Due to a historical quirk (of unknown origin), the World Meterological Organisation releases its summary for each year based on the Dec to Nov ‘meteorlogical year’ means (rather than the more usual calendar year). Anyway, the WMO summary is now available, as is the NASA GISS analysis and the CRU summary. The point upon which all the analyses agree is that 2005 was exceptionally warm and that it continues the long term mean warming trend. All show record warmth in the Northern Hemisphere since 1860, while GISS gives 2005 as the warmest year globally as well (CRU/WMO have it second after 1998). As the summaries indicate, the differences in ranking are on the order of a few hundredths of a degree (smaller than the accuracy of the analysis) and so a definitive ranking is not possible. Differences in how the separate analyses deal with missing data are responsible for most of the apparent variations. Note too that the convention for the base periods for the anomalies differ between the analyses (1961-1990 for CRU/WMO, 1951-1980 for GISS), but this does not affect the rankings.
Update 7pm: The GISS analysis curiously appears to have gone off line….
Update 8am 16 Dec: The GISS summation is still not back up, but the raw data and new figures do seem to be available http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp . Note that as pointed in comment #5, the WMO/CRU/Hadley Centre analysis is for Jan-Nov, and not for the met. year as stated above (though the GISS analysis is). Don’t ask us why!
Final Update 11pm 16 Dec: The GISS analysis is back!
(traduit par T. de Garidel)
One thing that strikes me is that annual temperatures are announced as early as october,
whereas publication of carbon dioxide levels is lagging five months
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
and emission data three years.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2002.ems
Google’s cache (searching NASA GISS and clicking the cached link) shows this:
Quote:
“What’s New
“Is 2005 going to be the warmest year as we predicted? The 2005 temperature for the first ten months of the year exceeded that of 1998 — so far the warmest year on record. The temperature anomalies with a base period 1951-1980 are #1 2005 (0.59°C), #2 1998 (0.58°C) and #3 2002 (0.57°C). (2005-11-07)”
End quote
Google always provides a link to the current page along with its cache:
That now says this:
“GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
“Analysis Graphs and Plots
“Figures on this page were prepared by Makiko Sato. Please address questions about the figures to Dr. Sato or to Dr. James Hansen.
…
“All figures are updated. The annual means are January through November mean for 2005 and January through December means for all other years. They will be updated again in early January with December data.”
The tabular data is there for the charts, for example this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.txt
Can someone interpret this?
Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
———————————–
Year Land Ocean
—————————
…
1976 -.29 -.09
1977 .15 .09
1978 .01 .02
1979 .04 .11
1980 .26 .12
1981 .47 .14
1982 .01 .07
1983 .41 .20
1984 .06 .10
1985 .03 .07
1986 .21 .09
1987 .34 .23
1988 .54 .21
1989 .29 .16
1990 .63 .27
1991 .55 .27
1992 .20 .10
1993 .19 .12
1994 .41 .17
1995 .69 .25
1996 .38 .26
1997 .51 .35
1998 .86 .45
1999 .63 .20
2000 .52 .26
2001 .74 .37
2002 .92 .41
2003 .84 .43
2004 .73 .39
2005 1.01 .46
Does breaking the “1.0” level for the first time raise an eyebrow or two, in PR terms?
Other pages including the current graphs page have been updated 12-15-2005, but as you say there’s no 2005 Summary right now.
NASA GISS may have pulled their release off-line, but NOAA NCDC has a release available…
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2548.htm
And as for “announcements in October”, I think that was the Washington Post and not an actual research institute.
#1
What is the striking thing? It is somewhat more difficult to measure hundreds of CO2 flasks than reading a thermometer and even more difficult to compute the energy consumption of a nation, a continent and finally the earth.
In fact the WMO and CRU/HadleyCentre texts do not refer to a Dec-Nov “meteorological” year as stated at the start of this piece. They are reporting observations for the 11-month average from Jan-2005 to Nov-2005. I’m not quite certain why they don’t wait till the December data are available, but the high month-to-month persistence of global and hemispheric average temperatures means that the 11-month estimate is always close to the full year results (the latter are usually released in February).
One more thing – it isn’t just “CRU” work, but very much a joint effort between CRU and the Hadley Centre/Met Office (got to keep them happy!).
[Response: Thanks for the clarification. The GISS data were for the met. year though. – gavin]
re#4
Given the high priority Kyoto give on emissions and CO2 levels it’s strange that they have not the manpower to speed up data processing.
Where does the backlog in concentration measurement come from?
The data at mauna loa has an hourly automated recording
http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/PlotData.php?index=mlo519n0¶meter=co2
yet it takes 5 months to reach the datacenter.
Also in the Kyoto agreement contries are required to list their emissions, which is fuel use. This data is available on an annual basis in every county by the national statistical bureaus or the ministries of econimic affairs, why does it take three year to collate?
Just skimmed over your announcement about 2005 being the warmest, or 2nd warmest year on record. Just how can we believe this when most everything else you present is proven false.
As I have said before – on e-mail to your organization – THERE IS NO LONG TERM GLOBAL WARMING. How do I know this? By taking the time to download and analyze, and summarize annual average temperature records from hundreds of weather reporting stations, from the US, Canada, England, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
Some, not nearly all of these locations show a steady progression of increased temperatures – no more rapid during recent decades than from over a hundred years ago, one includes 346 continuous years of data.
Your whole program is a Fraud, and a Hoax you are attempting to get people to believe.
A huge amount of data representing 44 states and 101 reporting locations from the US shows we are in the middle of a “short term cooling period”, the latest short term warming period having ended about 1998.
Of course you don’t want to believe this, because you have a whole bunch of drones who want to keep their cushy jobs “investegating” whether or not there is global warming, and to tell the truth would keep a whole bunch of these clowns from collecting a paycheck. They alreadly do not have a job. Six months time by one diligent person with a minimum of computer skills and the desire to get to the truth, would uncover the same sort of data I’m making reference to, and more too, and it would put the whole phony global warming lie to bed.
Wayne Byerly
What is striking so far is the Northern Vs Southern Hemisphere disparity in mean monthly temps, still quite fascinating. Also no big news , at least for me, about the warmest year ever, for many reasons, most people in the world already know it is, by simple experience, it was a very hot summer
in many international locations, equally a warm fall. The real news again, it was expected, by NASA GISS model and by other means of research. Everything predicted is coming through, especially for the polar zones, much warmer as expected, not by a mere .5 degrees but whopping +5 C in many locations..
The final question I have is what’s next?… Can all this heat vanish, or will it gradually get even warmer, the latter is very likely..
Re: #8 Wayne Davidson: I always understood that the Southern Hemisphere was tending to wamr more slowly than the Northern Hemisphere simply because the NH has more land than the SH and the land is warming up more quickly than the oceans.
Re: #7 [Wayne Byerly]: O-kay… I’m going to try a thought experiment and assume that what you say is true. Now I’m confused though. Why is it that climate sceptics have been going on about the Urban Heat Island* being the cause of the observed temperaure increase found in the global averages, if, as you say, there is no increase in the global averages? Wouldn’t it have been simpler for them to dispute the 1860-present analyses made by several independent research groups? Perhaps you should submit your findings to the Journal of Climate – international fame awaits as the exposer of the Global Warming scam; the biggest scientific hoax of our time….
*Urban Heat Island: It is well-known that the effect of heat from buildings in urban areas, as well as the thermal properties of high concentrations of concrete, raise the temperatures of Urban areas to above the surrounding area. It has been argued that as urbanisation progressed over the 20th century, previously rural observing sites became part of suburban sprawl and hence a trend in the observed temperatures result [it would also help explain why it is that night-time temperatures have increased faster than daytime temperatures as they are affected more by the urban heat island effect]. However, I understood that this issue has now been dealt with [by looking at Ocean temperatures, and also more detailed analysis of the land data – e.g. Parker et al (2005)]. The important point is that this argument accepts that the warming trend exists in the raw data but argues it is an artifact of observing changes [urbanisation] rather than Global Warming.
I humbly suggest that there must be something flawed with your analysis of the data.
[Response:Good point – with so many ‘skeptics’ around scrutinising our work, implies that errors would quickly be unveiled. In a way, they act as a kind of ‘quality control’. The down side is the contribution of those claims that are not legitimate, but are merely intended to disinform (spin doctoring). -rasmus]
Re #7; See for example http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-9.htm especially figure a .
Mr. Byerly’s choice of North Atlantic sites as a proxy for a global mean may or may not be an honestly intended choice of proxy for the whole world, but the result is certainly misleading.
Indeed, on the century scale the observed trend in the North Atlantic is arguably not very striking. Picking the place and time carefully to suit one’s own preconceptions, though, is informally called cherry-picking. I believe the term refers to a rude way of serving oneself from a large bowl of fruit salad.
That it is possible to construct a metric that doesn’t show regional warming in a certain roughly specified region on a certain unspecified time scale with a certain unspecified statistical technique in no way contradicts the assertion that the balance of observational evidence shows unusual recent global warming, in first order agreement with theoretical, computational, and paleoclimate evidence.
The conclusions Mr Byerly reaches as an immediate consequence of his analysis also seem to me to lack parsimony, to say the least.
Re #7 by Wayne Byerly — I take it he’s been reading a lot of Dale Carnegie lately? Just wondering.
Hey Wayne Byerly
I am as open minded as the next man but having done a fair amount of research myself i find it difficult not to draw the conculsion that the earth is heating up. Even if you ignore all the temperature meauserments which you seem to vehimently deny there is still many other sources of evidence associated with this increase such as – ice melt / extreme weather events / sea current changes / habitat changes / CO2 / ice cores / sediment cores. I am not entirely sure it is man made (we’ll leave this for another time) but you must admit the planet does seem to be changing at a rather rapid rate? Also any reason for the attack on this program – ”Your whole program is a Fraud, and a Hoax you are attempting to get people to believe” seems rather strange, is their an untold story there somewhere.
Finally i don’t mean any offense but may i ask if you are linked to any organisation or have any form of vested interest? Please don’t think i am insinuating anything, just curious.
Al
Wow! I woke up this morning of the opinion that, on balance, there was a link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Apparently not! Thank you Wayne Byerly, you have showed me the error of my ways. I shall now go and spread the good news.
Re #7.
Well why don’t you write up your results and get them published in a good journal ?
If your right, fame and perhaps fortune would be yours ! It would be strange indeed though that
you out of very many researchers and other interested parties acting independently would catch this
critical point and all the others missed it.
B.T.W . Global warming, is just that, a warming of the planet’s average temperature. No one is saying every point on the planet is warming. In fact predictions show that some areas will indeed cool.
#9 Timothy, thanks, makes sense. I like this disparity, and there may be more to it.
NASA GISS does not show Northern Hemisphere temp anomaly, but does so for the Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C. Global being +0.68 this means that Northern Hemisphere was about +1.1, three months in a row above 1 degree, tri-fecta only repeated twice Jan-Mar 2002 and Feb-Apr 2000.
For those following Seasonal forecasts, November was missed completely, and the claim of this pending cold winter will be only valid for small regions, but not for the world, even with stagnant planetary waves. Reasoning? Momentum is for warmer GT’s , heat radiation can only escape to space at a regular rate, does not accelerate outwards because the atmosphere is warmer, in fact the opposite if the troposphere is higher. Latest “Greendland Block” or likewise suggestion infers a colder North America but if so, in exchange for a warmer Atlantic, bad if it happens for pending hurricane season, but I doubt it will happen like this. GT’s are easier to forecast, where the cold weather goes depends on Chaos, movement.
Is the reason why N. America is getting colder because the Arctic winds are travelling due to the fact large amounts of ice melted? Cold air has to go somewhere. Right?
These may help:
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/weather_vs_climate.html
Temperature data sets for stations all over the world are here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Click on the map, pick a station, look at the charts.
I refer to these reminders to keep my perspective:
http://members.aol.com/intwg/images/antipro-preamble1.gif
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
Or try the link below.
The link shows a plot of Global Temperature Anomalies 1880-2004 (from NASA met. land station data), and
an 11 month average (Jan-Nov, 2005) ~ .74 C
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveDiscussion/
Re #8. I too have personally researched temperature trends – in my case I looked at isotope ratios in coral. Unlike #8 I do see a trend.
However, what really destroys his credibility is the use of capitals in the words “Hoax” and “Fraud”. That redlined my kook-meter.
It’s always good to look at the actual numbers and talk to the people who collect them, do the math and publish the data and conclusions.
Trolls don’t footnote ….
Two reports showing my work on trends in temperatures, dewpoints and the timing of snowmelt runoff in the Upper Midwest:
Minnesota Temperatures & Dewpoints
Snowmelt & Dewpoints in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota
are at the Minnesotans For Sustainability website, at:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_change.htm
Your comments would be appreciated.
Given what we have been hearing about global warming evidence over recent years, these results seem surprising. We regularly hear that climate change is now ‘happening more quickly than predicted’, that the dramatic impacts (more hurricanes, shrinking Arctic ice cap, more flooding events, etc)are all ocurring quicker and more often than expected – and yet the temperature is simply following the same steady trend as it has for 30 years. There is not even a hint of accelerating change (unless of course you choose to take the worst case result out of three – Nasa – which perhaps indicates a very slight hint).
[Response: The comment represents a fairly deep misunderstanding of what changes are actually predicted in response to anthropogenic forcing. Under most scenarios of late 20th century and future anthropogenic radiative forcing, a steady, rather than accelerating, rise in global and hemispheric mean temperature is predicted over timescales of decades. The observations seem to support that quite strongly over the past several decades. The models and observations both also indicate that the amplitude of interannual variability about these longer-term trends is quite large, making it foolhardy, at best, to try to estimate the slope of anthropogenic warming from a few years of data (as you seem to advocate). Lets try to keep the discussion here at a more serious level. -mike.]
Mike (no. 24). I can asure you my comments are serious. I am conversant with the arguments relating to climate change, and as a scientist (albeit not a climate scientist) understand how scientific theories are formed, tested and evolve. My statements in fact concur with much of what you say. I agree that neither the models (nor IPCC) predict an accelerating change so soon. What I question is how the observed steady temperature change can be correlated with the often reported dramatic observations of rapid change, particulary in the last year or two – themselves often less than ‘serious’.
re 23. … “and yet the temperature is simply following the same steady trend as it has for 30 years. There is not even a hint of accelerating change (unless of course you choose to take the worst case result out of three – Nasa – which perhaps indicates a very slight hint)”.
My analysis in the Upper Midwest (2003) shows steady upward trends in temperatures and dewpoints, but more like acceleration in earlier seasonal snowmelt runoff. From what I’ve heard has been happening in the Arctic, that sounds more like acceleration too, in the loss of glacial ice, permafrost and sea ice.
After taking another look at Figure 1 (link below), the earlier snowmelt runoff trend shows acceration for the Red River in North Dakota (Fargo), but more linear like for the St. Louis River in northern Minnesota (Scanlon) and the St. Croix River in Wisconsin (St. Croix Falls).
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman_table_figure1.htm
Re #s 23/24 (PHE): It’s not clear to me what’s at all confusing about this. Why should it be expected that things like tropical storms and ice sheets would respond to the slow, steady increase in temperatures in a similarly slow, steady manner? Have you read the relevant papers on these subjects? To resort to an obvious analogy, if we did not know that water boiled it would come as a bit of a surprise when it happened for the first time, especially since it takes just a small amount of heat to go from a relatively stable state to a wildly unstable one. Observations of increased evaporation wouldn’t necessarily allow us to predict the transition to nucleate boiling, and from there to bulk boiling, but even if we knew these things were possible predicting the exact timing would be hard. I would assert that we’re in somewhat the same position regarding the various forms of abrupt climate change.
I’ve been looking around for comments on the 2005 info elsewhere — and I’m not finding much beyond the “climate audit” comments that people aren’t disclosing enough data sets or calculations to trust the results.
Is there, anywhere, a basis in published research in peer reviewed journals for these statements that warming isn’t happening? Or is that history?
Is it now established that warming’s happening, agreed to by those who were questioning it? The places that were hammering away on the hockey stick hobbyhorse don’t have any followup, that I can find, since the 2005 data and charts hit the news recently showing continued increase in temperature.
Is the current argument only about possible causes, future course and costs, but based on a widely shared agreement with the 2005 annual data published at the NASA GISS page?
The comment above about air temps in the Northern Hemisphere strikes me as similar to what I’ve thought about hurricanes. We ought to be looking at total energy rather than some artifact like heat or wind speed. A small hurricane with a high windspeed will probably do less damage than a huge hurricane that’s spinning vast amounts of rain. The Southern Hemisphere’s air temps might be increasing slower but the huge southern oceans are becoming as warm as stews and will release their increased energy into the atmosphere far into the future.
RE Steve Bloom (27): While the analogy with boiling water is an interesting one, and perhaps a relevant one, you can not assume that because it appears to explain the paradox, that therefore it is the answer. I would happy to have references to “the relevant papers on these subjects”.
RE Hank Roberts (28): Questions regarding the ‘hockey stick’ are not related to whether warming is ocurring. There are very few people questioning this. Most scientists accept we are in a warming trend, that ice is melting, sea levels are rising, etc. The questions relate to whether the current trend or temperatures are exceptional. A major question is whether current global temperatures are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period – and whether that event was global or regional. Some scientists consider this unproven.
“Wildfires ravaging Texas, Oklahoma”:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/12/28/wildfires051228.html
“Alberta towns isolated after winter road ice melts”:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/28/alberta-road-051228.html
Re: #31, “A major question is whether current global temperatures are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period – and whether that event was global or regional. Some scientists consider this unproven.”
Sounds like Steve Milloy language, there. That is, not to be trusted.
Re Steve Berg (33) Who is Steve Milloy? Why don’t you like this comment? Is it because you disagree? If you feel this question is proven – or at least justified by strong evidence (rather than opinion), please direct me to the relevant references.
Re: #34,
I’d refer you to the “Hockey-Stick” graph. It illustrates that the current global temperatures are greater than those of the MWP.
Re 35: I am familiar with the hockey stick and all the (emotional) debate around it. My point in my response to Hank Roberts (28) was that (most of) the ongoing disagreements are not on the reality of a 20th century temperature rise, but whether it is exceptional and to what degree it can be demonstrated to be due to Man’s CO2 emissions. Whatever your own view, legitimate differences of opionion remain.
Ad hominem alert in comment #33. (Hey, it’s RC’s rule, even if the comment agrees with RC.)
#36, The hockey stick graph , especially its blade , has gathered the most violent, I would say emotional response from skeptics, not satisfied that it matches their theory, claiming climate change is totally cyclical and.human generated pollution has no effect whatsoever with that cycle. Its fine to criticise, but what is your source? How is it the blade wrong aside from decrying an alleged regional medieval warming period, the planet is bigger than little old Europe. The result of this graph comes from proxies taken from all over the world. One of my favorites, lake bottom sediments, from multiple lakes, give a better Global Temperature graph. Knighthood tales are nice, but should not be mixed with a scientific stance. May be I am wrong, may be there is such reliable measurements proving otherwise , it’s up to you, the contrarian to publish…
RE 38. I have not made any criticism. I have simply pointed out that “Whatever your own view, legitimate differences of opinion remain”. What really damages the credibility of this site is those who lash out at anyone who dares to question their own viewpoint. Science is not about everyone agreeing with everyone else.
#39 I more than agree with anyone exposing a bad , or re-hashing an old theory now discredited , this is what a debate is all about, this site thrives on facts and correct interpretations, so lets read a bit of #31:
“A major question is whether current global temperatures are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period – and whether that event was global or regional. Some scientists consider this unproven.”
Who are these handful of scientists? What data do they have against strong proxy research from all over the world? Unless they are holding back some evidence, what will sway current acceptable thinking back to the old theory? You will be doing us a favor if you are right. But be sure that as an Arctic citizen , I am aware of no oral history about similar warm weather times as found now a days, given strong Homerian like oral history of the North, I am truly not impressed so far by this medieval European tale. Call it a robust total rejection of an old theory by an ancient culture, which agrees with modern science, the two combined are pratically invincible.
Criticism is all right, keeps the critic honest, he or she better be right, and the criticized to rethink a theory under scrutiny. Either way it sharpens both sides to dig deeper, and become more knowledgeable at the subject at hand.
Re: #37, “Ad hominem alert in comment #33. (Hey, it’s RC’s rule, even if the comment agrees with RC.)”
It was not ad hominum. The language of PHEaston matches the language I’ve heard with my own ears on FOX News by people like Steve Milloy.
It is exactly the obfuscating rubbish that trips up the general public into believing the nonsense that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of human activities. Injecting uncertainty when little, if any, exists.
In my book, that qualifies as the biggest lie ever told, the truth told in a certain way. Milloy and his ilk are guilty of not telling the whole truth. The IPCC and those who comprise the body are not guilty of this, since their work is as complete as possible up to today’s research.
Re: 41. Such a charmer! I’m not in the US, so know little about Fox News, except that they are known for being very right wing. You make the big mistake of assuming that anyone who differs from your thinking on AGW must be right wing and anti-environment. This is wrong. I beleve very strongly in protecting our natural environment. You also assume that everyone is either with you or against you (- where did I hear that before?). For something as complex as climate change, there is no simple black and white. My own principal concern is that science is regularly mis-reported and mis-used for reasons of politics and media-sensation. On both sides of the AGW debate, there is both good science and sensational nonsense. In my view, the potential threat of AGW justifies concern and ongoing investigation, but (1) is not proven and (2) is not our greatest threat. For either side to maintain credibility, we need to be able to continue good and amicable debate. If society decides it is too great a risk to mankind to aknowledge any uncertainty, then that would be a political decision and not a scientific one.
#42, Uncertainty is a mainstay of science until fairly confident assessments override it. I would like to hear about your uncertainties, bring them out. So far you have not shown anything else but contrarian rehearsed arguments.. I am waiting for something impressive aside from generalities. You have to persuade, in terms of the following:
1- All time high GT’s like 1998, 2005 were common in the past.
2- Arctic ocean multi year ice cap shrinkage as with 2005 is normal.
3- The great majority of world wide mountain glaciers receded synchronously many times in the past.
4- World wide melting of ice happens when precession insolation is on a decreasing trend..
5 CO2 has no impact on GT’s….
6- Are clear night skies warmer for still unknown reasons?
I could go on, but I and others are waiting for your ideas exposing our flawed perceptions, why should we be uncertain?
.
A last note on 2005, from here with Polar stars glistenning in darkness 2 months after the sun was last seen, with temperatures 4 degrees above normal, unreal spectacle like the world turning on its head, usually clouds are needed to keep us this warm. And so was 2005, a year of signs, plenty of warnings it seems, and too few taking these happenings any seriously. Like a glacier melting, no harm is done, until its all gone.
Re 43: You misunderstand me. As with most contributors to this site, I do not set out to prove anything about climate change. This is not the forum to do so. That is for the scientific journals. This site is for informal discussion.
Free thinkers do not follow “rehearsed arguments”. They certainly do not allow themselves to be bullied into “towing the line”. Good scientists will look at both sides of the argument, do their best to understand them, and form their own conclusions. An analogy is: when you go through school, you initially assume that your teacher and the textbook writers know best and you simply take their word. There comes a time – typically at university – when you realise that your teacher is not always right, and that your own judgement is valuable and sometimes better.
Those people not contrarian to open scientific debate will be fully aware of the differing views and uncertainties in the field of climate change.
#45, Proper reasoning with the preponderence of evidence at hand would logically lead you with the point of view of the majority, if something is causing hesitation, then its information worth to share. So far you’ve mentionned that you were open for discussion, except there is no substance behind your stance. Aside from an old medieval theory. The point of this site is to discuss things based on current research, credible data and journal articles, also past and current news . Making vague statements keeps everything unchanged.
Re 46: Science is not a democracy. “Proper reasoning with the preponderence of evidence at hand would logically lead you to” a position you feel is believable and justified, irrespective of the ‘majority’ view – as was the experience of Copernicus, Gallileo, Darwin and many others (as well as for others who were ultimately wrong). In response to the rest of your post, I refer you back to post 45.