Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[[Matt]]

The CRU dataset is here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

 

Phil Jones is right, it is not standard practice to release every single source of information used when you are dealing with the sort of analysis on protected information, in fact it would be illegal of him to do so.

Tbh why are you bothering to argue with people of a denialist bent? Such people will dogmatically refuse to change their position regardless of how much evidence is presented to them.

[Wildcat]

;6066615']Tbh why are you bothering to argue with people of a denialist bent? Such people will dogmatically refuse to change their position regardless of how much evidence is presented to them.

 

I think you are right, in that some people simply don't want to hear.

 

I was just reading these articles and it charcterises the denialist movement as anti-liberal, anti-elitist and anti-intellectual.

 

As this suggests, becoming a denialist does not follow from carefully weighing up the evidence (that is, true scepticism) but from associating oneself with a cultural outlook, taking on an identity defined in opposition to a caricature of those who support action on climate change. It is the energy in this wider movement that has seen climate denialism morphing into a new form of political extremism.

 

Some active climate deniers possess a distinct "mindset" comprised of a certain worldview, including a narrative centered on secretive forces - variously encompassing elected leaders, scientists, scientific organisations, environmental groups and the United Nations - that are using climate science and climate policies as a cover to accumulate power with the objective of creating a world government that overrides national sovereignty and deprives citizens of their rights.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2827047.htm

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2828195.htm

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2829295.htm

 

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2830890.htm

 

There is a common theme to the articles and that is notably the Murdoch press, the fourth of those articles looks at Jonathon Leake's role as the science and environment editor of The Sunday Times... indeed it quotes this:

 

"While it is wholly unsurprising that the denial lobby should be attempting to push baseless and misleading stories to the press, what is surprising is the press's willingness to swallow them. In this case, two experts in the relevant field told a Times journalist explicitly that, in spite of a minor referencing error, the IPCC had got its facts right. That journalist simply ignored them. Instead, he deliberately put out the opposite line - one fed to him by a prominent climate change denier - as fact. The implications are deeply disturbing, not only for our prospects of tackling climate change, but for basic standards of honesty and integrity in journalism."

 

When the stakes for inaction on climate change are so high, the role of the denialist lobby should not be ignored not just because they are wrong, but also because the consequences of allowing them to dictate the debate and ignore the science will create unnecessary harm for the peoples on the planet.

[hitch_1980]

I once heard, that too make something dissapear, .....invent about 5 different names for it, get all sides having a go at each, and make sure the public dont understand, .....that way the problem never existed.....until its too late, and everyone blames each other again, but no one gets in trouble......

 

Its just this time, if we dont do anything, we are very much screwed.

[epiphany]

I once heard, that too make something dissapear, .....invent about 5 different names for it, get all sides having a go at each, and make sure the public dont understand, .....that way the problem never existed.....until its too late, and everyone blames each other again, but no one gets in trouble......

 

Its just this time, if we dont do anything, we are very much screwed.

 

Indeed. People demand "absolute proof", but science is not about that, it's about discovering trends upon which we can make a reasoned judgement. Perhaps we should look at climate change as one of those issues that has more consequences if we don't do anything than if we do and it turns out to be unneeded action.

[hitch_1980]

The other problem is that we live in a "here and now" state. When was the last time the goverment put a lot of money into something which may not benefit them, but another political party in a few years time.

[Wildcat]

Oh yeah...very informative.....

 

Why the eye roll?

 

Was the

too simple for you?

 

You can check the papers that back up what was being said here if you doubt any of it:

 

Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from Outward longwave

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

 

Trends in Forcings

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

Downward Longwave Radiation

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf

 

Downward Longwave Radiation

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

 

29000 data sets, press release:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/

 

29000 data sets

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html

 

Global Energy Imbalance:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html

 

Isotopes:

http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

 

You don't want to appear to have your head in the sand do you?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Wildcat

[I1L2T3]

:help:

 

You've woken up Wildcat again

[BarmyArmy]

Woo cares about "global warming" anyway it's all a load of tosh

[Lockjaw]

Woo cares about "global warming" anyway it's all a load of tosh

 

Thanks for that profound new point of view of the ongoing debate, Barmy.

 

Expand our minds some more, if you will; what leads you to believe it's "all a load of tosh"?

[BarmyArmy]

Thanks for that profound new point of view of the ongoing debate, Barmy.

 

Expand our minds some more, if you will; what leads you to believe it's "all a load of tosh"?

 

Well... there is no evidence to support that the climate changes we've seen in the past couple of hundred years were anything other than the Earth's natural progression. We simply don’t understand the climate well enough or have enough conclusive data to say that humanity is having such a bad effect and is causing "Global Warming"

 

Also, the fact that climate change is generally not world-wide and is more of a regional thing leads me to believe that the whole world is not going to implode if we continue to drive proper cars etc.

 

Maybe the temperature on Earth is rising currently (although if I am correct the temperature has slightly dropped overrall over the past 30/40yrs) but to believe that the human race is responsible for significantly changing the climate is a dangerous game to play.

 

That's why I believe it to be 'tosh' - Why do you believe otherwise? Because some lentil-soup eating Greenpeace member tells you it is?

 

I await your response with great intrigue and hope that my response was profound enough for you, Sir

 

P.S - I suppose it depends on your definition of "Global Warming"

Edited March 26, 2010 by BarmyArmy