Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Kingmaker2]

Couldn't agree more with it not being a smoking gun. However I also agree with Patrick J Michaels

 

 

 

source http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

 

PS All the hacked data hasn't yet been released. There is more to come. Enough rope and all that.

 

Quite right, it hasn't, I suspect all quotes have been VERY selective and taken out of context to support the Global Warming conspiracy theory.

 

I suspect If 1000 emails were illegally intercepted of prominent Global warming skeptics, and selectively displayed to the public, then even the most ardent skeptic would appear to be the greatest champions to the cause of global warming.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[convert]

"Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

 

So you agree that Global dimming is caused by particulates, which over the last decade have been reduced by catalytic convertors in cars, by cleaner burning fuels, and by government legislation (clean air act). Yet we're still experiencing a period of global cooling.

 

You'd also agree that the lack of solar radiation reaching the earth causes temperature change.

 

The article you quote also states that the particulates increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, right?

 

Do you know that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas there is (CO2's effect is miniscule when compared to it)?

 

So what effect is it having. Does the larger amount of water vapour 'reflect sunlight' or does it trap heat in? Is it causing cooling or warming?

[Kingmaker2]

So you agree that Global dimming is caused by particulates, which over the last decade have been reduced by catalytic convertors in cars, by cleaner burning fuels, and by government legislation (clean air act). Yet we're still experiencing a period of global cooling.

 

You'd also agree that the lack of solar radiation reaching the earth causes temperature change.

 

The article you quote also states that the particulates increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, right?

 

Do you know that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas there is (CO2's effect is miniscule when compared to it)?

 

So what effect is it having. Does the larger amount of water vapour 'reflect sunlight' or does it trap heat in? Is it causing cooling or warming?

 

I'm no climate scientist...are you?

 

But all I'm saying is that the phenomena of Global Dimming has to be factored in before reaching the conclusion that man made Global warming isn't happening happening on account of cooler temperatures.

[convert]

Quite right, it hasn't, I suspect all quotes have been VERY selective and taken out of context to support the Global Warming conspiracy theory.

 

I suspect If 1000 emails were illegally intercepted of prominent Global warming skeptics, and selectively displayed to the public, then even the most ardent skeptic would appear to be the greatest champions to the cause of global warming.

 

Or maybe the 'hacker' (more likely a leaker within the CRU from what I hear) has taken a leaf out of the MP Expenses debacle; and is releasing the information in stages.

 

Having said that, if you're right and the release have been selective, it would appear that Mr Mann is confirming that the emails are indeed accurate. Just the ones released so far (extracts posted earlier in this thread) are damning enough. They will cause more of the public to question the AGW line being spouted by the government, and it's pet 'scientists'.

[Kingmaker2]

Or maybe the 'hacker' (more likely a leaker within the CRU from what I hear) has taken a leaf out of the MP Expenses debacle; and is releasing the information in stages

 

 

Having said that, if you're right and the release have been selective,

 

Oh come on! Of course it's selective.

 

Any email that might contradict the global warming conspiracy is unlikely to be published, you would be naive indeed if you think they would publish it.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[convert]

I'm no climate scientist...are you?

 

But all I'm saying is that the phenomena of Global Dimming has to be factored in before reaching the conclusion that man made Global warming isn't happening happening on account of cooler temperatures.

 

Agreed , I'm not a climate 'scientist', but if you need to factor in global dimming then you also need to factor in all the other natural elements; the major one being solar erruptivity. When these are all factored in CO2 becomes only a very small part of the equation.

[convert]

Oh come on! Of course it's selective.

 

Any email that might contradict the global warming conspiracy is unlikely to be published, you would be naive indeed if you think they would publish it.

 

Just in the way, it would seem, that the CRU and the IPCC seem to ignore any data which doesn't support their message of AGW.

 

Are you being naive in believing their message?

[Kingmaker2]

Agreed , I'm not a climate 'scientist', but if you need to factor in global dimming then you also need to factor in all the other natural elements; the major one being solar erruptivity. When these are all factored in CO2 becomes only a very small part of the equation.

 

Again I say that just because the temperature hasn't risen in the last few years it doesn't point to the fact that man made climate change is a lie.

 

According to Dr Mojib Latif it may take up to 20 years before rising temperatures occur due to man made global warming.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[Kingmaker2]

Just in the way, it would seem, that the CRU and the IPCC seem to ignore any data which doesn't support their message of AGW.

 

Are you being naive in believing their message?

 

No, but on the other hand I wouldn't believe too much in a stunt orchestrated by Global warming conspiracy theorists, any more than I would the 9/11 truthers that might pull a similar stunt on the eve of a 9/11 related summit.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[convert]

No, but on the other hand I wouldn't believe too much in a stunt orchestrated by, a Global warming conspiracy theorists, any more than I would the 9/11 truthers that might pull a similar stunt on the eve of a 9/11 related summit.

 

Do you have proof it was orchestrated by "AGW conspiracy theorists", in fact strike that, your very tone in naming them as such rather than what they are; AGW skeptics, negates your point.

 

I'm not saying cliamte change isn't happening, none of the true skeptics say that, I'm just saying that some of the 'evidence' and storylines that we've been fed over the past few years should now be reviewed in light of the revelations coming out of this. As should the credibility of some of the leading supporters and scientists behind MMGW, oh sorry we can't call it warming anymore, it's climate change.