It's global cooling, not warming!

So you can't provide overwhelming evidence then?

I would be careful of the use of the word overwhelming.

Well seeing as he's presenting other peoples science not his own, a degree in journalism would seem most appropriate.

You show something on there to be wrong if you will. Are you saying they made that quote up from the 'governments top scientist'?

On the other hand information from the CRU has been shown to be deliberately wrong in order to misslead.

You believe what you like. We've had 'doom' scientists telling us we're all going to die of bird flu, mad cow disease etc, and it's been nonsense. I see no reason to believe – you're obviously sold.

Yawn. I am bored of this now. You can continue with your paranoid fantasies

Hainey – you at least make some logical sense unlike your fellow travellers.

Steve – must try harder. Quoting a paranoid fantasist as if he is a creditable source – really.

I thought I quoted 'the governements top scientist'.

SteveTheBarbarian – Member

On the other hand:

http://www.climategate.com/

🙄

Today we can update you with the news that the credibility of the IPCC and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken another major blow as Britain’s highest ranked government scientist, Professor John Beddington CMG FRS admits the science for global warming is “uncertain.”

Prove anything from there isn't true(like the above) – cos just rolling your eyes doesn't.

On the other hand – stuff from the CRU wasn't true, and that's now fact.

steve – who's asking / telling you to believe anything? – doubt and skepticism are jolly good starting points. if we all went around believing in things willy nilly we'd still be living in caves frightened of the next sunset.

skeptics are good people, they ask good questions like: 'are you sure?' and 'who told you that?'.

But i'm not sure that you're a skeptic; you seem to be looking for evidence that supports your opinion, and that's bad science.

can you try looking for evidence, and then forming your opinion?

(example of skepticism: can you show me some of this falsified data you talk about?)

"We know that the fundamental physics of the science of climate change is correct. Carbon dioxide, when it is in the atmosphere, increases global warning.

"We know we have increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the pre-industrial period by something of the order of 38%."

john beddington, from the same statement that you are quoting steve, albeit from a different source.

essentially you (or your sources) are picking a few words from a whole statement to make it sound like you are correct.

a less biased source here

On the other hand – stuff from the CRU wasn't true, and that's now fact.

Wrong. It was weighted and they didn't release all info when buried under a deluge of FOI requests from people bent on distorting their data. They also appeard more cetain than they should have done fro the data.This has of course tainted the data and lost them a lot of credibility but no credible person will say they falsified data – cos they did not

Do try to get some facts right

i've just been looking at that climategate site, they've clearly got an agenda…

there are lot's of rants, but not much evidence (none i could find).

Show me evidence.

I agree were wasting millions on research. The money would be better spent on solutions. The millions on research aren't really adding anything to what we knew 20 years back. All that's been needed is a contiuation of the monitoring that was being done back then.

It was weighted and they didn't release all info when buried under a deluge of FOI requests from people bent on distorting their data.

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

keep perpetuating the myths TJ.

would you mind providing a list of the FOI requests, and from whom. Since you make the claim, i'm sure you can back it up – having read it in an editorial of New Scientist or Nature doesnt count.

having read it in an editorial of New Scientist or Nature doesnt count.

Of course not – they are all part of the conspiracy as well. 🙄

well its not exactly 'peer reviewed' is it.

not that using usually stops the IPCC using the information.
such as anecdotes in a climbing magazine, or a students dissatation

FFS –

The following types of contribution to Nature journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

So TJ – just like he said – Nature editorials are not peer reviewed!

Since there are specific exemptions within the FOI act for dealing with vexatious requests, if what you said was true, the CRU would not have been found to have breached FOI law would they? 🙄

Mann et al 2008 used gridded MXD data attributed to Rutherford Mann et al (J Clim 2005). Rutherford et al had stated that the gridded MXD was online at Rutherford’s website, but this was untrue.

In Sep 2008, Steve McIntyre sent an FOI request (his third such request to CRU), asking for the gridded MXD data as sent to Mann and associates. I did not ask them for anything new or anything that had not already been sent to others. Had Rutherford et al lived up to their representations to Journal of Climate, the request would not have been necessary.

Whereas previous attempts to obtain this data directly or through the journal (edited by Andrew Weaver) had been unsuccessful, this request through FOI was resolved promptly and expeditiously by CRU placing the requested information on a webpage.

can I ask all those who deny global warming the following question
What would it take to coinvince you it was occuring?
It seems pointless to debate this without knowing thisY
Thanks
Hainey I know you need a time machine from your previous answer

So what? (refering to Rutherford and co)

And while they're bickering about the detail nothing gets done. How many years did it take to get warnings on cigarette packets?

CFCs were stopped pretty quickly as it came down to the activities of one major company and alternatives were only a little more expensive. I fear doing something will be on the cigarette timescale this time, by which time falling oil production and rising prices will limit emissions rather than legislation.

Sorry Junkyard – I thought the important question is what the cause was?

Today I have learned that in the strange topsy turvy world of the climate change denier that a website who's architect has no scientific qualifications and who believes

.Aim is ……………… the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal.

is actually a more reliable source than "nature" scientific american and New Scientist.

At that point I shall depart and leave you to your paranoid fantasies as any relationship to reality in the ramblings espoused by the deniers ( not the sceptics) is truely fantastic.

TJ – surely dismissing the "skeptic" denier arguments on the basis that "one bloke who runs a website isn't qualified and may be a bit of a moonbat" is pretty much equivalent to dismissing the entirety of the IPCC global report on the basis that "they cut and pasted a section of the report from climber magazine"

(let alone the other bits cut and pasted from non peer reviewed sources such as the famously impartial WWF)

z-11 I have to ask what the cause of anthroprogenic climate change is??????? Would the answer not be in the question?
What would it take to convince you it [anthropogenic climate change} is occuring?

I was mocking the people on this thread who quoted that website as evidence. A couple of folk quoted it.

Scepticism is healthy and right. Denial of observed facts is the product of a warped reality.

A sensible person approaches things such as this with a healthy open minded scepticism and looks at and weighs the evidence then makes up their mind on the basis of the evidence with such things as rigour and validity in mind.

The deniers decide its bunkum and find the evidence to suit. Its a huge difference.

And that is really goodnight playmates

What would it take to convince you it [anthropogenic climate change} is occuring?

Reliable data, (ie without unexplained and unquantified manipulation), that showed a consistent worldwide trend!

In fact, I'll quote myself from here over a month ago:

So we're all straight:

My position on the trends and data:
There has been a warming trend over the last generation, particularly in the northern hemisphere – the extent of the warming frequently quoted in reports is in all likelihood not accurate, due to various bias and poor recording and reporting methodology – this makes it difficult for anyone to know for certain exactly how much warming has taken place, the level of error may exceed the level of detectable change and statistical significance, the causation of whatever rise there has been is not known for sure, however is probably due in part to natural variation, and in part due to anthropogenic effects, very possibly nothing to do with CO2 (wild hypothesis, the rise since the 1970's is down to reduced particulate pollution, putting us back in line with a natural oscillation that was disguised by the pollution of the industrial revolution, as seen with the post war cooling period) – the proportion between the two is uncertain, and on the balance of probabilities mainly (ie. more than 50%) due to natural variance over which we have no control. Assertions such as 'if CO2 levels go high enough then we're headed for a new permian paleoclimate' are silly – theres no suggestion whatsoever that CO2 was a driver of that change, rather that CO2 levels were a result of the increased temperature.

My position on the correct action:
reigning in pollution and consumption is clearly a good thing, however for a whole variety of reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 and climate change. I think its 100% impossible that we can prevent climate change itself, we may instead reduce its to some extent – however we can do a huge amount to mitigate the effects of something outside our power, and rather than standing like Canute holding back an advancing tide, we need to look at what we do to cope with it, this may involve mass migration and/or huge programmes of civil engineering and agricultural infrastructure, which would be a better place to concentrate our technological efforts and limited resource than carbon sequestration and biofuels.

I also think there are far more pressing and immediate problems than possible future climate change for huge swathes of the worlds population – famine, disease, poverty, oppression and conflict, Perhaps we should look at sorting out some of these problems before worrying about climate change, its a very bourgeois and comfortable position to be in that the biggest threat we can envisage is the chance that it will get warmer, when there are millions (billions?) of people worrying whether they will have enough to feed their children tomorrow.

My position on the Science:
Consensus science is ridiculous, quoting a scientific consensus as evidence that something is true is less than worthless, my mind harks back to everything from flat earth to phrenology. The entire CRU data debacle reflects very poorly on the recent trend pushed by the politicians, funders and many scientists that it is more important to be "on message" than to be scientifically accurate – see professor Nutt for a prime example. This comes out of a belief in "the greater good" – that we have to prevent the sceptics getting the data, because if we don't take action to save the world then we're all doomed" – this is anti science, science is supposed to be pure and above this, they should let the data stand on its own validity, and accept its flaws where relevant. The CRU emails reveal a culture that is very damaging to the impartiality of science.

I used to think that Denier was a kind of lady's stocking…

No probs dave!

Hope your bikes are properly locked up 😉

Here we go again then.

So Z11, I'll gloss over the fact that you think that ad-hominem attacks demonstrate weakness in someone's argument and then go on to say that I have "terrorist mates" I don't mind sticking to the science if you don't?

Just to pick up on a couple of things –

Z11 said:

you fail to understand the difference between aggregated errors in a model and a an approximation of a physical law

Maybe you'd care to explain the difference then? Seems to me they are both models, just one is more complex and one has been observed to predict reality in more cases (although it has also been observed to NOT explain reality in others)

But the very odd thing you said was:

the inbuilt aggregate errors and chaos theory means the reliability of your model will progressively deteriorate

Why have you suddenly decided to chuck "chaos theory" into the mix? Let me know if I'm wrong but weren't you advocating another look at the whole of the longterm data record of CO2 and temperature so that we could properly establish a causation (or not) between CO2 and temp? What would be the point in that if you think that "chaos theory" makes any predictions impossible?

I don't profess to know much about the science, but have seen plausible rebutals of the man made global warming arguments.

This is brilliant,very, very funny and is about the level of debate in this thread which is why I've been trying to keep out of it. Had to step in and commend your work though Steve, well done.

Have I won then?

Since there are specific exemptions within the FOI act for dealing with vexatious requests, if what you said was true, the CRU would not have been found to have breached FOI law would they?

Really! My copy doesn't say anything about that.. Where are the exemptions?

The new – and much more serious – evidence, publicised in newspaper reports this morning, concerns temperature data from Chinese weather stations. It has long been claimed that rising temperatures from some rural stations have been influenced by the growth of nearby cities, which absorb more heat than the countryside and so are warmer than it, especially at night. A 1990 paper by Prof Jones and another scientist, Prof Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York, concluded this effect was negligible, and this became a key reference for IPCC reports.

It drew some of its evidence from rapidly urbanising Eastern China. But when asked for details of the locations of the Chinese stations, today’s reports say, Prof Jones initially turned them down – and, when he did release them, data for 40 of the 42 rural stations were missing, while other stations appeared to have been moved.

It raises queries about how thoroughly and scrupulously some of the research has been carried out, and places an even greater question mark over the future of Prof Jones.

hainey it reads as pretty convincing but when you ggogle it you get this bit you ommitted in your quote – I MEAN YOU DELIBERATELY DELETED THIS PART OF THE QUOTE TO MISLEAD

The new evidence does not invalidate the almost universally acknowledged fact that the world has warmed up over recent decades. This is supported by widespread measurements from around the world, including from the oceans far from any urban effect. Like previous revelations over the past weeks – most notably an erroneous claim in the latest IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers will melt away by 2035 – it does not affect the basic science underpinning global warming.

😳
Hainey to wilfully omit that from your quote really is a shamefull attempt to mislead and misrepresent – shakes head in disbelief at how blatant a distortion that was from you.

full article here[/url]

FULL QUOTE UNEDITED

The new – and much more serious – evidence, publicised in newspaper reports this morning, concerns temperature data from Chinese weather stations. Sceptics have long claimed that rising temperatures from some rural stations have been influenced by the growth of nearby cities, which absorb more heat than the countryside and so are warmer than it, especially at night. A 1990 paper by Prof Jones and another scientist, Prof Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York, concluded this effect was negligible, and this became a key reference for IPCC reports.

It drew some of its evidence from rapidly urbanising Eastern China. But when sceptics asked for details of the locations of the Chinese stations, today’s reports say, Prof Jones initially turned them down – and, when he did release them, data for 40 of the 42 rural stations were missing, while other stations appeared to have been moved. Prof Wang was investigated by his university and exonerated of any wrong doing, but the reported emails suggest that a previous director of the CRU raised serious concerns about the issue with Prof Jones over the last two years. The Unit is to issue a statement later today.

The new evidence does not invalidate the almost universally acknowledged fact that the world has warmed up over recent decades. This is supported by widespread measurements from around the world, including from the oceans far from any urban effect. Like previous revelations over the past weeks – most notably an erroneous claim in the latest IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers will melt away by 2035 – it does not affect the basic science underpinning global warming. But it does raise queries about how thoroughly and scrupulously some of the research has been carried out, and places an even greater question mark over the future of Prof Jones.

I await your explanation of this

I quoted part of an article, the last paragraph bares no relation to the point i was putting across.

So moving on from your (yet again 🙄 )diversion away from the actual topic, what are your views on this? Do you think Prof Jones was right in his data hiding/manipulation. Why do this if the science and facts are so conclusive? Just doesn't make any sense!

lol @ hainey misrepresenting information. i thought half of the deniers argument was that you believe that the information is manipulated by the scientists.

egg face on (put those in the corerct order, someone?)

Hungry, where is the data misrepresented? 😯

egg face on (put those in the corerct order, someone?)

Corerct – put those in the correct order someone! :chump:

rightplacerighttime – Member

Have I won then?

Nope – 'tis but a scratch

Hainy stoops to correcting typos.

Just because your spell checker doesn't spot your errors doesn't mean we don't hainy. Your grammar and punctuation are lousy by the way.

i said the information was misrepresented. perhaps before you correct typos you learn to read…

or maybe you were misrepresenting what i wrote…

anyways, as i said, the information in the whole aritcle which you quoted WAS misrepresented in what you said. you posted it in a manner which was done to suggest that on a large scale data about climate etc was inaccurate.

you misrepresented it because if you had properly quoted all the article it would then go on to debunk what you had implied.

to put it simply for you, you misrepresented the meaning of the article by selevtively choosing what information you chose to display.

which is essentially what you claim climate scientists do.

mmm'kay?