Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Hi Wildcat

 

Sorry if I'm being dim here but could you point out to me where, in that article, the claim regarding the numbers of reviewers is refuted?

 

Cheers.

 

The wordpress link with the details is hidden.

 

This link however shows how they have misled with respect to chapter 9, by omitting the numerous reviewers of the first draft only counting the ones of the second draft.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_nrsp.php

[Wildcat]

And Richard Littlmore is impartial?

 

Of course not, so what?

 

There is a difference between having an opinion and being paid to be a lobbiest.

[Wildcat]

You're the one who champions peer review and made a big deal of the "4000" (which could now be as low as 60). I haven't seen a link from you from an impartial source...

 

Hmm looks like more than 60 to me:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessannex-v.html#v-1

 

Considering you believe in a global conspiracy that you think includes the majority of scientists, the bbc etc. providing an "impartial source" to meet your criteria is going to be a little difficult isn't it?

[Wildcat]

Some more about McClean's article:

 

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/09/spot-the-recycled-denial-iv-%e2%80%93-climate-case-built-on-thin-foundation/

[Greybeard]

Why should we ignore the causes of the problem?

 

Dealing with causes is the cheapest solution.

 

Assuming you mean CO2 emissions, then 'we', as in the UK govt., have already set patently unachievable arbitrary targets for their reduction that will be ruinously expensive.

 

However the UK is a very minor contributor to the global problem compared with countries like China, India, Russia and the US, - none of which have any intention of significantly reducing their CO2 emissions in the foreseeable future.

[Wildcat]

Assuming you mean CO2 emissions, then 'we', as in the UK govt., have already set patently unachievable arbitrary targets for their reduction that will be ruinously expensive.

 

However the UK is a very minor contributor to the global problem compared with countries like China, India, Russia and the US, - none of which have any intention of significantly reducing their CO2 emissions in the foreseeable future.

 

All of which have signed up to controlling their emissions and meeting the target set for them.

 

Russia has been particularly successful, but this graph also shows where individual responsibility currently lies:

 

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=carbon+emissions#met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:GBR:USA:CHN:IND:RUS&tdim=true

 

The USA is the biggest problem for the world and unable to accept the realities and damage they are causing everyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_climate_conference#Listing_of_proposed_actions

Edited February 4, 2010 by Wildcat

[truman]

So I ask again, do you have any evidence for an AGW scam? Do you have an alternative theory for global warming that is consistent with the evidence?

 

You show me incontrovertible evidence that AGW exists....

[Wildcat]

You show me incontrovertible evidence that AGW exists....

 

Show me incontravertable proof that atoms exist, that smoking causes cancer, that the sun will rise tomorrow.... You can't.

 

Science doesn't work in incontravertable proofs. You are setting impossible standards.

[Wildcat]

You show me incontrovertible evidence that AGW exists....

 

Evidence can be found here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

But the burden of proof is not upon me. It is not me that is the one making the argument that the views of the majority of experts in the field is in error.

 

Accepting the view of the majority of experts is the rational position to adopt without even needing to understand the science.

[Lockjaw]

The wordpress link with the details is hidden.

 

This link however shows how they have misled with respect to chapter 9, by omitting the numerous reviewers of the first draft only counting the ones of the second draft.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_nrsp.php

 

Thanks for that, Wildcat. Though, since the pertinant link doesn't work, that page is simply denies the claim rather than refutes it.

 

Having said that, I'll assume that if the link did work it would lead to evidence which refutes the claim.