Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

On the contrary, there was evidence and you simply keep denying that it existed.

Your opinions appear to be held as a matter of faith, you immediately dismiss anything contrary to them and accept no criticism or ambivalence. You might like to think that you hold your opinion in a rational way, but it certainly doesn't appear that way from the outside.

 

Which evidence?

 

Hide the decline? I have already explained that hiding the decline in tree ring proxies to give a true representation of temperature is not just legitimate but not doing that would have been fraud!

 

My opinions have in each and every case been backed up with evidence that supports the arguments I have made. Objectivity requires seeing things in context and dismissing evidence where it is irrelevant or innocuous.

 

Rather than repeatedly pontificating about me denying evidence, or having a blinkered approach, perhaps you can give an example? Or perhaps you can explain what you think rather than simply sniping from the sidelines and trying to undermine arguments without having anything positive to put in their place?

Edited June 4, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

You are talking about a political solution, something that has to take in to account fairness! Without taking that in to account there will be no solution.

 

Why should China and India's economies be restricted when it outputs a tenth per capita that we do?

 

So it's got nothing to do with the science then, it's all about politics and economics is it?

 

 

Keep digging old bean.

[convert]

But I won't, because the analogy is clear.

 

Oh dear. Poor marxist troll.

[Longcol]

And the scientific community is coming round to the fact that global warming was a myth.

 

Is that really a fact?

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html

[Wildcat]

Oh dear. Poor marxist troll.

 

Oh dear, namecalling now.

 

Don't you have any more articles to present that cast doubt on minor issues of little significance?

[Wildcat]

So it's got nothing to do with the science then, it's all about politics and economics is it?

 

Keep digging old bean.

 

The problem is defined by the science. Science and engineering can develop technologies that will assist, but the implimentation of those technologies and solutions are all to do with politics.

 

My point is straight forward and commonsense enough. Your juvenile behaviour, reminds me of other debates I have been involved in..... now I wonder which ones those are?

[convert]

The problem is defined by the science. Science and engineering can develop technologies that will assist, but the implimentation of those technologies and solutions are all to do with politics.

 

My point is straight forward and commonsense enough. Your juvenile behaviour, reminds me of other debates I have been involved in..... now I wonder which ones those are?

 

So is the science different in the western world? IS our CO2 worse than China's?

 

If CO2 is so bad why aren't you in favour of dramatic cuts in the developing world?

 

If CO2 is going to bring about the end of the world (as the church of AGW would have us believe), why are the developing countries allowed to generate so much?

 

This has nothing to do with the 'science', and everything to do with politics and control.

[Cyclone]

Which evidence?

 

Hide the decline? I have already explained that hiding the decline in tree ring proxies to give a true representation of temperature is not just legitimate but not doing that would have been fraud!

 

My opinions have in each and every case been backed up with evidence that supports the arguments I have made. Objectivity requires seeing things in context and dismissing evidence where it is irrelevant or innocuous.

 

Rather than repeatedly pontificating about me denying evidence, or having a blinkered approach, perhaps you can give an example? Or perhaps you can explain what you think rather than simply sniping from the sidelines and trying to undermine arguments without having anything positive to put in their place?

 

I think I explained about 50 pages ago my position, I'm not interested in repeating myself.

I do however like to turn your accusations about bias, misrepresentation and so on back towards you because they are all equally applicable to both sides in this debate.

 

The fact that you've tried to justify the manipulation doesn't convince me, I remain undecided as to what extend AGW or GW per se exists. I dislike the fact that inconvenient periods of history need to be ignored in order to make these models resemble reality in any way, and the manipulation of data that you keep trying to justify looks extremely shady to me.

Not to mention the refusal to release the base data, something against all the tenets of acceptable scientific practice.

You're not interested in an objective view though, you've made up your mind and dismiss anything that threatens your world view.

[Wildcat]

So is the science different in the western world? IS our CO2 worse than China's?

 

If CO2 is so bad why aren't you in favour of dramatic cuts in the developing world?

 

If CO2 is going to bring about the end of the world (as the church of AGW would have us believe), why are the developing countries allowed to generate so much?

 

This has nothing to do with the 'science', and everything to do with politics and control.

 

I have already answered all those points.

 

The fact the developing world releases less per capita seems irrelevant to you. Do you really think we are worth 5 to 10 times more than people in developing countries? Even if you do, achieving reductions in CO2 emissions taking that viewpoint is going to be impossible.

 

Your position is based on a selfish principle of self interest that is obvious political nonsense.

[Wildcat]

I think I explained about 50 pages ago my position, I'm not interested in repeating myself.

I do however like to turn your accusations about bias, misrepresentation and so on back towards you because they are all equally applicable to both sides in this debate.

 

The fact that you've tried to justify the manipulation doesn't convince me, I remain undecided as to what extend AGW or GW per se exists. I dislike the fact that inconvenient periods of history need to be ignored in order to make these models resemble reality in any way, and the manipulation of data that you keep trying to justify looks extremely shady to me.

Not to mention the refusal to release the base data, something against all the tenets of acceptable scientific practice.

You're not interested in an objective view though, you've made up your mind and dismiss anything that threatens your world view.

 

No periods of history have to be ignored. The debate on the extent or whether, when and where there has been a medieval warm period is an irrelevance

 

I am sorry that you think the data should not have been manipulated, but it only goes to show your inability to understand that not doing so would have been fraud!

 

There is plenty of data available. I provided a link a page or so ago. You can do your own analysis just as numerous studies have done and you will find like the other papers have done that the evidence supports a large and worrying rise in recent rise temperature. Even if the Mann paper in 1997 was wrong or flawed (which substantially it is not), it is an irrelevence. It is just one of many studies that have reached the same conclusion.

 

If you were interested in an objective understanding you would move beyond your fascination with one study and look at all the rest of the evidence and supporting research.