Climate Change Skeptics

[kiteless]

Just out of curiosity, is there a comprehensive list of organisations / scientists that do not subscribe to AGW?

Help / links appreciated.

[b2hbm]

there was a documentary a few years back on C4 which listed several eminent guys who disagreed with the GW movement, several of which had their work discounted because it didn't fit in with the popular opinion.

this site has a reasonable collection, although whether you consider these as eminent in their field is up to you. But worth reading just to get another side of the argument.

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Debate.h...

[groucho]

I have a PHD in drinking and I know MMGW is bullst. What I hear you say, drinking, I think it gives me the same right as all the other non climate scientists spouting their crap, like the mightybrands, to air my view.

Edited by groucho on Saturday 24th October 12:15

[ShadownINja]

There's an independent version of the IPCC. Can't for the life of me remember the organisation's name, though. Loads of scientists, no government bodies.

[Exploding Fist]

Just a quick one.

MMGW = Man Made Global Warming

AGW = ?

[VxDuncan]

Exploding Fist said:

Just a quick one.

MMGW = Man Made Global Warming

AGW = ?

Anthropomorphic Global Warming (ie man made!)

[ludo]

VxDuncan said:

Exploding Fist said:

Just a quick one.

MMGW = Man Made Global Warming

AGW = ?

Anthropomorphic Global Warming (ie man made!)

should be anthropogenic rather than anthropomorphic, but man made indeed.

It doesn't really matter how many skeptics there are, or who they are, what matters is whether the science basis of their argument is correct. In some cases the answer is yes (e.g. climate sensitivity is not well understood) in others it is no (e.g. is the rise in CO2 anthropogenic or natural).

Do indeed check out both sides of the argument, but do check out sceptic claims at skepticalscience.com as a lot of them are canards that are well known to be faulty.

[DieselGriff]

ludo said:

It doesn't really matter how many skeptics there are, or who they are, what matters is whether the science basis of their argument is correct.

Well it does when when we hear about a consensus and that the science is settled.

This is a link to the The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

[ludo]

DieselGriff said:

ludo said:

It doesn't really matter how many skeptics there are, or who they are, what matters is whether the science basis of their argument is correct.

Well it does when when we hear about a consensus and that the science is settled.

This is a link to the The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

Firstly, the broad (though not complete) concensus of scientists (particularly climatologists) is inline with the findings of the IPCC report, however that doesn't make the IPCC report correct (ETA: just to clarify that, it makes it more likely to be correct, for every Gallileo there are hundreds or thousands of misguided or incompetent scientists who think they have proved everybody wrong, but are simply mistaken. However the IPCC report is not proved right by the support of the majority, it can only be argued that it is right on the strength of the argument), secondly, if you actually read the IPCC report, they discuss the uncertainties in considerable detail, even if the politicians, activists and bloggers don't.

Edited by ludo on Saturday 24th October 15:08

[jeebus]

See here
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

[mybrainhurts]

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics


Got it...?

[Parrot of Doom]

mybrainhurts said:

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics


Got it...?

c1575 G. BUCHANAN Let. to Randolph Vernac. Writ. (S.T.S.) 57, I can not tak you for ane Stoik philosopher..or ane cairless [margin skeptik] hart that taks cuccaldris as thyng indifferent. 1598 MARSTON Sco. Villanie I. i. 174 Fye Gallus, what, a Skeptick Pyrrhomist [sic]? 1654 WHITLOCK Zootomia 221 Calling..humble Ductility after further Reason, and Discovery, Sceptick Inconstancy. 1709 SHAFTESBURY Moralists I. ii. 27 Using a known Sceptick Privilege, and asserting strenuously the Cause I have hitherto oppos'd. 1839 Morn. Herald 14 Sept., The sceptic geologists of the British Association. 1865 W. G. PALGRAVE Arabia II. 3 Free from the sceptic distrustfulness..so common.

No, not quite.

[mybrainhurts]

Parrot of Doom said:

mybrainhurts said:

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics

Sceptics


Got it...?

c1575 G. BUCHANAN Let. to Randolph Vernac. Writ. (S.T.S.) 57, I can not tak you for ane Stoik philosopher..or ane cairless [margin skeptik] hart that taks cuccaldris as thyng indifferent. 1598 MARSTON Sco. Villanie I. i. 174 Fye Gallus, what, a Skeptick Pyrrhomist [sic]? 1654 WHITLOCK Zootomia 221 Calling..humble Ductility after further Reason, and Discovery, Sceptick Inconstancy. 1709 SHAFTESBURY Moralists I. ii. 27 Using a known Sceptick Privilege, and asserting strenuously the Cause I have hitherto oppos'd. 1839 Morn. Herald 14 Sept., The sceptic geologists of the British Association. 1865 W. G. PALGRAVE Arabia II. 3 Free from the sceptic distrustfulness..so common.

No, not quite.

MODERN English v Americanese...

Thou art an bloody dinosaur, oh myghtey Paffot...

[Eric Mc]

Log on to BBC iPlayer now and listen to Clive James' recent broadcast "A Point of View" on the inherent worth of scepticism to democracy - including its value in the Climate Change debate.

Very interesting - and another exanple of how BBC Radio 4 does seem to be ploughing a different furrow to mainstream BBC TV.

[mybrainhurts]

Eric Mc said:

Log on to BBC iPlayer now and listen to Clive James' recent broadcast "A Point of View" on the inherent worth of scepticism to democracy - including its value in the Climate Change debate.

Very interesting - and another exanple of how BBC Radio 4 does seem to be ploughing a different furrow to mainstream BBC TV.

Not sure about that...

Every time I hear the subject come up on R4, they're firmly on the wrong side.

The only exception I can recall was a Moral Maze when Melanie Phillips ripped the smug veneer off George Monbiot...

Which made my year....

[ludo]

Eric Mc said:

Log on to BBC iPlayer now and listen to Clive James' recent broadcast "A Point of View" on the inherent worth of scepticism to democracy - including its value in the Climate Change debate.

it is indeed valuable, which is why it is important to prevent skeptics from trotting out bogus scientific arguments (such as the rise in CO2 is not of anthropogenic origin, or global warming since 1998) that weaken their case. It is good that there are skeptics, but that doesn't mean they don't need to get the science right as well.

[mybrainhurts]

ludo said:

Eric Mc said:

Log on to BBC iPlayer now and listen to Clive James' recent broadcast "A Point of View" on the inherent worth of scepticism to democracy - including its value in the Climate Change debate.

it is indeed valuable, which is why it is important to prevent skeptics from trotting out bogus scientific arguments (such as the rise in CO2 is not of anthropogenic origin, or global warming since 1998) that weaken their case. It is good that there are skeptics, but that doesn't mean they don't need to get the science right as well.

Oi, loods.....SCEPTICS

You're not a Yank are you...?

And a quick question, if I may...

How are you going to amuse yourself when this bks is finally laid to rest...?

[ludo]

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

Eric Mc said:

Log on to BBC iPlayer now and listen to Clive James' recent broadcast "A Point of View" on the inherent worth of scepticism to democracy - including its value in the Climate Change debate.

it is indeed valuable, which is why it is important to prevent skeptics from trotting out bogus scientific arguments (such as the rise in CO2 is not of anthropogenic origin, or global warming since 1998) that weaken their case. It is good that there are skeptics, but that doesn't mean they don't need to get the science right as well.

Oi, loods.....SCEPTICS

You're not a Yank are you...?

And a quick question, if I may...

How are you going to amuse yourself when this bks is finally laid to rest...?

you are right, when the sceptics bogus arguments are finally laid to rest, I will have to find something else to do.

[mybrainhurts]

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

Eric Mc said:

Log on to BBC iPlayer now and listen to Clive James' recent broadcast "A Point of View" on the inherent worth of scepticism to democracy - including its value in the Climate Change debate.

it is indeed valuable, which is why it is important to prevent skeptics from trotting out bogus scientific arguments (such as the rise in CO2 is not of anthropogenic origin, or global warming since 1998) that weaken their case. It is good that there are skeptics, but that doesn't mean they don't need to get the science right as well.

Oi, loods.....SCEPTICS

You're not a Yank are you...?

And a quick question, if I may...

How are you going to amuse yourself when this bks is finally laid to rest...?

you are right, when the sceptics bogus arguments are finally laid to rest, I will have to find something else to do.

There you go, misquoting again...you are a one

Is this you, by any chance...?

[ludo]

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

Eric Mc said:

Log on to BBC iPlayer now and listen to Clive James' recent broadcast "A Point of View" on the inherent worth of scepticism to democracy - including its value in the Climate Change debate.

it is indeed valuable, which is why it is important to prevent skeptics from trotting out bogus scientific arguments (such as the rise in CO2 is not of anthropogenic origin, or global warming since 1998) that weaken their case. It is good that there are skeptics, but that doesn't mean they don't need to get the science right as well.

Oi, loods.....SCEPTICS

You're not a Yank are you...?

And a quick question, if I may...

How are you going to amuse yourself when this bks is finally laid to rest...?

you are right, when the sceptics bogus arguments are finally laid to rest, I will have to find something else to do.

There you go, misquoting again...you are a one

no misquoting, as AGW wasn't mentioned in either post and we had been discussing sceptics, what else could this bks refer to?

mybrainhurts said:

Is this you, by any chance...?