Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Amazing, all that time on your hands and you fail at reading comprehension!

 

How many paragraphs dip into the science side of things? The last 4 or 5 short ones. How many are talking about the Government funding, Carbon Trading side of things? 18.

 

So you either think the meat of the post was the science, in which case words fail me, or you don't want to discuss the issues it raises e.g Government Funding, Carbon Trading, Big Banks.

 

For example, Richard North at EU Referendum is finding a whole rabbit warren of Government funding of "research" that seems an awful lot like pseudo-scientific padding for green propaganda.

 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/big-climate-brother.html

 

There is no evidence the research funding biasses the researchers to come up with any particular view on climate change.

 

She herself admits her evidence of the funding for research is not evidence to doubt the science, which is why she adds in some science doubt at the end. The fact when she does so she uses research known to be flawed exposes the vacuity of her article and her argument. Those short passages are the only ones that are improtant, the rest is vacuous conspiracy theory.

 

What is insidious are people like her that use dubious examples of papers that raise doubts to justify denial of the scientific consensus.

 

Read up on denialism and see if you can't see how it is being used to sidetrack debate:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Analysis_of_the_term_and_its_usage

Edited March 7, 2010 by Wildcat

[barny_100]

There is no evidence the research funding biasses the researchers to come up with any particular view on climate change.

 

 

If that's the case why do people like yourself shout about funding to any sceptic group from the Oil Industry as if it were money from Satan himself?

 

I see a distinct case of double standards that's all.

[Wildcat]

If that's the case why do people like yourself shout about funding to any sceptic group from the Oil Industry as if it were money from Satan himself?

 

I see a distinct case of double standards that's all.

 

In some cases I may have pointed out the research comes from somewhere like the Heartlands Institute which has been shown time and time again to be non-credible as context. But I have rarely if ever made that argument, in isolation from a scientific one.

[convert]

Well well, looks like the chap appointed to investigate climategate has a vested interest.

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7071751.ece

 

 

A member of the House of Lords appointed to investigate the veracity of climate science has close links to businesses that stand to make billions of pounds from low-carbon technology.

 

Lord Oxburgh is to chair a scientific assessment panel that will examine the published science of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

 

The CRU has been accused of manipulating and suppressing data to overstate the dangers from climate change. Professor Phil Jones, its director, has stood down from his post while a separate inquiry, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, takes place into the leaking of e-mails sent by him and his colleagues.

 

Climate sceptics questioned whether Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, was truly independent because he led organisations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.

 

Follow the money indeed.

[truman]

What a surprise.. even more greenwash...

[convert]

Looks like the Science museum has decided that MMGW may not be so clear cut.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece

 

 

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

 

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

 

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate...

 

...Chris Rapley, the museum’s director, told The Times that it was taking a different approach after observing how the climate debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”

 

Professor Rapley, a climate scientist and former director of the British Antarctic Survey research centre, said that the museum needed to remain neutral in order to be trusted: “The Science Museum will not state a position on whether or not climate change is real, driven by humans or threatening.”

 

“The climate science community, by and large, has concluded that humans have intervened in the system in a way that will lead to climate change. But that is their story. It’s not our story, so that can’t be our conclusion. If we take sides we will alienate some of the people who want to be part of the discussion.

 

 

Well said that man, at last some balance in the debate.

[Wildcat]

Looks like the Science museum has decided that MMGW may not be so clear cut.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece

 

 

 

Well said that man, at last some balance in the debate.

 

What were you saying about following the money?

 

http://www.shell.co.uk/home/content/gbr/aboutshell/media_centre/news_and_media_releases/2010/news/science_museum_science_gallery.html

 

Whatever next, will the Scinece Museum being accepting money from Creationist churches to put on an exhibition about how there are doubts about evolution?

 

Interesting article about it here:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/25/london-science-museum-climate-exhibit-rapley-shell-skeptics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Edited March 26, 2010 by Wildcat

[Tony]

You're making the erroneous casual assumption that individuals and organisations leave their principles and integrity at the bank door.

 

That's rather lazy of you - not your usual standard.

[Wildcat]

You're making the erroneous casual assumption that individuals and organisations leave their principles and integrity at the bank door.

 

That's rather lazy of you - not your usual standard.

 

It is hardly an assumption when we are talking about evidence of the Science Museum compromising the Science in an exhibition funded by Shell who:

 

In the United States, Shell is part of the American Petroleum Institute, the organisation leading the campaign to peddle anti-science propaganda, and to orchestrate “astroturfing” “fake grassroots” campaigns against Obama’s clean energy reforms and the regulation of greenhouse gases.

 

In Canada, Shell is producing tar sands – the dirtiest oil there is, whilst here it is pulling out of renewable schemes. You have to ask: Is the Science Museum really representing the real scientific community, or pandering to the wishes of their corporate sponsors?

 

Will the Science Museum be using the money from Shell to tell us that sea level rise will be three times faster than the IPCC predicted? will it expose the fake campaign groups? or the dangers of companies like Shell's dangerous impacts on the environment?

[Tony]

Don't you think that the Science Museum should adopt a neutral position ? To the best of my knowledge it is an educative resource not a lobby organisation.