Re: Global warming
 

None of which (including my own comments re Monckton & Booker) actually *means* anything.

I know that you are able to be persuaded, as am I, to the opposite view. Unfortunately the internet makes it possible for innumerable myths to be circulated until they become facts - regardless of the facts. Basically the whole thing has become unmanageable.

Re: Global warming
 

Again I agree with you Wol.

I cannot however condone this government giving credence to a body like IPCC who has a liar and a fraud as its head. that is inexcusable.

We need to dismantle the now discredited IPCC and Climate research Unit, and start again with a completely clean sheet, this time dealing with facts.

It appears to me that we have wasted the last 20 years on listening to a bunch of fools. We are no nearer to understanding global temperature fluctuations than we were in 1990, and that is a tragedy for all concerned.

Re: Global warming
 

Ohhh Dear, its getting worse for the IPCC. :(

Yesterdays newspapers report that the IPCC report section on observed reductions in mountain ice 1900-200 in the Andes, Alps and Africa was based upon anecdotal evidence given in a 2002 issue of Climbing magazine.

God knows how that was reviewed. And how on earth can you have anecdotal evidence of 1900 mountain ice coverage?

Re: Global warming
 

You're beginning to sound as if you believe the newspapers :blink:

Re: Global warming
 

Unlike the IPCC and CRU I normally check my facts before commenting.:D

As of yet I haven’t found the relevant section, so I just said “newspaper reports”.

Anyway, I am busy writing an IPCC paper on global warming based upon Thompson holiday brochures – did you know Alicante is warm and sunny? I can’t find any brochures prior to 1960, so it must have been ice covered back then.

Damn this Global Warming. :rofl:

Re: Global warming
 

I find this whole business very disturbing. In particular the financial irregularities of the IPPC chairman in relation to his own personal gain from false data is unpalatable.

I only hope that the general public are able to read and think about what they are being sold here.

Re: Global warming
 

I agree, incidents like this damage the 'real science' being undertaken in relation to climate change and only serves to feed the sceptics.

Re: Global warming
 

Sadly Centurion, this is going to reflect upon the entire scientific community.

Looking back, it had to happen. Scientists were just about the last “trustworthy” body of educated people.

The police are outed as corrupt.
Judges and Magistrates go to jail for perjury.
Doctors lie about qualifications, and take money from drug companies.
Lawyers – well, no point in going on about lawyers, we lost respectt for them years ago.

But scientists were trusted and respected. They were scrupulous, open, unbiased and trustworthy.

Now all will be tainted by the IPCC brush. :(

Re: Global warming
 

The problem is that the Real Science is as yet inconclusive. That is why they added this crap into the IPCCC reports to give it gravity.

If you take this fake science out, there isn’t any evidence of warming and the whole argument falls flat on its face.

Re: Global warming
 

That's a bit of an unfounded sweeping statement.

Re: Global warming
 

More bad science by the IPCC:

An extract from Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the Glacier claims are made:

“Up to 40%of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”

Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp.

http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publi...rest_fires.pdf.

The data came from a totally unscientific document by the WWF, who are an environmental advocacy group.

It was NOT peer reviewed.

Interesting to also note that a lot of the documents referenced by links in the IPCC reports are suddenly vanishing from the internet, as the panic sets in.

We can NEVER allow this to happen again ......

Re: Global warming
 

I fear that you are beginning to undermine the case against the IPCC reports.

Again, your quote has nothing to do with the underlying science making the case for warming: it is to do with *effects* of any warming. It may or may not be peer reviewed but it is still peripheral and not actually part of the argument.

Re: Global warming
 

The problem is the complexity of measuring the temperature of an entire planet over a 2000 year period and demonstrating that a slight anomaly in the last 20 years is caused by man made influences.

Measuring the temperature of the entire planet today (1st Feb 2010) is incredibly complex. I seriously doubt that we have the facilities to produce anything more than an estimated temperature. Our measuring instruments are affected by so many factors that we have to constantly adjust and modify them to make any sense of the data.

To them compare today’s temperature to even 10 years ago is a total nightmare. The environmental conditions and circumstances of most of the instruments has changed even in that time. Added to that we need to know EXACTLY what adjustments and modifications were made today and 10 years ago ,and then decide if those adjustments need replicating.

Go back further than 10 years and the accuracy of the measuring instruments has to be factored in.

Remeber we are talking percentages of a degree here.....

Go back 2000 years and its impossible to determine if the planet has warmed or not.

Add in the thermal anomalies in a planets temperature caused by random non man made effects, and what you are left with is just a jumble of data that doesn’t prove or indicate anything.

Trust me, I have masses of this data on my servers at home, and i trawl though it looking for patterns (Hey – I want a Nobel Prize). There simply isn’t any evidence of man made warming of the planet.

That does NOT mean that the plant isn’t warming, or that the warming (if it exists) is caused by man. What is does mean is we cant prove it, or even work out a way to prove it.

Re: Global warming
 

You have been through all of the data and can categorically say there is no evidence of man made warming?

Re: Global warming
 

Wol, let me make this incredibly clear....

THERE IS NO UNDERLYING SCIENCE MAKING THE CASE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

There is a theory that man has introduced CO2 into that atmosphere to the extent that it will trap sufficient sunlight to increase the temperature of the planet.

That is just one of a million speculative theories existentent in the scientific, environmental and crackpot communities.

Other theories include life after death (believed by more people than AGW) time travel, alien life forms, Marxism, etc.

Speculating a theory doesn’t make a case. Scientific evidence does that, unless you are the IPCC when any old junk you find in discarded WWF magazines will do.