jshell wrote:
The Science is settled then??
Were the science not dependent on peer-review that weeds out fabrications, and/or were it dependednt on the work of that one person at UEA then you'd have a point.
However, as PMM has said on this thread already, to extrapolate that from the UEA emails is to 'choose to ignore the thousands of correlated studies of everything from ice cores to lake bed pollen samples because this one set of results reinforces their prejudices'.
jshell wrote:
I think I'm starting to see JUST how the IPCC works. I think that many others are too! See my thoughts on the IPCC above.
I have, and I'm still not seeing how a lack of anthropogenic climate change would render dozens of entire scientific fields including climatology, meteorology, oceanography, forest ecology, redundant.
jshell wrote:
Merrick wrote:
For evidence of this being a vast conspiracy involving the pre-eminent scientific bodies of dozens of nations and hundreds of thousands of scientists, you're going to have to find better sources than the Speak Your Brains of comments on the BBC news site.
There are many sources out there now and they're growing. At last count, 'climategate' registered 11,400,000 hits on Google.
Which does not in any way give evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. Try googling about Jesus and Satan and see how many hits you get. Does that show the existence of a real living Satan?
I'm asking for hard facts that this is a conspiracy, because it would take in so many thousands of people, including the Royal Society and equivalent bodies all across the world. The UEA datasets about treerings aren't really enough.
jshell wrote:
Doesn't that break the BBC's charter of impartiality?
About as much as their ignoring of other perspectives only held by a tiny fraction of people with relevant knowledge, such as creationism or HIV not causing Aids. Should they have an hour's creationist twaddle after every Attenborough programme about evolution?
jshell wrote:
Even the 'Mail' is printing dissenting articles
Heh, 'even' the Mail, the grand outpost of truth on scientific matters, whose Science Editor was the last one on a national newspaper to
maintain a climate denier position. You've got such a gift for presenting evidence that undermines your position. Do go on....
jshell wrote:
as for the temperature rising, even the BBC have to admit that it hasn't for the last 11 years
Yet another point that you've already had
explained to you.
"The evidence is clear – the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler.
"You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Nino. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Nina. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded."
1998 was a year exacerbated by other factors because - please read it this time - everybody agrees that there are many factors that affect climate and global temperature. 1998 was the hottest on record, calling it 'cooling' since then implies a process of, well, cooling. Yet if we 2000 as our start point, every year since has been hotter.
The thing is to be scientific, rather than to cherry pick. We need to look at all factors and overall trends. Fifteen of the top 20 hottest years on record have been since 1990. Do we see a pattern emerging on the
graph?
I say again, what could be the cause other than natural process exacerbated by carbon emissions? And why do you admit that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas yet reckon that doubling it in the atmosphere doesn't increase the greenhouse effect?
