General Climate Change Discussion

[Iceberg]

Typical beeb nonsense! It's about time the beeb went back to basics, and started reporting facts in a unbiased way. Talk about any extreme weather event being attributed to AGW!

The only people attributing this to AGW are Skeptics like your good self.

[Solar Cycles]

It is, unfortunately, the human condition that such Confirmation Bias exists. It affects all of us.

Not me though!!

The only people attributing this to AGW are Skeptics like your good self.

Come off it Iceberg, you know full well the beeb have a unhealthy bias towards AGW. Every single weather event reported, is attributed to AGW/climate change. Take those AGW glasses off once in a while!!

[Devonian]

I haven't seen this chap getting a mention on here (but stand to be corrected!) May I introduce Ian Plimer....http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/part_6/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

Best not to introduce him, thoroughly debunked by Dr Barry Brook, oh and by Dr Tim Lambert.

PS maybe not, link doesn't seem to work.......

Try again http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/fe...con-trick.thtml

James Delingpole is a climatologist?

[Solar Cycles]

In defense of Iceberg, I think he was merely pointing out that it is easy to write inflammatory rhetoric without any justification.

I also have to agree with Iceberg that repeated references to AGW as a scam, a fraud, a con or a swindle don't help anyone or do anyone any favours.

Yes, there are scam-artists out there who are milking AGW for everything it's worth, but does that make the science itself a con or a swindle?

As a means of comparison, do fraudulent televangelists prove that God does not exist?

I believe that the science behind AGW is mostly honest, investigated by scientists who are no more conniving or wicked than scientists in any other field.

I also think that it is flawed, but that's a long way from it being a con.

If governments, businesses and other organisations are conning us with regards AGW then that's one thing (and largely unsurprising), but AGW itself is not a con or a scam or a fraud. It's just wrong. In my opinion.

CB

I mostly go along with that CB, I wouldn't say all the scientist involved are on the straight though. One only as to look at the hockey stick!!

Edited July 14, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Admiral_Bobski]

I mostly go along with that CB, I wouldn't say all the scientist involved are on the straight though. One only as to look at the hockey stick!!

Well, I did say that "I believe that the science behind AGW is mostly honest" - I was trying not to point any fingers, though!

CB

Edited July 14, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Solar Cycles]

Well, I did say that "I believe that the science behind AGW is mostly honest" - I was trying not to point any fingers, though!

CB

Yes you did CB, I'll go along with that!!

[Devonian]

Well, I did say that "I believe that the science behind AGW is mostly honest" - I was trying not to point any fingers, though!

CB

You therefore think some of the science behind AGW dishonest? Which science?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

You therefore think some of the science behind AGW dishonest? Which science?

Why don't you try reading his initial post on the last page?? - where he is actually giving a fair representation of the views of many AGW proponents if you care to read it!

The extreme fringes of both sceptic and AGW trains of thoughts are tainted with agendas and dishonesty.

I think it is a case of 'getting over it'. It happens

I am saying all that on the basis that I don't think AGW science adds up. Many of the advocates are well intentioned in terms of trying to be environmentally responsible - they just have trouble turning hypothesis into fact. But that doesn't mean they are deliberately trying to be dishonest. Ther are however a fringe who are determined to fit the theory at any cost. I wouldn't call the METO 'dishonest' by any means - but I do worry about how determined they have become with the AGW agenda. They acknowledged the media hype created over AGW, but imo they have not really done much to assist defusing the hype because their own roadshow is so strongly entrenched in the belief that all the feedback theory is correct.

The BBC are one of the worst. They are 'dishonest' in the sense that they are unable to present both sides to the climate change debate - but again that is more due to entrenchment than anything else dishonest. The Peter Sissons link given the other day was very revealing in this respect. Maybe I am giving them the benefit of the doubt??

Edited July 14, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

Why don't you try reading his initial post on the last page?? - where he is actually giving a fair representation of the views of many AGW proponents if you care to read it!

Please don't make such pejorative assumptions. I did read his post - I do read what people write here you know...

The extreme fringes of both sceptic and AGW trains of thoughts are tainted with agendas and dishonesty.

Fine, just wondering which science is.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

The extreme fringes of both sceptic and AGW trains of thoughts are tainted with agendas and dishonesty.

How can anyone diasgree with that?

If you put all of us (skeptics, prononents, deniers) into a big box: May Contain Nuts would be an understatement!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Please don't make such pejorative assumptions. I did read his post - I do read what people write here you know...

Fine, just wondering what.

It wasn't an assumption - it was pointing out a mistaken misrepresentation of what CB had said.

Do you really believe that such 'dishonesty' belongs to extreme fringes of both sides Dev? And that is not a trick question - just genuinely curious?

How can anyone diasgree with that?

If you put all of us (skeptics, prononents, deniers) into a big box: May Contain Nuts would be an understatement!

Pac ket in you!!

[Devonian]

It wasn't an assumption - it was pointing out a mistaken misrepresentation of what CB had said.

I did not mistakenly misrepresent CB - he talked about the science behind AGW being 'mostly honest' so I wondered what science isn't honest. Again, please stop misrepresenting me - OK?

Do you really believe that such 'dishonesty' belongs to extreme fringes of both sides Dev? And that is not a trick question - just genuinely curious?

TBH I'm not sure there are many openly dishonest people on either side. I think most extreme sceptics think they are right, and I suspect the same applies to any extremist, even those who think we'll fry. Lying is deliberately not telling the truth, it's pre meditated. I don't see much if any off it.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thank you, NSSC, for your support

Devonian, I can only assume, is looking for an argument where none is warranted - I have always been quite clear in my concern over the legitimacy of certain pieces of AGW research.

I am disappointed that I can still get pointed remarks from some quarters on here even when I support certain aspects of AGW, and even lend my support to one of the ardent Pros on the board.

But, Dev, if you want names then I'll say straight out - again - that I have deep concerns with the work of Michael Mann and, in particular, his work on the hockey-stick graph.

There.

I said it.

[Methuselah]

TBH I'm not sure there are many openly dishonest people on either side. I think most extreme sceptics think they are right, and I suspect the same applies to any extremist, even those who think we'll fry. Lying is deliberately not telling the truth, it's pre meditated. I don't see much if any off it.

I think, Dev, that the crux lies in the word 'openly'? Is it dishonest if one cherry-picks the data for everything that supoorts their respective point of view and then goes on to preach the resultant 'truth' to the world?

Is that not lying by omission?

[Solar Cycles]

Thank you, NSSC, for your support

Devonian, I can only assume, is looking for an argument where none is warranted - I have always been quite clear in my concern over the legitimacy of certain pieces of AGW research.

I am disappointed that I can still get pointed remarks from some quarters on here even when I support certain aspects of AGW, and even lend my support to one of the ardent Pros on the board.

But, Dev, if you want names then I'll say straight out - again - that I have deep concerns with the work of Michael Mann and, in particular, his work on the hockey-stick graph.

There.

I said it.

Oh dear Cb, get your hard hat on, and watch out for incoming!!!!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Thank you, NSSC, for your support

Devonian, I can only assume, is looking for an argument where none is warranted - I have always been quite clear in my concern over the legitimacy of certain pieces of AGW research.

I am disappointed that I can still get pointed remarks from some quarters on here even when I support certain aspects of AGW, and even lend my support to one of the ardent Pros on the board.

But, Dev, if you want names then I'll say straight out - again - that I have deep concerns with the work of Michael Mann and, in particular, his work on the hockey-stick graph.

There.

I said it.

I agree - we shouldn't get touchy about the reality that are a few examples where findings are, shall we say, dubious in there origin. I think the hockey stick example is a very good one you mention in the case of AGW.

Scientists, we should not forget, are also human beings like the rest of us. We are going to be disappointed if we wish to elevate them to angelic innocent status. Better to get used to the idea that a few have 'differing motives'. I am not sure what is so bad about saying that tbh

[Admiral_Bobski]

Oh dear Cb, get your hard hat on, and watch out for incoming!!!!

I've got my pith helmet buckled up tight - it's not very strong, but it offers ample protection from pithy comments...

[Devonian]

Thank you, NSSC, for your support

Devonian, I can only assume, is looking for an argument where none is warranted - I have always been quite clear in my concern over the legitimacy of certain pieces of AGW research.

I am disappointed that I can still get pointed remarks from some quarters on here even when I support certain aspects of AGW, and even lend my support to one of the ardent Pros on the board.

But, Dev, if you want names then I'll say straight out - again - that I have deep concerns with the work of Michael Mann and, in particular, his work on the hockey-stick graph.

There.

I said it.

I merely asked which science - thanks for the answer.

So, it's that old bone again.

Few people in this AGW argument have been so insulted, so defamed so demonized as Dr Michael Mann . It makes my blood run cold to wonder what drives people to say the kinds of things said of him, to make the kind of attacks on the man he's suffered

The HS has been done to death. We've had numerous threads on recons. They all still stand as honest, thorough scientific works.

[Solar Cycles]

I agree - we shouldn't get touchy about the reality that are a few examples where findings are, shall we say, dubious in there origin. I think the hockey stick example is a very good one you mention in the case of AGW.

Scientists, we should not forget, are also human beings like the rest of us. We are going to be disappointed if we wish to elevate them to angelic innocent status. Better to get used to the idea that a few have 'differing motives'. I am not sure what is so bad about saying that tbh

It's touchy subject for some warmists, you see they like to put all those who support agw on a pedestal. I don't know why Tamara, it just seems they are unwilling to acknowledge a few of the scientist involved in AGW could be, shall we say BIASED in their findings! (sounds better than crooked, liars, etc ) For me their are a number of skeptics who fall into the same bracket, but I seek the truth, and therefore remain unbiased in my views!!

[Devonian]

I think, Dev, that the crux lies in the word 'openly'? Is it dishonest if one cherry-picks the data for everything that supoorts their respective point of view and then goes on to preach the resultant 'truth' to the world?

Is that not lying by omission?

It is, but it did not happen in the case of the HS, or any peer reviewed science I can think of.

Right, as I say the HS is done to death, no more on that from me.

[Methuselah]

It is, but it did not happen in the case of the HS, or any peer reviewed science I can think of.

Right, as I say the HS is done to death, no more on that from me.

Agreed on both counts, Dev.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I merely asked which science - thanks for the answer.

So, it's that old bone again.

Few people in this AGW argument have been so insulted, so defamed so demonized as Dr Michael Mann . It makes my blood run cold to wonder what drives people to say the kinds of things said of him, to make the kind of attacks on the man he's suffered

The HS has been done to death. We've had numerous threads on recons. They all still stand as honest, thorough scientific works.

No, Dev, it's not "that old bone again". I was happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but you asked a question and I gave an answer.

The hockey stick does not stand as an honest, thorough scientific work - while its conclusions have been broadly accepted (though with increasing lack of certainty the further back in time it extends), the actual methods have been deemed questionable.

I really do have no more to say on the subject - I've said everything I have to say many times in the past - but I would ask why it is that you so idolise the man that you take any comments against him as a personal slight on you?

[Devonian]

No, Dev, it's not "that old bone again". I was happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but you asked a question and I gave an answer.

The hockey stick does not stand as an honest, thorough scientific work - while its conclusions have been broadly accepted (though with increasing lack of certainty the further back in time it extends), the actual methods have been deemed questionable.

I really do have no more to say on the subject - I've said everything I have to say many times in the past - but I would ask why it is that you so idolise the man that you take any comments against him as a personal slight on you?

I don't.

[Methuselah]

CB. Accusations of 'idolatry' will get you nowhere!

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB. Accusations of 'idolatry' will get you nowhere!

Nothing wrong with a bit of idolatry - so long as one explains the motivation behind it...!

CB