Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Berberis]

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?

 

Don’t single out the word reputable to be any comment on the site you linked. I was asking for a "reputable none partisan site" .. a site that fulfils all three criteria. Your linked page is partisan and so has a vested interest in the debate from one side.

[convert]

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.

 

In your opinion, however it does paint a graphic picture of the IPCC. An organisation that included a 'fact' in a report. A fact that hadn't been peer reviewed. A 'fact' that they got wrong, transposing a date which should have read 2350 to 2035.

 

2035 is a much more alarming date isn't it?

 

The IPCC, when first advised of their 'error' denied it. Only now are they admitting it.

 

This must surely bring the IPCC into disrepute.

Edited January 18, 2010 by convert

[Wildcat]

Don’t single out the word reputable to be any comment on the site you linked. I was asking for a "reputable none partisan site" .. a site that fulfils all three criteria. Your linked page is partisan and so has a vested interest in the debate from one side.

 

Why do you want to discount evidence from webpages that support global warming, simply on the basis they have taken a view?

 

You can use the page to investigate its claims, like the paper on which it is based:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml

 

Or is the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres like all Scientific journals, partisan when it comes to climate change?

 

Is Wikipedia partisan? It is often considered disreputable and considering the consensus on the subject I am sure their editorial policy will reflect the facts just as it does with sceptical science. So again they will meet the same criteria of being partisan that you have applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

The criteria of excluding sites you think partisan as evidence goes beyond anything that is sensible and would make debate impossible and can only be seen to be an attempt not to debate at all.

 

How about the fact that there are only 3 people on the list on Wikipedia that Auto98Uk provided of Climate Change Consensus deniers out of the 40 that deny global warming? Does the fact of 37 Sceptics disagreeing qualify as non-partisan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Global_warming_is_not_occurring_or_has_ceased

 

Infact I notice one of the 3 conflicts gives a conflicting opinion to the section he is included in saying :

 

"Earth is warming up, Ball says, but it's not humans who are doing it."

 

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4cc39711-79fc-43ad-a2c0-73a1b4fe88a2&k=70079

 

Is that the kind of non-partisan evidence you require?

Edited January 18, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

In your opinion, however it does paint a graphic picture of the IPCC. An organisation that included a 'fact' in a report. A fact that hadn't been peer reviewed. A 'fact' that they got wrong, transposing a date which should have read 2350 to 2035.

 

2035 is a much more alarming date isn't it?

 

The IPCC, when first advised of their 'error' denied it. Only now are they admitting it.

 

This must surely bring the IPCC into disrepute.

 

Get a grip.

[convert]

Get a grip.

 

I already have a good grip; on reality.

 

Would you deny that the IPCC failed in it's mandate, to only publish based on peer reviewed papers, when it quoted the date of 2035 re the glaciers ?

 

 

Would you deny that it got the date wrong, and subsequently stuck it's head in the sand, refusing to accept it was at fault?

[Stormy]

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?

 

Come on Wildcat you can do better than that. Granted, that list has one or two economists but to brush aside the others as if they don't exist is rather poor.

 

You might describe Dr Tim Ball with a PhD in Climatology as an original climatologist, for example. As a professor of Climatology at Winnipeg University for many years, one could say he knows what he is talking about.

 

Sample:

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.......

 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Edited January 18, 2010 by Stormy

[Wildcat]

Come on Wildcat you can do better than that. Granted, that list has one or two economists but to brush aside the others as if they don't exist is rather poor.

 

Do you want me to go through each and every one of them? And to what purpose, they don't even agree with themselves. And the first one on the list doesn't even agree with himself

 

The important and obvious point is they are a very small minority.

[Wildcat]

I already have a good grip; on reality.

 

Would you deny that the IPCC failed in it's mandate, to only publish based on peer reviewed papers, when it quoted the date of 2035 re the glaciers ?

 

Would you deny that it got the date wrong, and subsequently stuck it's head in the sand, refusing to accept it was at fault?

 

You are thinking of the Working Group 1 report which reports on the Science of Climate Change.

 

Report 2 about impacts, adaptions and vulnerabilities, is more of a social science sort of thing, I don't believe that section of the report requires them to source their material so rigorously. So taking info from WWF, sourced from New Scientist does not seem such a huge mistake to make.

 

Clearly since it is publically making the change there is no head in the sand is there?

[Stormy]

Do you want me to go through each and every one of them? And to what purpose, they don't even agree with themselves. And the first one on the list doesn't even agree with himself

 

The important and obvious point is they are a very small minority.

 

I think I edited my post as you wrote this reply and added Tim Ball as an example, apologies. Maybe you might like to try to discredit him, since that seems to be the warmist tactic of choice?

[Wildcat]

I think I edited my post as you wrote this reply and added Tim Ball as an example, apologies. Maybe you might like to try to discredit him, since that seems to be the warmist tactic of choice?

 

It doesn't take long, you could do it yourself you know and save me the 5 minutes looking him up :-)

 

Well firstly as I have already pointed out he doesn't agree with himself:

 

In Nov 2004, no warming.

 

"[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[4]

 

In May 2006:

 

"There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5]

 

In August 2006: Back to warming again:

 

"The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Global_warming_is_not_occurring_or_has_ceased

 

Ohh and he has lied about his CV, lied about being the first Climatologist in Canada (there were 30 years of Climatologists in Canada before him and he is a Geologist) and he is funded by fossil fuel companies that he has tried to keep hidden.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

 

Ohh and Tim Ball is also very stupid. He tried to cover those lies with a court case which brought about this comprehensive response exposing those deceptions.

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Calgary%20Herald%20Statement%20of%20Defence.pdf

 

I wouldn't trust him to know how to sit on a chair properly.

 

 

Ohh and looking at the court case despite claiming to have published more than 50 peer reviewed articles on climate change, he has only published 4 and none of those were on the science of climate change they were all historical literature reviews and one was his thesis.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Wildcat