Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Grandad.Malky]

You have no interest in what is actually supported by the evidence, or in verifying that the evidence is genuine, you've made your mind up and you only consider information which fits your preconceptions.

 

:clap:Well said, that’s the root of the problem.

[Greybeard]

It seems that much of the evidence for AGW is still being withheld from some who wish to examine it. Scientific theory requires that experiments suggesting grounds for the theory should be replicable. In the case of AGW this is made impossible by the dog-in-the-manger attitude of the CRU et al in refusing to release data that has been largely collected via publicly funded research projects.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427393.600-battle-for-climate-data-approaches-tipping-point.html

[Wildcat]

Like the Railway Engineer whome is the head scientist of the IPCC ?

 

Rajendra Pachauri

 

Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[5]

 

Some background.....

 

Err yes. Someone placed in the role because of the lobbying of the fossil fuel companies and the Bush Administration.

 

It shows the influence the sceptical right wing has on the IPCC, fortunately not enough to get in the way of the science though.

[Wildcat]

It certainly conflicts with allocating limited resources to deal with the perceived threat of AGW in the most efficient manner.

 

How does it? The researcher that investigated the impact of black soot in the Himalayas doesn't say that, in fact he says the opposite. What brings you to that conclusion?

 

I don't believe that you have an open mind on this subject at all. You dismiss every counter argument as being that of a snake oilsmen, whilst accepting any supporting argument and ignoring the irregularities in the 'research' that supports your preconceptions.

 

I haven't dismissed the black soot argument. I have dismissed the others because on investigating them they have all been spurious.

 

And of course you aren't applying prejudgements, when you take the research on soot and come to a completely different conclusion about it from the researcher.... that indicates to me that you are the one guilty of fitting evidence to what you want it to say.

 

I haven't cited anything, certainly not posts by any bloggers, I have looked at the released source code and emails and I find them to be disturbing.

 

The concerns about the source code are merely that it looks untidy. It affects one piece of research, not the wealth of information available on the subject. What distrubs me about the emails is the way it exposes the denial industry and the personal attacks on scientists that now have got to the level of stealing their emails. Emails that show them to be under horrendous political pressure from a sceptics, that show their integrity in the face of that pressure (despite the occassional ill chosen words) and that there is no conspiracy.

[Wildcat]

It seems that much of the evidence for AGW is still being withheld from some who wish to examine it. Scientific theory requires that experiments suggesting grounds for the theory should be replicable. In the case of AGW this is made impossible by the dog-in-the-manger attitude of the CRU et al in refusing to release data that has been largely collected via publicly funded research projects.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427393.600-battle-for-climate-data-approaches-tipping-point.html

 

Except that isn't what the article says.

 

As CRU has said alll along they cannot release the data because of confidentiality agreements from many Governments around the world.

 

Much data remains under lock and key. It is tied up in confidentiality agreements with the governments that provided it.

[Wildcat]

It hasn't been getting warmer since 1998.

 

1998 was the hottest year on record, at the peak of the El Nino cycle. Since then as the IPPC report tells us, as of 2007 "11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years"

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html

 

The increase from the 1900 was as a result of natural warming from the little ice age.

 

Ice Ages don't tend to have warming effects. There is no credible model of natural warming that can explain the sudden rise in temperatures.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/natural_causes_climate_change.html

 

The graphs shown in the WIKI are the outdates hocket stick ones.

 

Why are they outdated? They have now been shown to be accurate with studies utilising a range of temperature measuring techniques.

 

Last year saw the earliest recorded snowfall in the south in a decade.

 

The south of England? .... do you understand what global means?

[Grandad.Malky]

Wildcat, you seem to have all the answers shouldn’t you be in Copenhagen banging your drum.

[Wildcat]

Wildcat, you seem to have all the answers shouldn’t you be in Copenhagen banging your drum.

 

What and contribute to global warming?

 

I only took an interest in the subject when I saw this thread and researched it.

 

I haven't stated an opinion on carbon trading and what is going on at the summit because I haven't yet a view on whether I should be supporting it, or protesting that it doesn't go far enough.

[I1L2T3]

I only took an interest in the subject when I saw this thread and researched it.

 

Seriously?

 

How touchingly naive

[Cyclone]

Except that isn't what the article says.

 

As CRU has said alll along they cannot release the data because of confidentiality agreements from many Governments around the world.

 

It really doesn't matter what excuse they give.

 

No replication of experiments and analysis means no proper peer review and no real science.