Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Kingmaker2]

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.

 

Well actually a number of skeptics also claim that climate change isn't happening at all ,due to the non increase in temperature over the last few years.

 

As to the "revelations" coming out,..... are they really revelations:?:

 

Unless the reader is given full access to the full unedited emails and replies, put into context, then they can be nothing more than carefully selective "revelations" put forward by parties who have a political agenda to make them appear damaging.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[convert]

Well actually a number of skeptics also claim that climate change isn't happening at all ,due to the non increase in temperature over the last few years.

 

As to the "revelations" coming out,..... are they really revelations:?:

 

Unless the reader is given full access to the full unedited emails and replies, put into context, then they can be nothing more than carefully selective "revelations" put forward by parties who have a political agenda to make them appear damaging.

 

Actually we do believe that climate change is happening, we just don't agree that man made CO2 has anything to do with it. We also don't agree with being taxed on it.

 

As for the revelations being revelations, well imho they are; they reveal duplicity, attempted censorship, attempts to evade FOIA, cherry picking data to fit the pro AGW stance, etc. Best to let the reader decide on that one old bean.

 

Let's face it; it isn't the selective release of information that's damaging the pro AGW camp is it? It's the actual content of the emails, and the conduct of the scientists involved.

 

Don't clutch that straw(man) too tightly now.

[Berberis]

There's is also no evidence or reference or mention in the e-mails that man made climate change is a conspiracy to raise taxes concocted by world governments.

 

You would be correct there. People are coming to that conclusion and it is a very plausible one. Can you give any other theories to explain, if false, the reasons why man-made global warming could be a complete con?

[Gypsy Hack]

Sorry but that first link goes to an IPCC document, I've read so much of their stuff already, which has been comprehensively de-bunked. Let's remember that statistics are only as good as the data they are based upon, and both NASA, the IPCC and now CRU have now been shown to be somewhat lacking in that area.

In your own little world, maybe. In reality, where the world's major scientific institutions live, the science still remains representative of the field. If you want to show me where it has been debunked please feel free to point me to a similarly exhaustive list of papers demonstrating this to be the case.

 

Also you might want to check what is actually meant by solar minimum, and erruptivity. It isn't just about sunspots. Something you probably well know (if not you really need to get back to that coursework).

I'm not aware of any arguments connecting solar eruptions to the current period of climate change in the lower atmosphere or the surface.

 

What about data from 2000 onwards? What has been happening to the global temperature trend?

First of all, let's be clear. There is numerous data demonstrating that the sun had very little to do with warming in the current period, since 1970.

 

Whilst 2000 onwards has been the hottest decade in recorded history and the long term trend still shows warming, the short-term variability of climate makes it inevitable that the odd period will be more level. The current levelling off of GMST most likely is a result of minimal solar activity and other localised events masking the anthropogenic signal. This is neither unusual nor unexpected, nor was the fact that climate inactivists will jump on any minor period where temperature records are not being broken year on year.

 

Care to comment about the little ice age or the MWP?

Only in so far as there is little evidence for a single global MWP rather than a collection of regional MWPs, that all proxy evidence suggests it wasn't warmer than now, and even if neither of those statements were the case, it wouldn't make a difference to the case that there is an anthropogenic signal on current warming.

 

Your subsequent statements on CO2 - which aside from scientific innacuracies display some pretty serious logical fallacies - have pretty much demonstrated you have no interest in seriously understanding the science, preferring instead to misrepresent and rely on people's impressionistic responses. For anyone serious about wanting to know the evidence for a CO2 signal in warming and to understand how simplistic convert's counter-arguments are on the subject, this is an excellent summary.

 

Now carry on, but I've had to miss the football today because I'm staying home to do work (call it GCSE coursework, if it'll make you happy ). Which means I'd better do that work, and I'm not gonna get further distracted by wasting my time any more with this tempest in a teacup.

[Kingmaker2]

Actually we do believe that climate change is happening,

Let's face it; it isn't the selective release of information that's damaging the pro AGW camp is it? It's the actual content of the emails, and the conduct of the scientists involved.

 

Don't clutch that straw(man) too tightly now.

 

Firstly I doubt that you speak for every skeptic on climate change.

 

Looking at some of the posts here and on other forums and newspaper articles, how often do you see "colder weather" must mean NO Climate change, so there definitely are many skeptics that don't believe that any climate change is happening at all, be it man made or naturally induced.

 

As for the content of the e-mails it's easy to get sucked into the wrong conclusions when you don't have the full unedited content put into context.

Like I said, If the correspondence between leading Global warming skeptics was edited,,and phrases carefully selected, then it would be pretty easy to paint a picture that gives the reader the impression that the skeptic might actually believe in man made global warming.

 

Take the "Loose Change" film made by two 9/11 conspiracy college kids, If you are easily led, then you would conclude from the sound bites, that had been edited together in the film, that everyone that was quoted firmly believed that 9/11 must have been an inside job, but in truth that wasn't the case at all, lots of the quotes were taken out of context and quotes not supporting the conspiracy theory had been edited out.

What is also telling is the information that was completely left out of the film, i.e no interview with the the Fire Chief at the scene who believes all the 9/11 conspiracy theories were unfounded.

 

The publication of these e-mails seems no different to those 9/11 conspiracy theorists using quotes out of context and leaving out quotes that don't fit the agenda.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[Kingmaker2]

Let's face it; it isn't the selective release of information that's damaging the pro AGW camp is it? It's the actual content of the emails, and the conduct of the scientists involved.

 

Well let's here more from the actual Scientist involved:

 

Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his own e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."

In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

 

He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies — in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.

 

Here is the full article from which the Trenberth comments originate from:

 

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf

 

Please read it and then try and tell me that Trenberth is not conviced about man made global warming!

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9C4OSH03

Edited November 22, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[convert]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html

 

Looks like a little more mainsteeam coverage here folks.

 

 

Even more coverage here.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

 

 

Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; © the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

 

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

[MAMALOCHA!]

global warming is one big con/hoax/lie/fib/porky......

[Kingmaker2]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html

 

Looks like a little more mainsteeam coverage here folks.

 

 

Even more coverage here.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

 

The author of the Daily Mail piece is Christopher Booker who has written a book called "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History"!

 

So is it any real suprise that he has jumped on this e-mail leak story?

 

It is just one big plug for his book from start to finish quite literally!

 

Booker starts the title of the article:

 

"The devastating book which debunks climate change"......It's only much later in the article that we discover that this book is actually the book that the author of the article himself penned!

 

And at the foot of the article you find this:

 

• The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History? by Christopher Booker (Continuum £16.99). To order a copy at £15.30 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.

Nuff said about the sales plug of the article writer's own book:!:

 

Now as for the Times, well Nigel Lawson has always been a strong Global Warming skeptic, so again no real suprise to see him having a dig at the Copenhagen conference.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Kingmaker2

[LibertyBell]

The publication of these e-mails seems no different to those 9/11 conspiracy theorists using quotes out of context and leaving out quotes that don't fit the agenda.

 

Precisely. Out of hundreds of emails dating back 10 years or more, they take a tiny number totally of context and bizarrely claim that this negates thousands of peer reviewed papers which more or less prove man made climate change is very real.