Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

With qualifications in Climate Science? or more simply scientists with associated degrees that have published papers on Climate Science? If the former I have no idea, if the latter then by definition 2,500.

 

I think a few on here will agree with that:hihi:

[convert]

Anyone who still believes that the IPCC rely purely on peer reviewed papers should have caught Newsnight on BBC2 tonight. (Of course you could watch it on iplayer)

 

Time for an independent audit into the IPCC.

 

 

PS might be worth watching tomorrow night as well, looking at the CRU at UEA.

[I1L2T3]

suggest an alternative explanation for a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere, whilst the sun is going through a cooling phase?

 

Hot air, most likely.

[Wildcat]

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics

[Wildcat]

An aspect to the stolen emails not so far discussed on this thread is discussed here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html

 

I think my money would go on a US group.

[retep]

Still chasing your tail Wiki, see a vet it could be worms.

[truman]

An aspect to the stolen emails not so far discussed on this thread is discussed here:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emails-hacked-by-spies-1885147.html

 

I think my money would go on a US group.

 

Does it matter how they got out? If the science was settled and robust then why would their release affect anything?

 

"....In an interview with The Independent, Sir David suggested the email leaks were deliberately designed to destabilise Copenhagen ..."

[Stormy]

Interesting article in the Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics

 

Even more interesting article (same author, same paper) which explains why there is little peer-reviewed sceptical literature out there. Wildcat even you have to admit that this article is highly damaging, especially considering who wrote it.

[convert]

How long can the chairman of the IPCC (It's Probably Concocted Crap) last.

 

Even the chaiman of greenpeas is hanging him out to dry.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece

[Wildcat]

Even more interesting article (same author, same paper) which explains why there is little peer-reviewed sceptical literature out there. Wildcat even you have to admit that this article is highly damaging, especially considering who wrote it.

 

Not really.

 

In the context of events like the Climate Research paper being published despite its obvious flaws or the Siberian paper that was "slight" and didn't reveal "details about its methods of analysis", or the McIntyre criticisms of no relevance that have become increasingly unhinged, it should come as no surprise genuine scientists want to defend their area of work from pseudo scientists with a political agenda and from journalists that lap up any misquotes or misleading claims made by deniers like what was revealed in his previous article.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Wildcat