Am I still allowed to question climate change?

About what? Seeing as they didn't have the power of god over what went in or was left out of the IPCC report, it's clearly an argument that they're going to make rather than an action they're going to take.[/Quote]

And you know this how?

 

It's not for them to "redefine" anything, but peer-review is the first BS filter, not the only one. Stuff slips through, and tends to be weeded out by other means.

Right...? Thus if stuff slips through then your earlier claim "Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature", is evidently false.

 

Absolutely no underhand practice has been exposed here. All that has been shown is that a few scientists at ONE institution are - shock, horror - human, and get a little narked off at people deliberately trying to muddy the waters and obfuscate the science.

What one institution? Since when is the University of East Anglia the same institution of University of Massachusetts Amherst (Raymond Bradley), Pennsylvania State (Michael Mann) I could carry on, but they are not AT the same institution, you may actually want to do some fact checking.

 

This will die down like the last "final nail in the coffin of AGW", and the one before that, and the one before that. Any wonder why all but a small number of dedicated people have ceased to bother debunking this stuff? I used to visit Anthony Watts site, for example, because I like giving people a chance, but there is only so much spectacular scientific illiteracy you can take before you give up.

Right and?

 

Meanwhile, we are still in the middle of a warming trend, we are still in the hottest decade on record and carbon dioxide is still well established as the cause. If the context-free publishing of illegally hacked emails from a SINGLE institution is the best evidence against this, then it's pretty damn robust.

So no comment on the emails asking to delete emails to prevent them being made public due to the FOIA?

True but the evidence for CO2 driven climate change is overwhelming.

 

Bolleaux. Climate change is an ongoing natural phenomenon. It's cyclical. It's happened before and it will happen again. Like the many ice ages.

 

And the amount of CO2 contributed by man is minute compared to the natural CO2 emissions.

"Science" in this case being "blog science", presumably. Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature to support that statement you just made.

 

At the moment, I personally am doing "science". Can't speak for the rest, but I'm guessing like me they're just tired of repeating the same old basic physics and statistics lessons to the same old idiots over and over again.

 

You guys are an irrelevence. Who am I to spoil your little fun?

 

Ahh, Do you mean real peer review, or modified peer review as obviously loved by true believers?

 

You'e doing science are you, well good look with the GCSE.

 

Basic physics you say, a little like the fact that solar erruptivity is currently at a minimum, hence the current period of global cooling.

 

Statistics; don't get me started on those.

 

There's lies, damn lies and statistics. You do know the definition of a statastician don't you?

 

Ask them what 2 add 2 is, if they say "4" they're not a statastician; if they say "what do you want it to be?" then they're a statastician.

 

Humour me and point me at some evidence of a man made signal in climate temperature change, I'd be pleased to look at it.

Vindicaton!!!!

And you know this how?

I'm trying really hard to find an alternative explanation for this, but one doesn't come to mind.

 

 

Right...? Thus if stuff slips through then your earlier claim "Since there's nothing in the real, peer-reviewed literature", is evidently false.

"Evidently false"? The original claim was that global warming about politics, not science. There is nothing in the peer-reviewed literature to support that claim. Certain papers sneak through which purport to challenge a single facet of the evidence (which is then inevitably blown out of all proportion). My claim stands, and it's a massive stretch to try and argue otherwise.

 

What one institution? Since when is the University of East Anglia the same institution of University of Massachusetts Amherst (Raymond Bradley), Pennsylvania State (Michael Mann) I could carry on, but they are not AT the same institution, you may actually want to do some fact checking.

Fair point, it was a reference to where the emails were hacked from.

 

Right and?

And, the thread title said "No Evidence for Global Warming", which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the OP (the hacking and release of emails of a small group of scientists). Sorry if it wasn't clear, but my post wasn't all directed as a response to you specifically.

 

So no comment on the emails asking to delete emails to prevent them being made public due to the FOIA?

Not until I know more about the context, sorry. Refusing to release what you are required to do so under an FoI request is wrong and unethical, that's as far as I'll go.

 

Now, provide evidence that scientists colluded to "modify" data, please? I mean beyond what is standard, open and well accepted practice.

Ahh, Do you mean real peer review, or modified peer review as obviously loved by true believers?

 

You'e doing science are you, well good look with the GCSE.

 

Basic physics you say, a little like the fact that solar erruptivity is currently at a minimum, hence the current period of global cooling.

 

Statistics; don't get me started on those.

 

There's lies, damn lies and statistics. You do know the definition of a statastician don't you?

 

Ask them what 2 add 2 is, if they say "4" they're not a statastician; if they say "what do you want it to be?" then they're a statastician.

 

Humour me and point me at some evidence of a man made signal in climate temperature change, I'd be pleased to look at it.

All the evidence from that post - from your reference to global cooling to your spouting about sunspots to your dismissal of statistics suggests doing so would be a complete waste of time. But what the hell.

 

Read it, peruse the references, get back to me with what you've learnt.

 

And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots.

 

Love to chat a bit more, but I must get back to my GCSE coursework!

And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots.

 

Love to chat a bit more, but I must get back to my GCSE coursework!

 

covert was probably alluding to this:

 

 

In relation to this:

 

And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots.

 

 

 

Just a small query - that graph only goes to 2000; what about 2000-20009 ?

 

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

 

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.[/indent]

 

So Serapis, I take it that you are not aware of the phenomena known as Global Dimming then:?:

 

Google it if you are not familiar with the term.

Bolleaux. Climate change is an ongoing natural phenomenon. It's cyclical. It's happened before and it will happen again. Like the many ice ages.

And the amount of CO2 contributed by man is minute compared to the natural CO2 emissions.

 

Facts and figures please if you have them.

So Serapis, I take it that you are not aware of the phenomena known as Global Dimming then:?:

 

Google it if you are not familiar with the term.

 

It comes as no surprise that global warming activists latch onto an idea such as Global dimming to explain away the fact their entire ethos looks less likely to be manmade and nothing more than a ploy to make the gullible accept measures they would otherwise refuse. Presenting a theory that utilises less than 60 years worth of data and has only every witnessed the event three times to explain away failing claims is clutching at straws at best.

 

If these emails are genuine, then the supposed experts who advise our nation do not believe their own claims and privately despair at the data they see. There is no mention of Global Dimming to explain the data. More worrying is the email that describes the death of a scientist who contradicted their claims as cheering news. Then there are the emails telling people to delete the damaging emails. I wonder why?

 

With the relative silence of our own media, I'm inclined to say this looks it is being suppressed from being broadcast to the nation at a level it deserves. If these emails are not discredited within 48 hours and our media is still sitting on its hands, there are indeed foul deeds afoot.

All the evidence from that post - from your reference to global cooling to your spouting about sunspots to your dismissal of statistics suggests doing so would be a complete waste of time. But what the hell.

 

Read it, peruse the references, get back to me with what you've learnt.

 

And please stop with that ridiculous nonsense about sunspots.

 

Love to chat a bit more, but I must get back to my GCSE coursework!

 

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.

 

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).

 

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

 

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