Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

D the WMO article was about the last 10 years. discounting it as u have is dishonest

 

 

 

I'm not discounting it, I'm just showing that it's not quite as cut and dried as you'd have us all believe.

 

 

 

Does the document state that it is not an official record? YES

Did I lie about that? NO.

 

Does it say Likely, hedging it's bets? YES

Did I lie about that? NO.

 

Was it released on the 8th of December? YES

Did I lie about that? NO

 

Please tell me EXCATLY where I have been dishonest about the WMO 'report'.

 

 

I even stated that I'd be quite willing for you to point me at the revised edition due out early this year. I think I'm being quite open minded re AGW on this thread.

 

I've even 'put my money where my mouth is' stating that I'll sell my gas guzzler and buy a Pious. I'm sure that'd save me lots more money; money that the corrupt labour governement can tax my offsping on when I'm dead and gone.

[convert]

An interesting read,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf

 

Ah, so that's the third wheel gone then

 

Looks like CRU, NOAA and GISS temp data are all a little suspect.

[truman]

The hockeystick has been shown to be true by numerous other studies.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

 

Is that the one that was just based on the "Yamal" data series..?

[Stormy]

I started watching that video, but one of the very first sentences in it was a lie (either that or this guy is thick which is unlikely) and anyone who uses the term 'climategate' without irony is a sensationalist populist douche.

 

Whilst the term "climategate" is a bit silly, it is how the whole episode is now referred to, whether you like it or not. The BBC report it as "Climategate," The Guardian does, even the environmentalists beloved standard bearer The Independent refer to it as Climategate. (Without irony I hasten to add)

So presumably you are classing those Journalists as "douches?"

 

Sadly, yours is a typical response, without listening to what has to be said you just insult the person and dismiss them. And we are constantly told that "sensible debate is needed."

Edited January 15, 2010 by Stormy

[Stormy]

No AGW isn't a fraud, frauds are based on deceipt and you have no evidence of that. It is based on the considered opinion of the majority of scientists across relevant field of knowledge based on thousands of peer reviewed papers directly dealing with the issue and thousands more record the impacts it is having on migratory patterns, habitation, ice sheets etc. In fact, no one yet on this thread has presented a single peer reviewed example of a paper denying AGW.

 

What you are right to highlight is that Carbon Trading does little if anything to reduce carbon emissions (at least not directly). The argument therefore should be that more needs to be done, not less.

 

Until governments, corporations and powerful individuals stop making an absolute fortune off the back of this, acting in a grossly hypocritical way as they do, more and more people will wake up to what myself and a growing number of people have to say.

Companies such as Tata steel are doing immense harm to the AGW church, I cannot emphasise that enough, because whether or not the science is correct becomes irrelevant to the fact that people do not like stories such as this. Especially when you throw Dr Pachauri and Teri into the mix (although I must add he "strenuously denies any link,") the whole thing becomes real, a direct effect as a result of the policies of world governments.

 

Whilst i will happily agree that there are a majority of scientists who are signed up to AGW, there are a growing number who are not. I look forward to an open debate between prominent Warmist and prominent Realist scientists at some point, sooner rather than later hopefully. I wonder why AGW scientists seem so reluctant to debate? Many offers have been issued, none properly taken up.

To answer your point about Peer Review,

 

This snippet from THIS article gives a brief discription of why there are few anti-GW peer-reviewed papers:

 

 

The establishment’s peer review process is one that subjects an author’s scientific research to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field of research. An author typically submits their research to a recognized peer review publication, and this publisher then sends the article to a select group of peers for critical review. The peer review literature is a lot like the mainstream media. It’s an old system where the spaces on its pages are guarded by a very select group of gatekeepers. It’s a control system of sorts – an elite group is the decision maker that designates which papers are to be, or not to be, considered serious.

 

As Climategate has shown, this process became compromised – causing an instability. As seen in the leaked emails, many within the climate establishment were interrelated and working together to ensure their message of global warming wasn’t diluted. There were even desires to redefine the peer review literature to punish journals that published skeptic’s papers.

 

The attempt to control the process dates back years, as seen in the emails, then continues at the time of the release of the files, with even bold attempts to control after the story had been blown wide open.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Stormy

[Wildcat]

Is that the one that was just based on the "Yamal" data series..?

 

No that was McIntyre's criticisms that have been refuted by numerous studies listed from tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature.

[Wildcat]

Until governments, corporations and powerful individuals stop making an absolute fortune off the back of this, acting in a grossly hypocritical way as they do, more and more people will wake up to what myself and a growing number of people have to say.

Companies such as Tata steel are doing immense harm to the AGW church, I cannot emphasise that enough, because whether or not the science is correct becomes irrelevant to the fact that people do not like stories such as this. Especially when you throw Dr Pachauri and Teri into the mix (although I must add he "strenuously denies any link,") the whole thing becomes real, a direct effect as a result of the policies of world governments.

 

Whilst i will happily agree that there are a majority of scientists who are signed up to AGW, there are a growing number who are not. I look forward to an open debate between prominent Warmist and prominent Realist scientists at some point, sooner rather than later hopefully. I wonder why AGW scientists seem so reluctant to debate? Many offers have been issued, none properly taken up.

To answer your point about Peer Review,

 

This snippet from THIS article gives a brief discription of why there are few anti-GW peer-reviewed papers:

 

It would be good if the Anti-global warming Scientists were prepared to enter a debate rather than hiding behind websites and deleting opposing arguments.

 

And as I have pointed out Dr Pachauri was put in post by the Bush administration, the damage he does to the IPCC is a result of a sceptical Republican adminstrations actions.

 

The actions of and discussion of the rights and wrongs of Climate Trading is a seperate issue. If it is doing damage to the scientific debate then it is only doing so through a confusion between seperate debates.

[truman]

No that was McIntyre's criticisms that have been refuted by numerous studies listed from tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature.

 

That'll be the tree rings that show a temp. decline since 1960?

[Wildcat]

Ah, so that's the third wheel gone then

 

Looks like CRU, NOAA and GISS temp data are all a little suspect.

 

How do you reach that conclusion?

[Wildcat]

That'll be the tree rings that show a temp. decline since 1960?

 

All tree ring data since the 1960s has shown a non-correlation with temperature. We have been over this before.