Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

In what way do the Govt. do this? If anything they haven't helped by funding the explaining of the subject and the issues at stake with the public, the debate instead coming from groups funded by well fossil fuel lobbiests, less well funded environmental charities and private contributions from scientists.

 

So who funds the Carbon trust, who pays for the Act on CO2 propaganda on TV?

 

Who pays for the IPCC, the CRU, GISS, NASA...

[Wildcat]

This is interesting

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8

 

It is interesting that an account so divergent from the facts should be broadcast, but no surprise when you consider some of the rubbish journalists we have.

[Wildcat]

So who funds the Carbon trust, who pays for the Act on CO2 propaganda on TV?

 

Who pays for the IPCC, the CRU, GISS, NASA...

 

In most of those cases for the last 10 years a sceptical right-wing US Government.

[convert]

In most of those cases for the last 10 years a sceptical right-wing US Government.

 

I'll give you that for Goddard and NASA, but what about the carbon trust, how much do the ACT on CO2 adverts cost the taxpayer?

[truman]

It is interesting that an account so divergent from the facts should be broadcast, .

 

You have independent evidence of this.... "facts" is a very strong word...

[Wildcat]

I'll give you that for Goddard and NASA, but what about the carbon trust, how much do the ACT on CO2 adverts cost the taxpayer?

 

No idea, but clearly not enough considering the number of people so easily misled.

[Wildcat]

You have independent evidence of this.... "facts" is a very strong word...

 

It has been documented throughout this thread, Each and every charge made about the CRU emails is innocuous.

 

The "trick" was used in a sense that many scientists use as can be seen in various papers where they happily announce using a trick.

 

The CRU email criticisms of review methods were of a denialist paper that was so shoddy half the editorial board of the journal that released it resigned over the bias displayed by their reviewing practices of the denialist journal.

 

The FOI data requests were spurious and refused for the perfectly good reason it would have been illegal to do so, because of ownership rights issues.

 

Data destroyed was not destroyed it was transferred from one format to another and between locations, it was links to the data that became corrupted, and in their view unnecessary to go back to re-working.

 

The hockey-stick was never disproved. Tree rings data an error was discovered that was corrected. The tree ring data is certainly not the only evidence for global warming that Rex Murphy presents it as.

 

Or the Trenbirth email about not being able to account for recent surface global cooling...(most scientists account for it in terms of El Nino effect.) However the esample far from demonstrating a conspiracy of silence was actually a reference to a paper he had published publically.. So it didn't take leaked emails to get his opinion and there is no evidence in his email of a cover up, in fact the evidence is of the opposite.

 

Facts may be a strong word but on the facts Rex Murphy is wrong on just about every point.

 

I can go back to all the articles making these points but Ford's video makes the points pretty well and is only a few pages away:

Edited December 7, 2009 by Wildcat

[muchtoofair]

You have independent evidence of this.... "facts" is a very strong word...

 

Indeed "facts" is a very strong word.

 

The list of "deniers" is very,very long from nobel prizewinners to Harvard professors,many of them not placed within industry.

[nightrider]

It has been documented throughout this thread, Each and every charge made about the CRU emails is innocuous.

 

The "trick" was used in a sense that many scientists use as can be seen in various papers where they happily announce using a trick.

 

The hockey-stick was never disproved. Tree rings data an error was discovered that was corrected. The tree ring data is certainly not the only evidence for global warming that Rex Murphy presents it as.

 

 

The trick they used is not something any reputable scientist would ever do. What they did was calibrate tree ring proxies to data in a given time period, then did not use the proxy in modern periods (post 1960 I think) since it failed to reproduce the raw temperature measurements. Then astoundingly they made the absurd leap that therefore there calibration is valid for all time periods except post 1960. And we ended up with the hockey stick. Clearly their calibration does not work and is useless and any graph based on it is meaningless.

[Wildcat]

The trick they used is not something any reputable scientist would ever do. What they did was calibrate tree ring proxies to data in a given time period, then did not use the proxy in modern periods (post 1960 I think) since it failed to reproduce the raw temperature measurements. Then astoundingly they made the absurd leap that therefore there calibration is valid for all time periods except post 1960. And we ended up with the hockey stick. Clearly their calibration does not work and is useless and any graph based on it is meaningless.

 

That is very different from the official explanation which was simply that the trick was to plot an additional line on the graph to provide a reference point, and the hidden data refered to was data for a period that was not so robust and was subject to questioning, so whilst 'hidden' it was hidden for good reason.

 

Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

 

We have the hockey stick anyway regardless of any issues with tree rings:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252

Edited December 6, 2009 by Wildcat