Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Kingmaker2]

I'm actually agnostic really. My view is the waters are too muddy and that decisions of tremendous magnitude are being made on faith rather than a solid factual base.

 

I actually think this whole debate, not just on this thread, is slightly muddied.

 

Essentially my beef is not so much who's data is correct or not, but the fact that some people such as Booker have jumped on the E-mail leakage bandwagon and pronounced:"I told you so, Man made Global warming is all a hoax!"

 

In reality though the e-mail leakage hasn't shown that at all.

[BritPat]

I actually think this whole debate, not just on this thread, is slightly muddied.

 

Essentially my beef is not so much who's data is correct or not, but the fact that some people such as Booker have jumped on the E-mail leakage bandwagon and pronounced:"I told you so, Man made Global warming is all a hoax!"

 

In reality though the e-mail leakage hasn't shown that at all.

 

It has shown that certain parties are in a rush to discard documents that undermine their own positions, has it not?

[Wildcat]

It has shown that certain parties are in a rush to discard documents that undermine their own positions, has it not?

 

The only frauds I am aware of come from the denialist camp.

 

People like Fred Singer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

[barny_100]

Essentially my beef is not so much who's data is correct or not, but the fact that some people such as Booker have jumped on the E-mail leakage bandwagon and pronounced:"I told you so, Man made Global warming is all a hoax!"

 

In reality though the e-mail leakage hasn't shown that at all.

 

Fair enough, I agree this is not conclusive proof of anything to do with the climate.

 

I would say however that it is conclusive proof that the people at the CRU are not carrying out proper science. When even George Monbiot calls your methods "Unscientific" you are in trouble. The most serious issue is that the CRU are deeply involved with the IPCC which is seen as THE final conclusive process for deciding policy.

[barny_100]

The only frauds I am aware of come from the denialist camp.

 

People like Fred Singer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

 

This makes for interesting reading as far as fraud goes: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

 

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

 

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

 

Think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

 

Real Climate has been linked quite a few times on this very thread - something to keep in mind.

[Wildcat]

This makes for interesting reading as far as fraud goes: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

 

Real Climate has been linked quite a few times on this very thread - something to keep in mind.

 

Real Climate exists unashamedly to debunk climate change myths, misrepresentation no.1 in the section quoted.

 

Misrepresentation 2, is that the email is not about a generic handover to some mysterious organisation intending to suppress debate, it is about dealing with a specific article by Steve McIntyre who keeps raising the "hockey stick" controversy, which is spuriously critical of a report by one of the people at realclimate (as all the impartial investigations have shown).

 

Indeed McIntyre's latest attempt to discredit temperature rises involves the bizarre claim that they used "upside down data".

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11.full

Edited November 25, 2009 by Wildcat

[barny_100]

Real Climate exists unashamedly to debunk climate change myths, misrepresentation no.1 in the section quoted.

 

Misrepresentation 2, is that the email is not about a generic handover to some mysterious organisation intending to suppress debate, it is about dealing with a specific article by Steve McIntyre who keeps raising the "hockey stick" controversy, which is spuriously critical of a report by one of the people at realclimate (as all the impartial investigations have shown).

 

Your first point is incorrect as you have linked to the wiki whch is quite different, the website itself has no such description. Read the "About" tab.

 

Secondly that email is quite obviously a general statement of intent to filter and control what they then wish to pretend is open discourse. It just doesn't pass the "smell" test as is the case with many of these emails/files. There is thread of subfurtuge running throughout. I find it worrying that scientists in such a sensitive position were acting this way.

[Greybeard]

It seems to be the case that AGW is now an unassailable argument, not so much because the facts support the argument but because too many people with power and influence are now financially dependent on the general, worldwide acceptance of the argument.

 

Back up the thread somebody said "we know the Arctic will be ice-free in 2100". To me this is like Grahame saying "we know there will be day of judgment".

 

Scepticism in the face of such convinced belief is pointless. we'll just have to wait and see.

[convert]

The only frauds I am aware of come from the denialist camp.

 

People like Fred Singer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

 

What you mean like Phil Jones, Head of the CRU at UEA, one of the most influential bodies working with the IPCC to set climate strategy and hence influence Government policy.

 

 

Phil Jones, email, Dec 3, 2008:

 

About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.

 

Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 Guardian:

 

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

 

The same Phil Jones that the well known proponent of AGW, George Monbiot (The very same George Monbiot who denounces Singer's work on Glaciers in YOUR link), is calling for the resignation of.

Edited November 25, 2009 by convert

[Right]

We know that CO2 is a very effective greenhouse gas. We know that before the industrial revolution the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280pmm. We know that currently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 386pmm, and rising by 2-3pmm every year. We know that global temperatures have risen by 0.4 degrees C since the 70s, which is too large an increase to be explained by natural causes, therefore human activity must have tipped the balance[/b]. We know that all the major glaciers in the world are in retreat. We know that artic ice has lost almost half it's volume in just a few decades. We know that whatever we do now, the Earth is headed for at least another increase of 0.5 degrees. We know that by 2100, the artic will have no summer ice left, which has not occurred for over 700,000 years.

 

Read science journals such as Nature and you will know that 99% of the world's climatologists agree that global warming is being caused by human activity, and the main product of that activity is CO2 emissions.

 

Ha ha Doesnt sound very factual to me!It sounds like guess work but hey im sure YOU believe your own twisted rubbish no doubt quoted from twisted 'scientists with a motive!

Bring on the warming its freezing getting into my car