguish between and increase in hurricane intensity and hurricane occurence and hurricane activity as a proeduct of both.
Unfortunatel the newspaper does not quote properly the IPCC so that it is possible to go back to the precise chapter and see if it has been properly taken in its context.
I can therefore not make any statement.
Sorry but peer review is a religious argument not science! To get science you need to use the scientific method instead which was specifically developed by real scientists to prevent the Roman churches peer review system from suppressing real scientific discovery. But the religious left will not ever give up their corrupt peer review system that keeps them employed at high wages doing religious propaganda instead of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://www.examiner.com/x-4648-Atlanta-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d21-Sun-spot-cycle-impacting-global-warming-and-cooling
http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message307338/pg1
http://m.climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2516
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/01/earth-on-the-brink-of-an-ice-age.html
http://swampie.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/what-the-vostok-ice-core-data-says-about-global-warming-and-more-importantly-cooling/