Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

Well it seems the BBC has had enough,

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/17/lawrence-solomon-bbc-drops-top-ipcc-source-for-climate-change-data.aspx

[Wildcat]

So now scientists changing their minds mean they are wrong?

 

Again wildcat, that would mean that every single pro-GW is wrong, because they must at some point changed from not believing it to believing it (virtually no scientist in the world believed it originally, so when you take the last two points of yours (the one quoted here and the one quoted above) it means global warming cannot exist, by your own words). Or does your criticism only apply when we are talking about anti-GW proponents?

 

I responded to this above as if you were referencing Tim Ball, not H Sterling Burnett.

 

It doesn't make sense in relation to H Sterling Bernett. My criticism of him is that he is intentionally misleading the viewer by reporting a study review as being about something it wasn't and also that he has got his figures wrong. Unlike the IPCC claim about the Himalayas that amounted to 2 lines, and was sourced from a WWF article, which in turn had been sourced from a New Scientist article (where the mistake was originally made) this flaw is clearly central to his argument as it is the main substance of his article. He would appear to have been caught out making up propoganda, not making an honest mistake.

[barny_100]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 

Come on, you can't even try and squirm? You just give up?

[Grandad.Malky]

I keep popping in to see if anything as changed and going on the 14 ½ thousand views I am not on my own, the believers are still on a crusade to save the world and the deniers are still all crackpots, ah well somethings never change.

[retep]

I keep popping in to see if anything as changed and going on the 14 ½ thousand views I am not on my own, the believers are still on a crusade to save the world and the deniers are still all crackpots, ah well somethings never change.

 

You could have at least stirred the pot in passing:hihi:

[barny_100]

I keep popping in to see if anything as changed and going on the 14 ½ thousand views I am not on my own, the believers are still on a crusade to save the world and the deniers are still all crackpots, ah well somethings never change.

 

Nice to see you have such an open mind. Great moderator material.

[Wildcat]

Why do you keep using the disparaging term "deniers" as if it's something to be ashamed of? If it's proved that something that was previously thought to be true turns out to be false (such as global warming) then of course it's right to deny it!

 

It's been proved that for the last ten years the planet has been cooling down, not getting warmer, so it must be plain to all that, as per the title of this thread, there is no evidence for global warming!

 

How much longer are you going to stick your head in the sand?

 

I use deniers because that is the easiest way to describe the people that take the opposite view to the consensus of scientific opinion. What else should I call them? I can't use coolers because the majority of deniers accept the earth is warming, it is an even smaller group that say against all the evidence that warming is not happening.

 

So who's head is it that is in the sand since you don't appear to know what you are talking about?

[Wildcat]

The thing is wildcat, the evidence is starting to swing. This is because for a number of years, all the research that was being done expected to find evidence of GW. Thy didn't start from a position of "lets see if GW exists" they started from a position of "lets find evidence of GW" - but this is starting to change to the proper question of "does it exist" and as more research ios done with that question in mind, more evidence is suggesting that GW is at the most a natural cycle.

 

It is also worth noting that a lot of palaeoclimatologists do not believe that GW has a human source.

 

I

 

As for changing opinion.... we had a list of 40 'scientists' that deny climate change earlier, some of whom were economists.... I didn't notice many paleoclimatologists amongst them and even if they all were paleoclimatologists that is still not a lot of people.

 

Can you cite an example of that?

 

All the recent papers I have seen reported have supported global warming.

 

Like this one:

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

Edited January 19, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

 

Come on, you can't even try and squirm? You just give up?

 

I can'tsquirm if I can't make sense of what you have written.

[barny_100]

If you want to play that silly game Wildcat, it doesn't reflect well on you. Anyone that comprehends English would understand that what I wrote inferred that the following would be fine by you.

 

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 a big bad oil company, sourced from The Daily Express 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?