Forum menu
May I ask what possible benefit scientists, whose job it is to investigate the truth in how things work could gain by colluding on such a vast scale to try to convince the world's government and its inhabitants that climate change is real?
Who do you think pays their wages?
How do you think they are funded?
What happens to that funding if they said climate change had nothing to do with humans?
but the people who still doubt are those outwith the credible scientific community.
its true that models offer a range of results, but all of them point to damages to the world, and all of them point to humans being the cause.
if there were ANY scientist creating proper papers which contradict anthro CC then the argument against would be slightly more credible.
hainey, there is a large amount of scientific gumpff on the ethics of science. this isn't a conspiracy made up by thousands of scientists/governments...
if a scientist could prove that there is no such thing as anthro CC they would make a HELL of a lot more money, because it saves a hell of a lot of people/counries/governments a hell of a lot more money.
but of course, noone can.
"can YO provide ANY credible, peer-reviewed evidence (paper titles, authors, journal please) which is available on google scholar, science direct or web of knowledge which gives ANY evidence to suggest that it has NOTHING to do with humans?"No.
and there goes your argument.
bye bye
I have never debated that i can provide evidence, i have debated that you can't! There is a difference.
if a scientist could prove that there is no such thing as anthro CC they would make a HELL of a lot more money, because it saves a hell of a lot of people/counries/governments a hell of a lot more money.
but of course, noone can.
You HONESTLY believe that? You honestly believe that our government would be willing to give up on all the billions of pounds they collect each year in so called "green taxes" Wake up!!!
Its almost become a religion climate change, the non believers are labelled as heretics, shouted down from the hills, how dare they question the gospel according to Science Chapter 1. And the scarey thing is, that without proof, it really is like a religion.
what is the IPCC report and all the stuff in it if it is not evidence then?
Reading the list of names on this link and their background would suggest that the claim of there being no reputable scientists that question anthropogenic climate change is utter nonsense.
Yes Hungrymonkey, but you have to admit it looks very bad when some of the 'credible scientific community' have been shown to have conspired to falsify some of the data used and results.
It raises some serious questions as to the validity of the science, no?
JacksonPollock - Member
Yes Hungrymonkey, but you have to admit it looks very bad when some of the 'credible scientific community' have been shown to have conspired to falsify some of the data used and results.It raises some serious questions as to the validity of the science, no?
No, not at all. After all, to raise even the slightest sceptism means you are as bad as a holocaust denier. Therein lies the problem. The "pro" lobby have effectively stifled any debate.
Y'all do realise that all you ever get to see of the IPCC report is the executive summary dont you... Not really much in there about the good stuff.
No, not at all. After all, to raise even the slightest sceptism means you are as bad as a holocaust denier. Therein lies the problem. The "pro" lobby have effectively stifled any debate.
Sad to say, but it does actually feel that way.
soops asked a very good point earlier,
he asked "what happened to the hole in the ozone layer?"
well, we spotted the problem, and we did something about it.
The problem is far from 'gone away' - but the ozone layer thing is a great example of humans listening to scientists, and taking inconvenient global action to save the planet.
same with acid rain, scientists told us about it, and we sorted it out.
we've done it before, we'll do it again. i'm on one of my SAD highs right now and i genuinely believe that we will fix this, and come out stronger (we'll be less wastefull, and more mindfull).
humans can do great things when they try, i'm choosing to have faith in us.
yeah man, those green taxes are evil! my car/road tax is now, like, er, really cheap thanks - cos my car's really efficient innit.
and i don't really care about the high price of diesel, cos, er my car doesn't use much.
and all those grants you can get to help insulate your home, it's just another way to tax us dude!
jason, as previously stated, any climateology from the dept that sent out those emails could be totally disregarded and it would make no difference to the CC argument, as there is so much other evidence.
hainey, i can't see quite how you can argue that there is no evidence supporting the argument than humans are having an efect!! there are literately thousands of papers on it! you are more than welcome to go and look for it, it is impecibly easy to find. and as junkyard said, the IPCC is some pretty strong evidence, regardless of what goan might say about it.
secondly, hainey, do YOU really belive that the whole CC thing could be a conspirocy?!
do you REALLY think that thousands of independant scientists, and quite a few governments that ARE GOING TO LOSE OUT BIG STYLE THANKS TO CLIMATE CHANGE (through env damage, land loss, productivity loss etc etc etc etc etc) could keep a little secret like 'its not true'?!
do you not think that there might be a [i]slight[/i] leak at some point over the past 20-25 years of science!?
crikey...
right the gf is demanding we go out for a drink...
oh, and goan - you used to work in an industry which relied on everyone learning to drive... hardly unbiast yourself.
Goan - lets see a wiki-list of those scientists agreeing with current climate change theory then...
Serious question for those who believe that the current warming trend is unprecedented and as such must be down to anthropogenic causes.
Do you think that the manipulation and adjustment to which the raw temperature data has been subjected can be entirely underwritten with justifiable scientific reasoning for every monitoring station?
yea wot zulu said 🙂
I'm a fan of the urban heat island theory on why the temperature has changed so much recently.
Who pays their wages?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/vacancies/001879.html
Starting at 25k - and top whack less than 37K for someone with a "Strong track record of peer-reviewed papers"
there's British Airways trolley dolleys earning more than that.
If you want to make money stay out of Climate Research
Goan
Urban heat islands...how do they affect temperature records over the sea then?
Goan - Premier MemberY'all do realise that all you ever get to see of the IPCC report is the executive summary dont you... Not really much in there about the good stuff.
Horseshit
Here's the full Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
The Executive summary is a seperate document here
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.[42]
IPCC report - see how I use evidence to make my claims - have you though about trying that ... adds more weight to your argument ...[Mrs Doyle voice ah go on go on go on ou
Perhaps you could just read it and save me the time of posting it up paragaraph by paragraph.
Yes it is a factor but not exactly huge
The other urban heat island theory - the one where temperature measurements at weather stations are increasing because people are building houses etc closer and closer to them - that one.
Goan, Hainey - you're right, it's all a fuss over nothing.
James Watt, Brunel, Henry Ford....they all did lots of research, checked the satellites, and did the computer modelling hundreds of years ago. And they knew we can't possibly have an effect.
The other urban heat island theory - the one where temperature measurements at weather stations are increasing because people are building houses etc closer and closer to them - that one.
Just how many houses are there near the ECN site on Yr Wyddfa than?
Goan what do you think the phrase urban related trend and mention of urban warming in the quote means?
I just googled it and check out what interesting quote WIki has under Urban Heat Island - see what quote you find ...it might look familiar 😯
It also lets you know how with 70% of the earth being Sea -this is also rising and cannot be a factor of urban heating - would also mitigate any measure of urban heating.
Epic Fail there
Junkyard - care to expand on that? You adding your own little bits on to what I've said in order to suit your own agenda?
WTF are you on about what extra bits have I added ?
What on earth are you saying /accusing me off?
All I have done is quote the views of the IPCC on the effects of UHI - which they have called urban related trend or urban warming in the quote.
The IPCC and the hundreds of contributors do know what they are doing and know what they are talking about...all I have done is quote from them.
Did you miss the bit where I was stating to which urban heat island theory I was referring? I'm talking about the one that follows:
Back in the day they built weather stations - they built them away from towns - those weather stations had thermometers in them - they gave temperature readings. You still with me?
As time went by the towns spread and got closer and closer to these weather stations - the heat from the buildings made the weather stations warmer - the readings on the thermometers went up.
Does it surprise you that the temperature went up when they started building houses next to weather stations?
As time went by the towns spread and got closer and closer to these weather stations - the heat from the buildings made the weather stations warmer - the readings on the thermometers went up.
ahh right, so now that we know about Urban Heat Islands we can adjust for this effect or avoid it all together. So shouldn't our measured temperatures be LOWER than those artificially high UHI ones?
And how does UHI explain temperatures measured from sattelites?
Or changes in ocean temperatures?
Or temperatures taken from weather balloons?
Or from unmanned stations?
Urban heat island = Urban heat effect - google urban heat effect it comes back with results on urban heat islands UHI and describes exactly what you have - it being warmer in urban areas. It is not a new pheneomena it was first noted in the 19th C London ? iirc. There is no other I am aware of. It does work as you say but is only a small effect.
IPCC explained it accounts for
0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero
UHI is only a small factor in all of this as the IPCC state. I have been talking about exactly the same thing as you.
Lord your link is to a release from a russian free market think tank - Institute of Economic Analysis - reported elsewhere but not directly quoted anywhere I found with a quick search - can you link to ther article directly?
when the met were asked about cherry picking data they said the following
The World Meteorological Organisation chooses the set of stations designated as essential climate stations that have been released by the Met Office. These are evenly distributed across the globe and provide a fair representation of changes in global average temperature over land. We do not choose these stations and therefore it is impossible for the Met Office to fix the data.The global temperatures record, HadCRUT has been shown to underestimate the rise in global average temperatures over the past 30 years when compared against a fuller analysis of global temperatures. This analysis includes information from a wide range of sources such as satellites, radiosondes, and sea surface temperature data, but does not include surface observations used in HadCRUT, so is fully independent.
The analysis shows that HadCRUT under-estimates the warming in the Russian region, in particular, because of the limited availability of Northern Hemisphere high latitude observations. The Met Office is keen to publish all underpinning station data as it becomes available. We are already in the process of seeking agreement to release the underpinning data from its owners.
or graph here
[img] 
[/img]
from
http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/todays-buzz-is-about-moscow-based-free.html
also here
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php
Not convinced that the smaller set was cherry picked looking at that graph and they look pretty similiar to me esp from 1960 onwards
the urban heat island thing is well known, and has been taken into account.
interesting to note that it's unpopulated places like siberia / alaska / greenland / antarctica that have seen the most warming.
the 'heat island' thing is so old i'm dissapointed with you goan. - go an find something better than that. you've let yourself down.
'show me evidence and i will let it change me' - greg craven.
I'm not reading five pages, can anyone summarise this one?
a lot of people think that their opinion matters.
lol @ goan's UHI...
I'm not reading five pages, can anyone summarise this one?
Just Goan trying to troll up yet another climate change thread (his fifth or sixth this week) this time by randomly sprinkling in things he's just found on google 😀
Obliged.
Goodnight.
direct [url= http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf ]link[/url] to the article.
PMSL @ Lord!
cheers LORD 😆 i deserved that 😕
but they are not climate scientists are they ?
Any comment on the graph?
Any comment on the graph?
its very pretty... lots of colours 🙂
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dqcmw/Earth_The_Climate_Wars_Fight_for_the_Future/ ]Earth The Climate Wars[/url]
Well worth a watch.
3rd episode, ~35 minutes has a great section on the historic record showing a 5 degree jump in 1-3 years (max). Something the models don't suggest (because they're shit).
What you have done is take a measure from one location and think that it was occuring globally.WHY oh why ahve you done this? Global warming is quite likely to do the same locally in the UK. When the large quantity of fresh and cold water enters the sea – from melting of ice caps and glaciers due to global warming. This then has a massive effect on the thermohaline circulations- due to salinity and temperature differences. Locally at the UK the North Atlantic Drift no longer arrives - we would cool drastically even though the global temperature was increasing- I knwo imagine that- and by degrees in years /decades – check what countries we are level with and see their temperatures. Once a new thermohaline circulation is established if it follows the same pattern you get rapid rising as the even warmer water returns to increase the temperature again by a number of degrees in a few years and to higher levels than before.
Even if you doubt my explanation you still need to explain why this happening in the past negates anthropogenic climate change. You also need to explain why the vast quantities of harmful gases that are being released are having no effect. I am happy to hear an explanation and your evidence beyond claiming the current models are sh1t.
Does anyone think it is likely that anyone on here is going to come up with something that climate scientists are not aware of? ...where do you think we know about the rapid change from
? It is not new knowledge to them.
who was cherry picking data?