[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

Mark,

I still disagree, i can do a wikipedia search for climate change skeptics who list there issues with IPCC data. And this is just the ones who are willing to stand up and be counted and not have their research stripped away from them.

Z11

a) Yes, we have (challenged your assertions).

b) Even without historical data it is possible to look at how CO2 plays a part in the climate. If there was no historical data we would still have to try and account for current climate change.

ha ha ha, well done hainey Phill Stote or something cant remeber the name, he knows about as much about climate change as I do, which is pretty much **** all. He was a botanist, did some good stuff on chalk grassland. He has never published anything in a peer reviewd journal about climate change. And it wasnt published by Biogeography department at the University of London it was most likely in the Times. Hes an emeritus professor, do you know what that means?

Z11

Sorry, you edited while I was answering. Maybe best to wait 15 minutes between posts? 🙂

Anyway,

And you think it would not be in oil companies interests to promote oil as a valuable resource thats running out? Seen the oil prices over the last couple of years? valuable resource, low supply, more economic engines, price per barrel goes up.

I don't see Saudi Arabia (largest oil producing nation) promoting oil as a valuable scarce resource. Quite the opposite. In fact I don't see any oil companies promoting it that way - all of their current greenwashing is due to climate change arguments NOT peak-oil arguments.

as an aside do you know what biogeography is and how related it is to climate change?

LOL - way to fit the fanatic sterotype of jumping up and rubbishing any one elses opinion who disagrees with you.

and not have their research stripped away from them

On the whole, hainey you are amusing and it's fun to poke you with a metaphorical stick.. but when you post stuff like this without any kind of evidence to back it up I find myself shaking my head and saying, 'oh dear'.

Oh and for the record I'm laughing AT you and not WITH you.

🙂

I couldnt care less if peoples opinion differes from mine what I object to is people who spout there views as valid when they havent done any of the research. At least find a climate scientist who disgrees with man made climate change not a ****in biogeographer who retired years ago. Biogeography is about how species distribute themselves and has nothing whatsoever to do with climate. He has produced no data to back his view point. He is not climate scientist he's a crank. He should have stuck to what he knew which is flowers.

a) Yes, we have (challenged your assertions).

No, you've not actually challenged anything - all you've said is that the science is settled, I put forward two specificexamples of at the best spurious, and at the worse horrifically manipulated, cherrypicked data - 'Darwin zero' and 'Yamal' - can you suggest or demonstrate to me that either of those sets of data are in fact reliable? Its no good saying that one example does not affect the entirety of the data, unless we also analyse the entire dataset to the same extent! and then we still have the turpentine problem, it only takes a small imperfection to taint the whole pooled dataset (thats how averages work)

b) Even without historical data it is possible to look at how CO2 plays a part in the climate. If there was no historical data we would still have to try and account for current climate change.

I couldnt care less if peoples opinion differes from mine

And there you have it, the arrogance and blinkered view which is associated with the fanatical point of view.

Mark, resulting to laughter is a tell tale sign of losing a debate!

Opinion and evidence are different things Stott is a biogeographer who I am pretty sure I referenced in my PhD about hay meadows who has an opinion on climate change. He's not anyone who has any evidence nor are you and nor am I. The majority view by those who study these things does not tally with your opinion. If you could use the science you know to develop some sort of rational view of why we should listen to you I might continue this. Have you come up with a view of what "natural" is and why we shouldnt worry about something thats "natural" and has happend before yet?

Watching this

his first comment is odd as eugenics is based on sound evidenced science which still holds to this day, its just morally repugnant. Odd way to start I'm off to hear the rest.

Mark,

I am sure you are familiar with Climategate and the UEA scandal - some reading for you:

[url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ ]Climategate2[/url]

Natural essentially refers to the historical data way before man even existed, i.e the 100,000 year cycle i showed earlier.

I have never said that we shouldn't be worried about it, far from it. It has changed the face of this planet many times before. (We don't have to worry but maybe our great great great great great grandparents!)

Z-11

In a rush now. Will come back to your other points later. But, you say:

Again, what current climate change? the assumption that there is even actually a change relies on the same tainted data!

No. Loss of sea ice, retreat of glaciers etc is climate change. It is not weather. If we only had observations going back 5 years then we would still think "hmm all this sea ice melting, I wonder why that is?"

And don't say that it has happened before over millennia. In this hypothetical we have no data - right?

If we started 5 years back and had to come to a conclusion given only what we know over that period, what might our best guess be?

Natural essentially refers to the historical data way before man even existed, i.e the 100,000 year cycle i showed earlier.

Since man exists and has massive impacts on flora and fauna and the make up of the air, is it in any way relevant?

your "data" went back what 450 000 years didnt it? Man has been around for most of this time hasnt he?

I dont think you've yet told me what "natural" means

Ugh, its like pulling teeth, ok, in simple words for you

A natural cycle is a recurring pattern that involves cyclic variations in the Earth's temperature and CO2 content as indicated by samples taken from glacier ice, sea bed sediment, tree ring studies etc etc.

Clear enough?

I am not sure whether neanderthal man was driving round in Range Rover sports. But then I guess i can't PROVE that they weren't!

no, what does "natural" mean?

I give up. (Bangs head against wall)

Look it up in the dictionary.

Rightplace - the problem is that thats a local observation, not a "global phenomena" - Glaciers in some parts parts of the world are growing, sea ice is increasing in some areas and declining in others - temperatures in some parts of the world are down, in others they are up - Its no point pointing to a glacier thats melting and saying "proof" as I could point to another that was growing and say "proof you're wrong"! - what people are trying to analyse is a global average, and this is where it gets VERY complex, so the reliability of the data becomes absolutely paramount.

Its no point pointing to a glacier thats melting and saying "proof" as I could point to another that was growing and say "proof you're wrong"!

The actual official figure for the GLOBAL temperature anomaly is less than a degree - most of the thermometers that were used for the past couple of hundred years were only accurate to within a degree, where are the annual calibration records, where are the sites used to record, when were the housings for the thermometers painted or moved, what's happened around the location, what's the effect of building a new car park next door to the temperature station - etc. and thats BEFORE the data's been "value added" - These are all questions that would be asked under a normal scientific Quality Assurance protocol, the type of scrutiny applied under laboratory conditions.

You need to realise that what we are being sold as accurate data has an as yet unascertainable error margin!

You need to realise that what we are being sold as accurate data has an as yet unascertainable error margin!

Everybody does apart from the idiots who write newspapers and make TV programmes. Which is a problem.

hainey, these natural cycles, are they inevitable? I'm never really sure what natural means but am always cautious of anyone who uses the word about pretty much anyting as it seems to me almost anti-darwinian, there's nature and then there is man. But anyway moving along, these climate cycles occur when man has no influence. It doesnt mean that they will keep occurring when things change or that man cannot influence them in anyway.

Hainey Re your natural cycle could you just explain why this pattern of natural phenomena has not been changed by the burning of fossil fuels ?
Running cars and industrialisation are not natural aspects of nature this has broken your natural cycle. [b]The burning of fossil fuels is not natural as it NEVER occurred in the past[/b] and we are at a 650,000 year hoigh so this "proves" this.
I don’t really see how you can actually argue about this - this ignores your previous dislike of models, and predicting the future from them Your model does not take account of this does it.

Everybody does apart from the idiots who write newspapers and make TV programmes. Which is a problem

A_A - would you accept the premise that the, as yet unascertainable, error [u][b]may[/b][/u] either

a) be so wide as to negate the entire concept of a "global temperature anomaly" of less than a degree

b) we wide enough to call into question the conclusions that the warming over recent decades is unprecedented (and by association therefore the cause and effect connection with global CO2 levels, possibly putting us back in the box of natural fluctuation)

zulu-11, of course but given the evidence there are many, more likely outcomes

It doesnt mean that they will keep occurring when things change or that man cannot influence them in anyway

I agree with you there, no one can categorically say that they will keep occuring, whether man will influence them or not. Neither can they say the contrary.

Junkyard, the cycles we have seen so far are NOT MODELS! They are FACT.

Junkyard, the cycles we have seen so far are NOT MODELS! They are FACT.

No they are based on data about other things and have been interpreted into temperature data. They are nowhere near fact.

So, if they are not fact, how accurate are your computer models for global warming?

So, if they are not fact, how accurate are your computer models for global warming?

I havent made any.

😯

Z11

Rightplace - the problem is that thats a local observation, not a "global phenomena" - Glaciers in some parts parts of the world are growing, sea ice is increasing in some areas and declining in others - temperatures in some parts of the world are down, in others they are up

I specifically didn't say "global warming" I said climate change.

If glaciers are growing (I think only in E Antarctica, but hey ho) then that would still be "climate change" and it would still need explaining.

So my question stands. If there were no historical data outside the last 5 years, what would the best guess be?

Z-11

where are the annual calibration records, where are the sites used to record, when were the housings for the thermometers painted or moved, what's happened around the location, what's the effect of building a new car park next door to the temperature station - etc.

These things all sound pretty random to me so probably a normal distribution. Lots of small errors seem unlikely to add up to one big error in one direction. But you're only talking about recorded temp there anyway which can be cross checked against recent ice cores etc.

hainey, i'm not sure about man-made GW, there's a lot of 'evidence' on both sides of the argument. however i support the belief that we are steadily ****g up the planet with our consumption, we're all guilty of that to some extent - some of us are trying to limit our impact, some aren't.

So as a sceptic of MMGW, how does this affect your consumption of resources? Just interested. Do you carry on as normal, consume freely without guilt or, or do you do your bit to limit your impact on the world while believing that MM GW is a false alarm?

however i support the belief that we are steadily ****g up the planet with our consumption, we're all guilty of that to some extent - some of us are trying to limit our impact, some aren't.

I completly agree and if you read most of posts have said so on a number of occasions. Just because someone is sceptic doesn't naturally mean that they don't give a f*ck about the planet.

Lots of small errors seem unlikely to add up to one big error in one direction

See, we're back to exactly what I said "one single rogue goat could not effect the overall validity of the cheese taste tests"

How do averages work again?

What if the error introduces a bias in the record - such as a change in the type of paint used on all stephenson screens in a whole country? - you cannot dismiss the effect of small errors, especially where the global temperature anomaly is in the bracket of 0.1 degrees per decade!

How can you check a record against ice cores, when they themselves are validated against the same records, again house of cards!

hainey can you answer this? If these changes in climate that have happend before (I hesitate to use the word cycle as they have only been shown to happen what half a dozen times which is poor evidence of a cycle) how are they relevant to the world now given unprecedented releases of CO2 and a massively changed biosphere?

Are they unprecedented though in comparison? If you look at the CO2 level increases in the past they are in a similar order. So i would say highly relevant.

there was a lot of posts to be fair ) i'm coming across more and more people who are sceptics yet they still care about their impact, that's all good. i didn't mean to infer that you didn't, i just wondered.

the problem with all the arguments on either side is that it's getting easier for those that don't care to support thier attitude with 'facts', it risks discrediting an argument that, right or wrong, may persuade people to take on better practices. propoganda in this area can't be bad, companies making money out of the peoples guilt aside..

so they are not at a 650,000 year high then- even the link you posted to support your position acepted that?

James 0

there's a lot of 'evidence' on both sides of the argument

See, we're back to exactly what I said "one single rogue goat could not effect the overall validity of the cheese taste tests"

How do averages work again?

Bad analogy

If you want to follow your analogy then we wouldn't be talking about one goat drinking a bottle of turpentine. We'd be talking about lots of goats drinking lots of microscopic amounts of turpentine + a lot of other goats drinking microscopic amounts of anti-turpentine.

To do it the other way around - for one (or even a few) temperature records to throw out the average that much there would have to be places on the earth recorded as being as hot as the sun - and that might lead people to ask a few questions and take those readings out of the data. Now, do you think the data would be better with or without those readings?

silly old goat....... 😆

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

You put up a graph from this paper in support of your natural cycles thing. This quote is a direct lift from that papers summary. I no longer have easy access to whole papers on the web but this was from the summary. I posted this a number of pages back.

What if the error introduces a bias in the record - such as a change in the type of paint used on all stephenson screens in a whole country? - you cannot dismiss the effect of small errors, especially where the global temperature anomaly is in the bracket of 0.1 degrees per decade!

But these things are investigated and corrected (as far as possible) over time.

And, as the issue moves up the agenda, we capture more high quality data, which allows us to interpret the less good older data better.

How can you check a record against ice cores, when they themselves are validated against the same records, again house of cards!

Yes that was a bit loose, sorry.

But as per previous post - we are now looking at ice and scrupulously recorded temp data simultaneously. If this starts to make the previous proxy data and temp record look less well matched then there is a problem, but I've not heard that it does.

"Junkyard, the cycles we have seen so far are NOT MODELS! They are FACT" jesus h on a bike Hainey!
The Milankovitch cycles you quote are a theory based on an extrapolation from data ie a model. The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model . These models just look backwards not forwards. As far as i know no one was around measuring the earths orbital and rotational excentricities 500000 years ago and they were not reccording the tempreture at the time. The dificulty with your position is that you seek to rubbish the use of models by climatologists by pointing to the historic records which are in fact the product of the use of models.

Those who belive that global warming is man made and a problem, are basing their theorys on measuring the actual temperature the actual atmospheric co2 and observable trends . Your "historic fact" is based on how thick a layer of sediment is or how thick a layer of ice is and wether certain levels of chemicals retained in those layers indicates anything usefull about the world at the time the layer was formed.

Intrestingly the geological debate about the Milankovitch cycles apears far from settled.
The climatologists who argue for the existance of man made climate change appear to take account of the existance Milankovitch cycles but suggest that current changes are far too rapid to be due to them.

Does all this sum up as neither side has reliable proof,but both have opinions they will defend by stating that the only reliable evidence is theirs? Sounds like Islam v Christianity to me,personaly I feel we need a few more thousand years of reliable data,but cutting CO2 emissions is unlikely to cause harm.
Ian

Recent climate changes are indeed nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles - there are three of them, and the shortest operates on a 23 thousand year cycle.

IIRC variations in solar energy reaching the Earth due to changes in its orbit only account for c. 50% or less of temperature changes across glacial-interglacial cycles anyway, the rest is due to things internal to the Earth system.

Sounds like Islam v Christianity

Yes, just like that. 🙁

Sounds like Islam v Christianity to me

I would suggest some on here are from the church of Scientology!

But these things are investigated and corrected (as far as possible) over time.
And, as the issue moves up the agenda, we capture more high quality data, which allows us to interpret the less good older data better.

No, they're not - the whole basis of the "climategate" CRU Emails scandal is exactly that, the suppression of studies that question the data, and the refusal to release the raw data and code used for the results!

Anyone who questions the results is called a skeptic and told that the science is settled, it has taken huge efforts to get the data which clearly undermined the Yamal bristlecone pine research, that we were previously told was secure.

I really wonder if you have any idea of whats actually been going on with the data?

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

banter

Banter? Yeah, right! 🙄 -

I really don't think you believe that yourself do you rprt? If it was just banter, why did they repeatedly refuse the FOI requests for the raw data and code?

Edited to add: I suppose the "HARRY READ ME" files were just banter as well? Have you read them - its pretty reflective of the quality of the data!

Really.
Ian

I seem to recall that the reason the data wasn't released was that they didn't own the data and as such wasn't theirs to release.

As for the other two papers, if they were rubbish then why not "go to town on them".

Crankboy, i resist engaging you in conversation in fear of "feeding the troll" however.....

The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model.

Seems to be quite repeatable data though? Unless its being manipulated by scientists?

These models just look backwards not forwards.

Heaven forbid we learn from the past!

Those who belive that global warming is man made and a problem, are basing their theorys on measuring the actual temperature the actual atmospheric co2 and observable trends

What are they comparing it against?

Your "historic fact" is based on how thick a layer of sediment is or how thick a layer of ice is and wether certain levels of chemicals retained in those layers indicates anything usefull about the world at the time the layer was formed.

but this data is gathered by the same scientists who are creating you models for you, are you saying that the data is not valid in anyway?

The dificulty with your position is that you seek to rubbish the use of models by climatologists by pointing to the historic records which are in fact the product of the use of models.

WTF? You've just contradicted yourself about 4 times over! 😯

Why is the raw data not published?

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Thats how it works believe me, I've been at the sharp end as both reviewer and reviewed.

Because the climate change sceptics were deliberately swamping them with FOI requests as a tactic to disrupt their work. But unless you look at the whole email scandal in context rather than just cherry picking quotes, as the 'meeja' have been doing then you won't see that.

hainey have you addressed any of the scientific points put to you, and you accuse someone who is trying to be constructive of being a troll you are beyond help.

You make no sense

The ice core data you quote and show the graph for is again an extrapolation from data ie a model.

Seems to be quite repeatable data though? Unless its being manipulated by scientists?

just what exactly does this mean of course people are manipulating the data, thats because the ice cores do not contain thermometers hidden away for thousands of years.

I give up.

Don't give up, its quite simple.

The graph i put up showed a cycle, with what 4,5 6 occurences. So assuming all the data is manipulated in the same way, it still shows a trend. No?

I havnt the time at the moment to sift through 12 pages of argument/debate to see if these links have already been posted...but please read these

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/12/foxnews-neil-cavuto-winter-chill-disproves-global-warming-science/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/foxnews-wattsupwiththat-climatedepot-daily-mail-article-on-global-cooling-mojib-latif/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/06/cold-snap-climate-sceptics

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html

Weather is completely different to climate and 'global warming' is a misnomer - atmospheric warming causes a change in climatic patterns which can change weather patterns.

Most predictions show that more 'extremes' of weather is expected if atmospheric warming continues - the UK could well see harsher winters and hotter summers (we are coming out of La Nina as well so its been a colder period).

The UK isnt the world, a cold snap here does not mean one iota on the grand scale of things. The Daily Mail and The Daily Express are headline grabbing using bad science and opinions to grab peoples attention.

[i]Are man made emissions causing atmospheric warming?[/i]

The science and logic appears to say yes, evidence appears to back this up.

[i]Will atmospheric warming lead to climatic change?[/i]

Science says yes, logic says yes, solid evidence is difficult as there is no precedent for this.

[i]How bad will climate change be?[/i]

The truth is that no model will be 100% accurate, but they all seem to point to change of somekind - change in itself is bad for humanity, but rising sea levels and more extreme weather events (droughts, flooding etc...) are some of the things that are touted. This may well lead to greater levels of immigration, greater spread of disease, loss of species...

But the thing is you can take climate change out of the argument completely, and the case for needing to change our current way of life still stands firm. We are completely dependant on fossil oil, gas and coal. These are not going to last forever (and by most accounts, oil and gas wont last for much longer at all).

Cleaner fuels, less pollutants and particulates, cheaper than fossil fuesls after the first generation are up and running...

So why not change whilst we still have the available energy resource to actually do this? There is little point us going 'lets go to renewables' when there is no oil and gas left to make the electricity to run the factories to build the next generation of power sources (whether that be wind, solar or fusion).

Why not make the world better for the hell of it? Sod the economy...as soon as the oil and gas runs out we are screwed financially anyway - we should become as self-sufficient as we can whilst we still can.

This says it better though (may have already been done):

[img] [/img]

"Mark - Resident Grumpy
Because the climate change sceptics were deliberately swamping them with FOI requests as a tactic to disrupt their work. But unless you look at the whole email scandal in context rather than just cherry picking quotes, as the 'meeja' have been doing then you won't see that."

Hi Grumpy

So why not release all the raw data as it proves what the climate change case and that would go part way to ending some of the anti's. Would it not? Am not trying to be difficult but that seems very simple to me.

Mark

i) if that was true, there are elements within FOI regulations that allow refusal of request as vexatious, this was not the reason given for refusal at the time - only the story given AFTER the emails were released!

ii) Steve Mcintire has detailed all UK FOI requests he has made ( http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/29/the-foi-myth-2/ ) - There should never have been a need for an FOI request for the actual data, as its supposed to be published in accordance with the IPCC protocols!

iii) of course, one reason to refuse to release the data, was to hide the fact that they had deleted a huge chunk of the raw data - as any scientist knows, thats pretty much the no-no of all no-no's!

Z11

You just added a bit after I posted.

The first bit was banter.

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone.

Was anything deleted, or was he just talking tough?

hainey - Member
Don't give up, its quite simple.

The graph i put up showed a cycle, with what 4,5 6 occurences. So assuming all the data is manipulated in the same way, it still shows a trend. No?

it does show what happened in the past not what is happening now as

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane correlate well with Antarctic air-temperature throughout the record. Present-day atmospheric burdens of these two important greenhouse gases seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.

Therefore they are sayin gthe model can no longe rhold it is broken as there is more C02 NOW than when the models were "true or proof ".

Assuming you agree with cause and effect why has the unprecedented levels not affected the cycle? Is it impervious to external factors? Does forcing no longer occur?

sorry rprt - see the point I've just made above:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Draw your own conclusions!

If the CRU leak had actually contained anything that did show unanswerable flaws in the CC methodology, then the anti-CC lobby would have jumped on it and published it for the world to see.

Havt seen anything conclusive yet from it though...

The papers got the facts out of the expenses receipts quickly enough!

Tim, did you notice the emails that leaked through despite saying "delete this after reading"?

and the ones telling people to delete anything they had on certain subjects?

How are we to know what was in the emails that have been deleted?

so we should assume it was conclusive proof they were liarsand they made it all up?
I agree they should release all the data but it would not alter the opion of most people I suspect.

Other datasets, recordings and readings exist or is everything faked and only internet scientist have seen the truth?

Zulu

I wasnt aware of the deletion of data - that is indeed, very poor. Raw data is the most important part of any scientific process.

You cant read anything from it (it may well have just been bad judgement on their behalf), but i do agree that it doesnt help their cause at all.

Draw your own conclusions!

I'm not saying they weren't stupid to lose data, but clearly this is different data to that discussed in the e-mail.

Data mentioned in e-mail is "a file" that he talks about deleting. Data lost is physical paper and tapes that were thrown away.

My conclusion is banter + stupidity.

when I was a scientist we had to not only keep all raw data for a specified lenght of time ut we had to keep the samples too. Funders demanded it.

Again with the "other datasets exist" - no, surface record temperature data from all nations is pooled!

Edit - RPRT - just review your own comment in light of the fact that the Raw data has been deleted:

But these things are investigated and corrected (as far as possible) over time. And, as the issue moves up the agenda, we capture more high quality data, which allows us to interpret the less good older data better.

Doesn't the Global Historical Climatology Network have a copy of the original lost data anyway?

Zulu-Eleven - Member
Again with the "other datasets exist" - no, surface record temperature data from all nations is pooled!

so we have no datasets from the ocean or the atmosphere then
What do they show?

The sad thing, is that a fair few people (not on here, just generally) seem to be denying CC as it effects their own interests - car enthusiasts, fossil fuel industry etc...

Just because you dont want it to be true, doesnt mean it isnt. I'm into classic cars myself, and I will no doubt end up buying something older (e.g. NOT a prius) when the current car is worn out, but I dont want to be doing starship miles in it at the same time..people need to be a bit more grown up about it and not just kick the toys out of the pram because they dont get what they want.

If you don't feel that it stacks up, then thats fine, thats your opinion and your right to it, but please support this with data if you want to deny it to others...I'll happily read any data people give me that shows the CC isnt happening - the problem is that there seems to be little peer reviewed and solid evidence that has been touted.

If it is all a hoax, where is the rival to the IPCC with the support of Climate Scientists - its not as if the Oil Industry can't afford the research - this report details that ~97% of Publishing Climate Scientists (admittedly its not a huge no. of people) agree with the main theory that CC is occuring and that it is manmade. 82% of all Publishing Scientists (all fields) agree with this.

Junkyard - how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?

Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got - the surface record.

how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?

Yep, you guessed it!

House of cards!

Edit - Tim, how can someone demonstrate the science is wrong when the "gatekeepers" to the data wont let them have it, and even if they do get it, the scientific journals wont publish their papers?

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Junkyard - how do we validate, calibrate and interpret the patchy atmospheric/ocean data?

Yep, we compare it with the most complete records we've got - the surface record.

how do we calibrate and interpret the satellites?

Yep, you guessed it!

House of cards!

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at - we have reached the limits of what we can calibrate against (we dont have a spare world to use as a control!)

Does that mean we should just jack it all in, use up the oil and gas, leave a time capsule to our grandkids saying "sorry!" and piss off to the pub?

Tim -

Just because you dont want it to be true, doesnt mean it isnt

on the other hand you could be sceptical about the politics surrounding global warming and yet still think that consuming fossil fuels at the current rate is unsustainable - because, of course, it clearly cannot be sustained for very much longer.

So, compare a sceptic who changed their electricity supplier to a green energy co., tries not to drive too much (but won't have a wasteful hybrid or a polluting diesel) with, say, someone who thinks the government should do something about it, drives a vehicle with a large diesel engine on pointless small journeys, takes 3 or 4 holidays a year, one long haul the other short haul but they "offset" (their guilt, not their consumption) this by paying into a fund that pays people in the third world to stay poor (which on a larger scale is what western governments find so attractive about the global warming concept).

Which of these two people would be worse?

Tim, personally, I think that we should start at the top and review and QA the raw data properly, as it would be in a lab, and only when we've done that, reanalyse from the bottom up, in a more critical manner, justifying any data adjustment with recorded, agreed reasons and protocols - and then seeing what the outcome is.

Huge project, but if its as important as people claim, then entirely reasonable!

This entire process should be data led!

Of course the 2nd person...i'm not blindly following the course of offsetting (cant see how it does any good really - at best its just sticking another plug in the dam), i do like to think that i have a brain in my head 🙂

the thing that gets me is when people try and convince other people its not happening, using bad, bad science and speculation (The Daily Express is a prime example)