Global Warming... a hoax?

[chieftiff]

Climategate Looking More And More Like Watergate

I doubt the comparison is a fair one, but it's interesting. from what I've read most people are speculating that there was a whistleblower within UEA who had some association with the the climate audit website and their repeated FOIA attempts to gain access to the temperature records used in the IPCC report. It appears they witheld the data for some time to give it maximum exposure at a time when the world's press attention was about to focus on Copenhagen.

Insinuating that there is some association with the US Republican Party, big oil business and the hack is like saying there is some sort of worldwide conspiracy to invent man made global warming and therefore control the masses. We are getting into tin foil hat territory.

[spunkymonkey]

Ashie, I've come to the conclusion (not doubt supported by an overwhelming consensus on here) that you're insane.

Nice re-wording of the "party line" about watergate except for one detail. What most people remember Watergate for is not the paid theft of information, but the massive corruption that theft uncovered. That is the possible similarity here.

As for the other (rather suddenly) reported attempts being linked to the CRU leak, you can't have it both ways. Was it was the work of high-tech, paid, hackers by an organised and sophisticated conspiracy?

Then why did these skillful cyber-criminals need to resort to "smashing a window with a squash racket - which they left at the scene - to steal an old computer" (which is what happened in Canada).

Talk about tinfoil!

[ashie]

Climategate Looking More And More Like Watergate

I doubt the comparison is a fair one, but it's interesting. from what I've read most people are speculating that there was a whistleblower within UEA who had some association with the the climate audit website and their repeated FOIA attempts to gain access to the temperature records used in the IPCC report. It appears they witheld the data for some time to give it maximum exposure at a time when the world's press attention was about to focus on Copenhagen.

Insinuating that there is some association with the US Republican Party, big oil business and the hack is like saying there is some sort of worldwide conspiracy to invent man made global warming and therefore control the masses. We are getting into tin foil hat territory.

Of course a worldwide conspiracy to invent AGW is what a number of ARRSErs believe as we have seen.

Good article in the Torygraph on all this:

Despite all the lurid claims that a handful of present-day scientists have contrived to hoax the world and all its governments, this basic science has not been successfully challenged in nearly 200 years. It would be surprising if it had been, for it accords with the very laws of physics. .......................

All this – though you could be forgiven for not noticing amid the excitement of the last week – is accepted by all but the most extreme, or ignorant, of the sceptics. Lord Lawson, for example, told a House of Commons committee over two years ago that it was “fairly clear� that “man-made emissions, largely carbon dioxide, have almost certainly played a considerable part in the 0.7C warming over the 20th century as a whole�.

And the sceptics’ latest hero, Tony Abbott – who was this week elected to be Australia’s leader of the Opposition and then promptly torpedoed the Government’s global warming legislation – confesses: “I think climate change is real and that man does make a contribution.� He did, it seems, once call it “absolute crap�, but now entertainingly disowns this as “not my most considered opinion�.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...of-change.html

[chieftiff]

[Of course a worldwide conspiracy to invent AGW is what a number of ARRSErs believe as we have seen.

There are nut jobs on both sides of the debate, anyone who doubts the ability of CO2 to cause global warming could do worse than watch this simple video from the BBC which explains what the chemistry and the physics tells us, it even shows a simple experiment that they can watch with their own eyes!

greenhouse effect in a bottle

The big questions are all about: how long, how much, can we do anything about it? ....... for those questions to be answered science needs to get its head out of the arse of politics as politics needs to get its head out the arses of scientists to answer the questions like: can we, should we, is it financially viable, is it morally necessary. Although obviously inter-related the two camps need to maintain independence and also be seen to be independent, one gives facts the other makes decisions and justifies them.

Most of the serious scepticism in climate science, by genuinely credible scientists is about the way science is behaving and the way it is being presented as something it isn't to sway public opinion. Only the cranks are doubting the fundamental theories.

Interesting that the author of the Telegraph article refers to CO2 as a "duvet" which is of course not what it is at all (CO2's effects are far more serious acting more like a radiator) and goes to show how scientifically illiterate even the better newspaper scientific crrespondence can be!

[Maple]

Ashie could you stop trying to cloud the issue for a moment? What almost everyone is saying here is that climate change happens, no problems there, the difficulty is that despite the line you've been spouting the science is not conclusive in that evil man is behind it all and worse, you and people like you have been trying to shut the debate down.

Now one of the main pillars of the man-made GW orthodoxy has been caught fiddling the figures* and attempting to subvert British law by avoiding FOI requests and destroying information subsequent to FOI requests.

So let's separate the issues, do you consider what the faking of figures acceptable to get your point over as some commentators have said or do you believe the science should stand by its self? Do you condemn what happened at the UEA?

*I'm a bloody analyst, I know when someone's been rigging the figures, so don't try wriggling out of it there, also I've had to deal with FOI requests and know the penalties for trying to subvert the legislation

[jagman]

[Of course a worldwide conspiracy to invent AGW is what a number of ARRSErs believe as we have seen.

There are nut jobs on both sides of the debate, anyone who doubts the ability of CO2 to cause global warming could do worse than watch this simple video from the BBC which explains what the chemistry and the physics tells us, it even shows a simple experiment that they can watch with their own eyes!

greenhouse effect in a bottle

The big questions are all about: how long, how much, can we do anything about it? ....... for those questions to be answered science needs to get its head out of the arse of politics as politics needs to get its head out the arses of scientists to answer the questions like: can we, should we, is it financially viable, is it morally necessary. Although obviously inter-related the two camps need to maintain independence and also be seen to be independent, one gives facts the other makes decisions and justifies them.

Most of the serious scepticism in climate science, by genuinely credible scientists is about the way science is behaving and the way it is being presented as something it isn't to sway public opinion. Only the cranks are doubting the fundamental theories.

Don't forget the bit where we are suposed to ignore the 95% of CO2 emmisions that are natural and focus entirely on the 5% or less that is man made.
Nor I suppose should we forget that the current temerature trend is going down and has been for a decade.....

[ashie]

Ashie could you stop trying to cloud the issue for a moment? What almost everyone is saying here is that climate change happens, no problems there, the difficulty is that despite the line you've been spouting the science is not conclusive in that evil man is behind it all and worse, you and people like you have been trying to shut the debate down.

Now one of the main pillars of the man-made GW orthodoxy has been caught fiddling the figures* and attempting to subvert British law by avoiding FOI requests and destroying information subsequent to FOI requests.

So let's separate the issues, do you consider what the faking of figures acceptable to get your point over as some commentators have said or do you believe the science should stand by its self? Do you condemn what happened at the UEA?

*I'm a bloody analyst, I know when someone's been rigging the figures, so don't try wriggling out of it there, also I've had to deal with FOI requests and know the penalties for trying to subvert the legislation

Gordon Bennett! This really pi55es me off. How have I "and my people" been trying to stifle debate? By engaging in debate seems to be a silly way to do it.

It is you and "your people" who try to stifle debate with your whingeing certainties that it's all a big conspiracy. That the science is "not conclusive, that figures have been "fiddled",. That "faking" has been going on. If there is an AGW orthodoxy is is because that is where the science leads.

[jagman]

Gordon Bennett! This really pi55es me off. How have I "and my people" been trying to stifle debate? By engaging in debate seems to be a silly way to do it.

It is you and "your people" who try to stifle debate with your whingeing certainties that it's all a big conspiracy. That the science is "not conclusive, that figures have been "fiddled",. That "faking" has been going on. If there is an AGW orthodoxy is is because that is where the science leads.

How about the government seeking to prevent the Met Office reviewing climate data?
How about the halfwit Milliband declaring that only fools disagree with the CRU data and the emails admitting to manipulation are irrelevant?
How about you just admiting that in the light of data maniulation revealed within the CRU that the "science" needs re-assesing?

You aren't engaging in debate, you are just trying to shout down dissent.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Ashie could you stop trying to cloud the issue for a moment? What almost everyone is saying here is that climate change happens, no problems there, the difficulty is that despite the line you've been spouting the science is not conclusive in that evil man is behind it all and worse, you and people like you have been trying to shut the debate down.

Now one of the main pillars of the man-made GW orthodoxy has been caught fiddling the figures* and attempting to subvert British law by avoiding FOI requests and destroying information subsequent to FOI requests.

So let's separate the issues, do you consider what the faking of figures acceptable to get your point over as some commentators have said or do you believe the science should stand by its self? Do you condemn what happened at the UEA?

*I'm a bloody analyst, I know when someone's been rigging the figures, so don't try wriggling out of it there, also I've had to deal with FOI requests and know the penalties for trying to subvert the legislation

Gordon Bennett! This really pi55es me off. How have I "and my people" been trying to stifle debate? By engaging in debate seems to be a silly way to do it.

It is you and "your people" who try to stifle debate with your whingeing certainties that it's all a big conspiracy. That the science is "not conclusive, that figures have been "fiddled",. That "faking" has been going on. If there is an AGW orthodoxy is is because that is where the science leads.

But no action, or even discussion, on population control and an immediate baseload generation switch to nuclear, which is where the AGW orthodoxy leads, or should do if you truly believe the argument and the need to act on it.

[spunkymonkey]

Wrong tense, Ashie - it's where the science "has been lead". By stifling dissent, lots of it, including research into alternative, or even complementary, explanations.

Even the IPCC list "Greenhouse gasses" as the only forcing with good scientific understanding. They use a circular argument on other areas, such as ionisation and cloud seeding, to keep it that way:

1. We know that it's caused by greenhouse gasses, so that's why research here needs lots of funding.

2. There's very little understanding of the other forcings.

3. Other research, while theoretically interesting, isn't as important as work on greenhouse gasses and will only distract us from the important stuff so it must come second.

4. We know it's caused by greenhouse gasses because none of the other forcings, with our current level of understanding and research, can explain it.

5. GOTO 1

[ashie]

Gordon Bennett! This really pi55es me off. How have I "and my people" been trying to stifle debate? By engaging in debate seems to be a silly way to do it.

It is you and "your people" who try to stifle debate with your whingeing certainties that it's all a big conspiracy. That the science is "not conclusive, that figures have been "fiddled",. That "faking" has been going on. If there is an AGW orthodoxy is is because that is where the science leads.

How about the government seeking to prevent the Met Office reviewing climate data?
How about the halfwit Milliband declaring that only fools disagree with the CRU data and the emails admitting to manipulation are irrelevant?
How about you just admiting that in the light of data maniulation revealed within the CRU that the "science" needs re-assesing?

You aren't engaging in debate, you are just trying to shout down dissent.

And you are clutching at straws. As in the David Kelly thread.

[jagman]

Gordon Bennett! This really pi55es me off. How have I "and my people" been trying to stifle debate? By engaging in debate seems to be a silly way to do it.

It is you and "your people" who try to stifle debate with your whingeing certainties that it's all a big conspiracy. That the science is "not conclusive, that figures have been "fiddled",. That "faking" has been going on. If there is an AGW orthodoxy is is because that is where the science leads.

How about the government seeking to prevent the Met Office reviewing climate data?
How about the halfwit Milliband declaring that only fools disagree with the CRU data and the emails admitting to manipulation are irrelevant?
How about you just admiting that in the light of data maniulation revealed within the CRU that the "science" needs re-assesing?

You aren't engaging in debate, you are just trying to shout down dissent.

And you are clutching at straws. As in the David Kelly thread.

Jolly good.
Are you going to answer the questions?

[ashie]

Wrong tense, Ashie - it's where the science "has been lead". By stifling dissent, lots of it, including research into alternative, or even complementary, explanations.

Even the IPCC list "Greenhouse gasses" as the only forcing with good scientific understanding. They use a circular argument on other areas, such as ionisation and cloud seeding, to keep it that way:

1. We know that it's caused by greenhouse gasses, so that's why research here needs lots of funding.

2. There's very little understanding of the other forcings.

3. Other research, while theoretically interesting, isn't as important as work on greenhouse gasses and will only distract us from the important stuff so it must come second.

4. We know it's caused by greenhouse gasses because none of the other forcings, with our current level of understanding and research, can explain it.

5. GOTO 1

No, you're quite right. I see it all now. We have been led by a global conspiracy to get funding.

[ashie]

Gordon Bennett! This really pi55es me off. How have I "and my people" been trying to stifle debate? By engaging in debate seems to be a silly way to do it.

It is you and "your people" who try to stifle debate with your whingeing certainties that it's all a big conspiracy. That the science is "not conclusive, that figures have been "fiddled",. That "faking" has been going on. If there is an AGW orthodoxy is is because that is where the science leads.

How about the government seeking to prevent the Met Office reviewing climate data?
How about the halfwit Milliband declaring that only fools disagree with the CRU data and the emails admitting to manipulation are irrelevant?
How about you just admiting that in the light of data maniulation revealed within the CRU that the "science" needs re-assesing?

You aren't engaging in debate, you are just trying to shout down dissent.

And you are clutching at straws. As in the David Kelly thread.

Jolly good.
Are you going to answer the questions?

Which? Your assertions about the government? Your more ridiculous assertion about the manipulation of data?

The science is settled. No amount of bleating because of a few off-hand comments in some illegally-hacked emails from a decade ago will change that.

[jagman]

Gordon Bennett! This really pi55es me off. How have I "and my people" been trying to stifle debate? By engaging in debate seems to be a silly way to do it.

It is you and "your people" who try to stifle debate with your whingeing certainties that it's all a big conspiracy. That the science is "not conclusive, that figures have been "fiddled",. That "faking" has been going on. If there is an AGW orthodoxy is is because that is where the science leads.

How about the government seeking to prevent the Met Office reviewing climate data?
How about the halfwit Milliband declaring that only fools disagree with the CRU data and the emails admitting to manipulation are irrelevant?
How about you just admiting that in the light of data maniulation revealed within the CRU that the "science" needs re-assesing?

You aren't engaging in debate, you are just trying to shout down dissent.

And you are clutching at straws. As in the David Kelly thread.

Jolly good.
Are you going to answer the questions?

Which? Your assertions about the government? Your more ridiculous assertion about the manipulation of data?

The science is settled. No amount of bleating because of a few off-hand comments in some illegally-hacked emails from a decade ago will change that.

Alright Ashie, one more question if you don't mind?

Do you believe what you post or is the pause between posts so you can go and consult the manual for appropriate answers? :D