Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Many scientists, and not just bloggers have analysed the data that is available, and have come to different conclusions.

 

How you can say the science is settled is beyond me, when even within the IPCC, there is dissent about AR4. I'd suggest you look at AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06-KRB-1stAug.doc; a very long, protracted, technical and critical peer review of chapter 6 of said report. The science is far from settled even within the IPCC.

 

I remember seeing a petition in the US, which, even back in 1997 had over 9029 Phd's who didn't think the science was settled.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

 

 

 

I agree CRU are now saying that they will make some of their previous data available. How original that data will be now, is of course open to speculation.

 

I'd like to know who exactly is funded by big oil (other than F Singer of course, who I believe is said to have recieved $20K). I'd like to compare the amount of funding that 'big oil' is said to have provided against the bilions given to the likes of CRU, NASA and GISS by their respective governments and other 'benefactors.

 

 

As I've said before, I'm all for conserving resources, yada, yada, yada...

 

However before I'll accept that climate change is the fault of man, and in particualr his CO2 output, the results that the IPCC have based policy on have to be repeated, by an independant group, whose funding isn't dependant upon the findings.

 

I am off to bed so I am afraid my response can only address the one point and that will be the petition. It is a fraud and has been exposed as such for 10 years. Look at the links at the bottom of this article, some signatories are dead, others have no recollection of signing it others signed it in the 80s.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/john-coleman-still-waiting-lawsuit

[convert]

Here is an extract of said review of chapter 6 of the AR4 report:-

 

Chapter 6 is almost entirely devoted to late Quaternary paleoclimate, with just 2 pages on the pre-Quaternary (6-9, 6-10, Section 3.1). Even those 2 pages are unsatisfactory, because while two of the three sections, on the mid Pliocene warming and the 55 Ma methane discharge are OK as they stand, these are unusual events in the climate history of the last 100 million years. Section 6.3.1 on pre-Quaternary CO2 through Cenozoic times

is not OK for several reasons. For the chapter to pass review in an international journal the pre-Quaternary section would need a review of CO2 history that provided authoritative analysis , and an overview that puts the two selected paleoclimate events in the context of a high CO2-high temperature Cretaceous-early Cenozoic climate shifting to the low-CO2 low-temperature state of the last ~30 million years.

[Peter Barrett (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 12-1)]

 

A pretty valid point, but dismissed by the IPCC as

 

 

Rejected, the authors believe balance is right, given the strong length

limitations. This the chapter focusses on those aspects of pre-Quaternary

which are seen as most relevant for the role of the document for policy makers.

 

So again cherry picking by the IPCC as to what is relevant, and what isn't; with the document being tailored towards the policy makers, irrespective of the science.

 

 

Full document here:-

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ipcc/sod/AR4WG1_Ch06_SOR_CommentResponses_EDist.pdf

 

It's well worth a read for anyone who thinks the science is settled. PS the report is a bit on the long side at 185 pages.

[supersonic]

I generally meet two types of person who have views on 'man made' climate change. Either:

 

- Yes, C02 will have a signficant effect on global temperature (of the order of the IPCC predictions)

- No, it will have no effect at all.

 

I take a view somewhere in the middle of that C02 increases will cause a small change in temperature compared to what the temperature would have been if the levels remain even or at pre industrial levels. Global falling temps will/do not indicate C02 having no effect, as many people seem to think, but rather it would be even colder were it not for CO2. It adds on an amount compared to what it would have been.

 

This page is one of the best I have seen regarding data interpretion and prediction:

 

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

 

It concludes that a doubling of Co2 concentrations has the capacity to raise the the global teperature 1.76±0.27 degrees Celsius.

[convert]

I am off to bed so I am afraid my response can only address the one point and that will be the petition. It is a fraud and has been exposed as such for 10 years. Look at the links at the bottom of this article, some signatories are dead, others have no recollection of signing it others signed it in the 80s.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/john-coleman-still-waiting-lawsuit

 

Cheers I'll take a look at that when I get chance, and I look forward to your responses to my other points.

[JIbbo]

Cheers I'll take a look at that when I get chance, and I look forward to your responses to my other points.

 

"Hide the decline"

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif

 

UEA "Official Data"

 

http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uea_nov2009_resized.jpg

 

Excluding the 'decline'

 

Reconstruction using ALL available data......

 

Now someone tell me their isn't a 'coverup' going on !

http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uea_nov2009.gif

[truman]

Far from being unwilling to share core data with anyone, they have shared the data that they can. The issue as I see it is a fabricated one for propoganda purposes and not a scientific one.

It would appear that the CRU aren't in much of a position to share data..

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8832984

 

Look like they've got rid of the raw info....

[convert]

Wildcat, I've just taken a look at theat desmogblog link you posted, and taking the last link in the list ( http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/ ), it would appear that the author has taken a very small sample (albeit apparently random) of 60 of the 31,000+ signatories on the oregon petition and written a very small piece on each of them.

 

His major dismissal of the majority of these people sems to be the fact that they haven't had and papers published in the specific area of climate.

This being despite the fact that some of them have published papers on thermal conductivity, air pollution management, GeoPhysics,

Chemistry, Astrophysics, Mathematics, Computer modelling (should have had him at CRU methinks!), etc.

 

The other major point made here is that some of the signatories are dead, well considering long ago the petition was started that's hardly suprising is it.

[convert]

It would appear that the CRU aren't in much of a position to share data..

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8832984

 

Look like they've got rid of the raw info....

 

Sorry but that link has nothing to do with CRU, or AGW. It appears to be about immigrants and £1600 flats.

 

Could you edit the link to point a the correct article please?

[convert]

"Hide the decline"

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif

 

UEA "Official Data"

 

http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uea_nov2009_resized.jpg

 

Excluding the 'decline'

 

Reconstruction using ALL available data......

 

Now someone tell me their isn't a 'coverup' going on !

http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/uea_nov2009.gif

 

 

A little satire on the subject

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

[supersonic]

Hehe, nice video.

 

Red sky at night, shepherds' delight

Floods in t' morning, global warming...