Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Stormy,

 

I am off to work so don't have time now to respond in detail.

 

In relation to Corbyn, whilst the attempt to debate with him was made 5 years ago there are ongoing comments on the page. Corbyn has refused to debate with him despite the very public attempt to do so. His challenge is made deceiptfully rather like any claims he might have to having the science right when he won't say what his science is except solar warming which we know simply doesn't fit the evidence.

 

In relation to Al Gore the first link shows the Scientific community being open and quick to criticise. In relation the the second link there is much in that that I am doubtful of, for the moment because of time I can however only say the source is not impartial:

http://www.desmogblog.com/h-sterling-burnett

 

I will return to that link this evening.

[convert]

The next time anyone says to you the 'science is settled' Simply tell them to goolge YAD061.

 

 

When you look at the data on this tree from the yamal series (Used to back up Mann's discredited hockey stick) you might get a new perspective on the lenghts the 'experts' have gone to, to maintain / increase their research grants.

 

http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/yad061.html

 

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2009/12/08/yad061-a-tree-that-will-live-in-infamy/

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/a-hands-on-view-of-tree-growth-and-tree-rings-one-explanation-for-briffas-yad061-lone-tree-core/

 

http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/

 

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic-Yamal3.htm

[Stormy]

Stormy,

 

In relation to Al Gore the first link shows the Scientific community being open and quick to criticise. In relation the the second link there is much in that that I am doubtful of, for the moment because of time I can however only say the source is not impartial:

http://www.desmogblog.com/h-sterling-burnett

 

I will return to that link this evening.

 

Before you concentrate too much on criticising that link, there are many many other sites which list his errors, some claim 35 errors. A high court judge also ruled that there were 9 specific effors.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2632660.ece

[Wildcat]

The next time anyone says to you the 'science is settled' Simply tell them to goolge YAD061.

 

When you look at the data on this tree from the yamal series (Used to back up Mann's discredited hockey stick) you might get a new perspective on the lenghts the 'experts' have gone to, to maintain / increase their research grants.

 

 

I haven't looked at the links but just the mention of the Yamal series argument leads me to despair.

 

The fact is that the hockey stick graph has been corroborated by seperate studies since then from corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores.

 

In particular the 2007 report from National Center for Atmospheric Research directly supports the hockey stick conclusion.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

 

The Yamal series is at best a minor detail, the focus on it by deniers really goes to show the paucity of the scientific basis for a criticism of global warming.

 

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

[Wildcat]

Before you concentrate too much on criticising that link, there are many many other sites which list his errors, some claim 35 errors. A high court judge also ruled that there were 9 specific effors.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2632660.ece

 

I note the times articles list is not really that damaging, if they are even errors they are presentational, or slight exaggeration and the sort of thing I would be surprised that with a fine tooth comb you wouldn't find in any documentary. They are qualitatively different from the earlier criticisms you have listed which suggests to me the real lieing revealed by the links you have presented comes from the one you originally provided by someone paid by the fossil fuel industry as an advocate.

 

I note there is an additional criticism of Gore here relating to Dr Thompson's thermometer:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm

[Berberis]

Coldest winter for 30 years

More snow and Ice than in 1979

The last 5 winters are the closest for the last 100 years.

 

Global warming:

Warmer and wetter winters for the UK - Not happened for the last 5 years at least.

Hotter summers - Not materialised in the last 10-15 years

 

The global warming theory is now being debunked from all sides and the gullible are still sticking to their stories not because they have irrefutable evidence, no its because they cherry pick what to believe and are too juvenile to accept when they are wrong. Its better (in their eyes) to stick to their beliefs rather then abandon them as they would have to accept they were wrong all a long.

[Wildcat]

Coldest winter for 30 years

More snow and Ice than in 1979

The last 5 winters are the closest for the last 100 years.

 

Global warming:

Warmer and wetter winters for the UK - Not happened for the last 5 years at least.

Hotter summers - Not materialised in the last 10-15 years

 

The global warming theory is now being debunked from all sides and the gullible are still sticking to their stories not because they have irrefutable evidence, no its because they cherry pick what to believe and are too juvenile to accept when they are wrong. Its better (in their eyes) to stick to their beliefs rather then abandon them as they would have to accept they were wrong all a long.

 

You are using dubious evidence about the UK as evidence against gloabl warming..... what were you saying about cherry picking?

 

Here is evidence global temperatures continue to rise:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

 

The global warming theory is not being debunked, the science is making its effects clearer with every report. And the deniers are becoming more and more desperate because they have no science to back up the comfortable view that they can keep their heads firmly stuck in the sand.

[Berberis]

You are using dubious evidence about the UK as evidence against gloabl warming..... what were you saying about cherry picking?

 

Here is evidence global temperatures continue to rise:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

 

The global warming theory is not being debunked, the science is making its effects clearer with every report. And the deniers are becoming more and more desperate because they have no science to back up the comfortable view that they can keep their heads firmly stuck in the sand.

 

Could you not at least quote a reputable none partisan site with evidence?

[truman]

I think they're making it up as they go along....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7011713/UN-report-on-glaciers-melting-is-based-on-speculation.html

[convert]

I think they're making it up as they go along....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7011713/UN-report-on-glaciers-melting-is-based-on-speculation.html

 

Story also in the Express this morning.

 

FRESH doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.

 

 

The International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed up by research.

 

It was also revealed that the IPCC’s controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientist”, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications.

 

Dr Pachauri was yesterday accused of a conflict of interest after it emerged he has a network of business interests that attract millions of pounds in funding thanks to IPCC policies. One of them, The Energy Research Institute, has a London office and is set to receive up to £10million from British taxpayers over the next five years in the form of grants from the Department for International Development.

 

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7011713/UN-report-on-glaciers-melting-is-based-on-speculation.html

 

It's funny how some people on here make accusations that 'deniers', or realists as I prefer, are funded by big oil; and hence we can't trust anything they say.

 

Yet it looks like the leader of the IPCC (yes we know Bush, yada, yada, yada), has a vested interest in climate change himself...

 

 

 

Now these green taxes that I've been FORCED to pay, how do I apply for a refund?