Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[JIbbo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/home/newsid_8465000/8465238.stm

 

n Monday the town of Bombala, in New South Wales, recorded its first summer snow since records began in 1965.

 

Cooma, also in New South Wales, saw its first summer snow since the Bureau of Meteorology started keeping weather records in the town in 1973.

 

Unusual flurries of snow fell to around 900 metres (3,000 feet) above sea level across alpine southeast Australia.

 

Forecasters said that snowfall at such low levels was unusual at any time of year, let alone during summer when temperatures can be uncomfortably high even in the Snowy Mountains.

 

The snow was not heavy enough to cause any disruption, but prompted tourists heading out to climb in the Snowy Mountains to rent ski clothing from the Thredbo ski resort, where snow fell for more than three hours.

[Wildcat]

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

 

Any reason to believe the site has a bad reputation?

 

As for it being partisan... by that you mean it has an opinion that refutes your own.

 

Both strange objections with no apparent justifiable reasoning.

 

Are you discounting the various Scientific reports it quotes for the same reason... ie you don't like them?

[Wildcat]

Story also in the Express this morning.

 

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?

 

It is the same story we debated a page ago, my response is the same:

 

This "central claim" about the Himalayas amounts to just 2 lines in a series of reports that must be in excess of a thousand pages.

 

Anyone thinking this amounts to a reason to be sceptical of human influenced global warming has no sense of perspective.

[truman]

It is the same story we debated a page ago, my response is the same:

 

This "central claim" about the Himalayas amounts to just 2 lines in a series of reports that must be in excess of a thousand pages.

 

Anyone thinking this amounts to a reason to be sceptical of human influenced global warming has no sense of perspective.

 

If the science is so settled then why were the CRU at UEA trying to figure out ways of hiding/manipulating the data? Yoiu have seen all the emails released haven't you...?

[Stormy]

Story also in the Express this morning.

 

 

 

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?

 

The queue begins in Redcar, 1700 people long so far.

[Wildcat]

If the science is so settled then why were the CRU at UEA trying to figure out ways of hiding/manipulating the data? Yoiu have seen all the emails released haven't you...?

 

Hide the decline?

 

That was about not using tree ring data as a temperature proxy in the period after 1960 when they no longer correlated with temperature. Depsite the high profile given to that section of the emails, what was being discussed was completely innocuous and furthermore including the data they "hid" would have been misleading.

[Wildcat]

I've always said that climatologists have a vested interest even if they are not in the pocket of anyone else (or benefit from more research being done)

 

This is because the number of climatologists has increased immensely over the last couple of decades, and to suddenly discover that they are wrong would basically be like putting British Steel out of business - lots of suddenly unemployed "scientists" running around

 

Then there is the issue, like the IPCC chief, of scientists who have no particular knowledge in a field suddenly becoming climatologists, because that is where the research grants are suddenly available.

 

And also, on that issue, when people say things like "there is no serious scientist who disbelieves GW.." in fact there are quite a few, many of whom are the original climatologists - ie the people who were already climatologists before the balloon went up - unfortunately, their voices now get drowned out by people who aren't even qualified in the field that they claim to know about, who then have the nerve to claim anyone who disagrees with them is a crank!

 

Can you name even one?

[Funky_Gibbon]

For your viewing pleasure... or outrage depending on your opinion.

 

Why cold weather doesn't disprove Climate Change.

[Wildcat]

Ok, reading it again i assume you mean scientists - i will look up the specific ones i have read about tomorrow (10 mins till i go home )

 

but, much as i dislike wikipedia as a source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

will do for starters

 

And yes, I know of 2 in that list who are essentially the same as what I put in my previous post the other way round .

 

This is what I was asking for one of:

 

" in fact there are quite a few, many of whom are the original climatologists - ie the people who were already climatologists before the balloon went up "

 

You have provided a link to 40 people some of whom have qualifications in subjects like economics, which so far as I know isn't normally considered a science.

 

I recognise some of them on the list like Fred Singer who has done a lot for the Tobacco lobby, and receives a lot of funding now from Exxon.

 

Anyway that 40 people is not particularly impressive when you consider that 600 Scientists contributed to the IPCC report alone and that by a definition of scientist that includes economists there will be many thousands more not included in the list.

 

I also note very few of them even appear to agree with one another, so their views can't be that convincing.

 

So who were these original climatologists that are now Climate Change deniers?

Edited January 18, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

I should point out that one of the scientists in that wiki link predicted exactly what is happening today (warming trend, then a cooling trend, which he claims will last to 2035 or so, then warming again). However his methods for providing this prediction do not rely on CO2 increasing - and he has thus far been more accurate than any of the pro-GW predictions (who always seem to come out with an excuse for why something doesn't prove GW, or for why their predictions have thus far been wrong "but that doesn't mean WE are wrong" - which of course it does, because if their predictions ar wrong they are using incorrect data to run the simulation, which means that anything they come up with must be taken with a large pinch of salt)

 

Who?

 

And how does he account for the fact that we aren't in a cooling trend but that total earth temperature has continued to rise? He would appear to have got not just his predictions wrong but also the measures he is recording them against.

 

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

Edited January 18, 2010 by Wildcat