Climate Change is here and man made

[Innsbruckblue]

It's all a conspiracy by the developed nations to limit the economic growth of less developed nations.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Spoilsport! I haven't even asked any of the climate change deniers if they also deny evolution by natural selection yet...

What, exactly, do climate change deniers 'deny'?

 

[Chancy Termites]

I get the basic premise of how more CO2 could lead to increase in temperature - the idea makes sense.

What made me question it was when the uni of East Anglia got hacked a few years ago and their meteorology team or whatevers' emails were leaked. It painted them in a terrible light and seemed pretty clear to me that they were starting from the point of view that they had a conclusion, namely humans are causing the temperature to rise, and then they were looking for data to shoe-horn in to fit that conclusion. All in all they didn't appear to be behaving like "scientists" and it put me right off.

Then, when looking at other surveys, I can't help but got the impression that many studies start off by coming up with reasons to revise old data down, and new data up, before finding that temperatures are rising. If it's true, then why bugger about with the figures like that?

 

[Damocles]

What made me question it was when the uni of East Anglia got hacked a few years ago and their meteorology team or whatevers' emails were leaked. It painted them in a terrible light and seemed pretty clear to me that they were starting from the point of view that they had a conclusion, namely humans are causing the temperature to rise, and then they were looking for data to shoe-horn in to fit that conclusion. All in all they didn't appear to be behaving like "scientists" and it put me right off.

They were hilarious misquoted, completely out of context.

Give me 10000 emails of yours in a searchable format and I can prove you're a Neo Nazi, a left wing lunatic or a Martian

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

 

[blueish swede]

Or all three

 

[stonerblue]

It's all a conspiracy by the developed nations to limit the economic growth of less developed nations.

Of course it is. I mean why would big oil, big energy, big motor, big food, big tobacco, big mineral etc etc want the less developed nations to start developing ? And we know how governments really hate big business and will do anything to stop them growing eh?

 

[Innsbruckblue]

Of course it is. I mean why would big oil, big energy, big motor, big food, big tobacco, big mineral etc etc want the less developed nations to start developing ? And we know how governments really hate big business and will do anything to stop them growing eh?

I see you completely misunderstood my point

 

[kas_tippler]

that's my bit done for man made climate change, now where's my grant?

 

[Vincents Tackle]

Every day when I take my recycling out I look up at the cloudy sky where the sun is supposed to be and with a cheeky smile on my face I say "I'm winning this battle". Then I get into my car and drive the 5 minute journey to work.

 

[kas_tippler]

I get the basic premise of how more CO2 could lead to increase in temperature - the idea makes sense.

What made me question it was when the uni of East Anglia got hacked a few years ago and their meteorology team or whatevers' emails were leaked. It painted them in a terrible light and seemed pretty clear to me that they were starting from the point of view that they had a conclusion, namely humans are causing the temperature to rise, and then they were looking for data to shoe-horn in to fit that conclusion. All in all they didn't appear to be behaving like "scientists" and it put me right off.

Then, when looking at other surveys, I can't help but got the impression that many studies start off by coming up with reasons to revise old data down, and new data up, before finding that temperatures are rising. If it's true, then why bugger about with the figures like that?

If they don't come up with the required results they'll loose funding, its an industry.