Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[elster]

Somewhatfoolish said:

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

What about the scientists who say it is not AGW? Are they not doing the science properly? Are they fiddling figures?

The answer is you don't know, I don't know and no one knows. There are only theories. It doesn't mean either is fact.

I would be all for sensible solutions for renewable energy and invest heavily in research over the myth of wind being a viable long term solution for large scale energy production.

[ludo]

Jinx said:

ludo said:

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

Erm not all of us on this forum have V8s and sub 20 mpg fuel consumption.

You don't have to have a V8 not to want higher taxes or constraints on your driving such as speed limit restrictions. I don't want speed limit restrictions either, but I don't let that get in the way of a clear view of the science (I am not too bothered about the taxes, the burden of taxation should fall on the broadest shoulders).

[chris watton]

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

This ‘anti-science’ is quite heartbreaking to watch, I genuinely feel ashamed to part of this society that is so manipulative and corrupt on virtually every level.

[Phil1]

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

It 's actually quite sad. If the warmists would stop pushing catastrophe tales to further their own careers and line their own pockets we could put the funding towards something worthwhile.

[s2art]

ludo said:

Jinx said:

ludo said:

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

Erm not all of us on this forum have V8s and sub 20 mpg fuel consumption.

You don't have to have a V8 not to want higher taxes or constraints on your driving such as speed limit restrictions. I don't want speed limit restrictions either, but I don't let that get in the way of a clear view of the science (I am not too bothered about the taxes, the burden of taxation should fall on the broadest shoulders).

Then you should be outraged at the paucity and lack of effort that went into the report. Approx 3 weeks, a 5 page report, a handful of papers examined, no investigation into the critics claims etc etc.

Even then the stats man was unhappy with what he found. Perhaps a real investigation could have put everyones mind at rest.

[ludo]

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

Yes, uncritically accepting papers like Essenhigh (that should set s2art off) when they are easily demonstrated to be incorrect just marginalises the sceptics out of the debate. They should show some actual skepticism, such a Spencer repeating the work of Linzen and Choi and finding that the results are not robust and don't apply to the CMIP models actually used to make projections. Anyone using Lindzen and Choi to criticize the IPCC projections is just identifying themselves as clueless and uncritical, when they should be talking about genuinely uncertain issues such as climate sensitivity.

I've tried to do my bit to get that across here, but it really isn't worth the bother.

[Somewhatfoolish]

chris watton said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

This ‘anti-science’ is quite heartbreaking to watch, I genuinely feel ashamed to part of this society that is so manipulative and corrupt on virtually every level.

Personally I suggest we do absolutely nothing until we start seeing serious effects, then deal with them. Same as we would do if we had no way of investigating the climate at all.

[esselte]

s2art said:

ludo said:

Jinx said:

ludo said:

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

Erm not all of us on this forum have V8s and sub 20 mpg fuel consumption.

You don't have to have a V8 not to want higher taxes or constraints on your driving such as speed limit restrictions. I don't want speed limit restrictions either, but I don't let that get in the way of a clear view of the science (I am not too bothered about the taxes, the burden of taxation should fall on the broadest shoulders).

Then you should be outraged at the paucity and lack of effort that went into the report. Approx 3 weeks, a 5 page report, a handful of papers examined, no investigation into the critics claims etc etc.

Even then the stats man was unhappy with what he found. Perhaps a real investigation could have put everyones mind at rest.

Do you think the university wanted it's famous CRU to be properly investigated..?

[ludo]

chris watton said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

I hate to tell you this, but the science isn't affected by economics or the IMF. If you don't want action taken for economic reasons, make an economic argument, rather that making a bogus scientific one.

[s2art]

ludo said:

Yes, uncritically accepting papers like Essenhigh (that should set s2art off) when they are easily demonstrated to be incorrect.

LOL! Then why havent you done so? Much easier to demonstrate the IPCC assumptions to be incorrect by just examining the atmospheric isotope profile.

[Le TVR]

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

[Somewhatfoolish]

ludo said:

chris watton said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

I hate to tell you this, but the science isn't affected by economics or the IMF. If you don't want action taken for economic reasons, make an economic argument, rather that making a bogus scientific one.

Dismal scientists

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

Yes, uncritically accepting papers like Essenhigh (that should set s2art off) when they are easily demonstrated to be incorrect.

LOL! Then why havent you done so? Much easier to demonstrate the IPCC assumptions to be incorrect by just examining the atmospheric isotope profile.

s2art, the atmospheric isotope profile is in accordance with the IPCCs assumptions on residence time. The trouble is that the rise and fall of atmospheric concentrations is not determined by the residence time, but the adjustment time. They are not the same thing, but Essenhigh doesn't understand that and neither apparently do you.

[esselte]

Somewhatfoolish said:

chris watton said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

This ‘anti-science’ is quite heartbreaking to watch, I genuinely feel ashamed to part of this society that is so manipulative and corrupt on virtually every level.

Personally I suggest we do absolutely nothing until we start seeing serious effects, then deal with them. Same as we would do if we had no way of investigating the climate at all.

What effects are we seeing now that can be attributed to AGW?

[Somewhatfoolish]

esselte said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

chris watton said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

This ‘anti-science’ is quite heartbreaking to watch, I genuinely feel ashamed to part of this society that is so manipulative and corrupt on virtually every level.

Personally I suggest we do absolutely nothing until we start seeing serious effects, then deal with them. Same as we would do if we had no way of investigating the climate at all.

What effects are we seeing now that can be attributed to AGW?

I'm not getting involved in that argument

[esselte]

Somewhatfoolish said:

esselte said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

chris watton said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

This ‘anti-science’ is quite heartbreaking to watch, I genuinely feel ashamed to part of this society that is so manipulative and corrupt on virtually every level.

Personally I suggest we do absolutely nothing until we start seeing serious effects, then deal with them. Same as we would do if we had no way of investigating the climate at all.

What effects are we seeing now that can be attributed to AGW?

I'm not getting involved in that argument

But that's the crux isn't it?

[Oakey]

Le TVR said:

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

Trillions.

[Somewhatfoolish]

esselte said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

esselte said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

chris watton said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.

So tell me, what do you think the UK should do to ‘combat climate change’, as it is virtually bankrupt, bereft of any real heavy manufacturing base, and is living off the never never from the IMF?

This ‘anti-science’ is quite heartbreaking to watch, I genuinely feel ashamed to part of this society that is so manipulative and corrupt on virtually every level.

Personally I suggest we do absolutely nothing until we start seeing serious effects, then deal with them. Same as we would do if we had no way of investigating the climate at all.

What effects are we seeing now that can be attributed to AGW?

I'm not getting involved in that argument

But that's the crux isn't it?

No, actually, it isn't. That's my most important point. The crux is what we should be doing about it, and denying an incredibly strong consensus is just handing control over to.. I believe the term is watermelons (green on outside, red in the centre)... and that could be irreperable.

Ultimately we're going to need to master geo-engineering/terraforming anyway when the sun starts turning into a red giant, might as well start practicing on earth...

[Somewhatfoolish]

Oakey said:

Le TVR said:

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

Trillions.

Bullst.

[ludo]

Le TVR said:

ludo said:

the science isn't affected by economics

So just how much is carbon trading worth then??

Science isn't affected by economics, but one would hope that the economics were affected by the science.