Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

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

 

Also reported in the Telegraph:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/7010864/Met-Office-could-be-dropped-by-BBC-after-weather-blunders.html

[Wildcat]

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.

 

This is what you said:

 

Massive inaccuracies and shoddy source materials from lobby groups are OK as long as they are in a "social science setting"?

 

Good to know that some Oil company funded research that's also in the "social science" section of IPCC work will be OK by you then!

 

The point that they are making a change based on a criticism they have accepted appears to have completely missed you.

[Grandad.Malky]

You could have at least stirred the pot in passing

 

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

 

 

Thanks for your comments might pop in again when we get to about 20,000 views, would wildcat have run out of links to post by then?

[Wildcat]

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

 

Odd they are still using Paul Hudson's quote from November, when subsequent research by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has shown the HADCRUT data underestimates global warming.

 

Totally the opposite of his quote.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

[Wildcat]

Thanks for your comments might pop in again when we get to about 20,000 views, would wildcat have run out of links to post by then?

 

Happy to recycle them since the arguments put forward are normally the same ones.... Its cold today global warming has stopped. Its the sun. All the scientists are involved in a conspiracy to create jobs for themselves etc etc.

[barny_100]

This is what you said:

 

 

 

The point that they are making a change based on a criticism they have accepted appears to have completely missed you.

 

Not what your post said. It said:

 

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.

 

That means you don't think it being there in the first place was a big issue. I disagree. Regardless of what section it's in regurgitating lobby group "facts" is farcical no matter what side of the debate they come from.

[Wildcat]

Not what your post said. It said:

 

That means you don't think it being there in the first place was a big issue. I disagree. Regardless of what section it's in regurgitating lobby group "facts" is farcical no matter what side of the debate they come from.

 

It means I don't think it is a big issue in its context. A context where it is just 2 lines in a non-scientific part of a report that in total exceeds a thousand pages, and that is corrected when it is shown to be inaccurate.

 

If only there was the same integrity amongst critics of climate change.

[retep]

Odd they are still using Paul Hudson's quote from November, when subsequent research by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has shown the HADCRUT data underestimates global warming.

 

Totally the opposite of his quote.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

 

Obviously they trust Paul Hudson more than your link.

[barny_100]

It means I don't think it is a big issue in its context. A context where it is just 2 lines in a non-scientific part of a report that in total exceeds a thousand pages, and that is corrected when it is shown to be inaccurate.

 

If only there was the same integrity amongst critics of climate change.

 

I accept that it's not a massive issue alone but doesn't it cast some doubt on the whole thing? It displays an attitude that is very revealing. IMO that of "If it goes along with what we believe it's going in regardless of provenance"

[Wildcat]

Obviously they trust Paul Hudson more than your link.

 

They being a person that has written a book called "The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so)."

 

Which doesn't actually include any deniers.

 

The only fraud he exposes is himself....

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/lawrence-solomons-deniers-carefully-calculated-lie-still-lie