What happened to global warming then?

[threebikesmcginty]

Anybody read "The Delinquent Teenager"?

Haven't read it but I was one.

 

[benb]

There may be groups trying as you state, but I got the impression that the main argument of people like Mr McIntyre is not that the proposition of man made climate change is definitiely wrong, but that the evidence is far from clear, & in fact sometimes looks a bit dodgy. The antics of some researchers in the field give weight to this suggestion. It needs more research, with greater scruitiny and open-ness.
Meanwhile, just to be on the safe side it certainly would be wise to start reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which will run out one day anyway, and start building a few more nuclear power stations. Then we can start worrying about global cooling.

I just don't think that's true. There are thousands of scientists in the field, publishing hundreds of thousands of papers on the subject. There would be considerable fame and notoriety for the individuals if they could produce firm evidence that man made climate change is not happening, and there are few things scientists love more than proving other scientists wrong. So far, the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the prevailing scientific consensus. We should always be open to new evidence that challenges or overturns our existing theories, but none has been forthcoming.

 

[marinyork]

Absolutely, but there's this quite important thing called evidence in science. There are many groups trying desperately to prove man made climate change wrong, but they have been unable to, as the evidence is clear. I don't think your statement above accurately reflects what's actually happening in climate science, but is a caricature promoted by people who don't want it to be true.

His statement doesn't accurately reflect the general consensus on neutrinos or research into why OPERA may have been wrong (which he has omitted on multiple occasions).

 

[upandover]

Science is not, as Einstein remarked, democratic. There have been many times in history where all the experts were wrong and one person was right. Not saying that is the case here but I am very concerned at the herd mindset of the climate change grouping which does not tolerate dissent. That is bad science which should be continually looking for the evidence that disproves the hypothesis, not seeking to ridicule it.

It seems to be true that some scientists are reacting Strongly to those seeking to discredit them (at all costs it would seem). That's not the same though as what you're saying. You don,t have to go far (read the new scientist occassionally for example) to see that what is understood is constantly being probed, checked, changed in different ways and questioned again.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I'm too tired to read that properly just now but I seen one word, two actually which would make me take it with a pinch of salt 'Daily Mail'.

It was this that caught my eye:

So far there is no evidence of this happening

Slow news day?

 

[brokenflipflop]

It doesn't matter. The world will end when God says it will, like a thief in the night.

 

[2Loose]

I just don't think that's true. There are thousands of scientists in the field, publishing hundreds of thousands of papers on the subject. There would be considerable fame and notoriety for the individuals if they could produce firm evidence that man made climate change is not happening, and there are few things scientists love more than proving other scientists wrong. So far, the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the prevailing scientific consensus. We should always be open to new evidence that challenges or overturns our existing theories, but none has been forthcoming.

The evidence is definitely there, but it has been obfuscated and generally misrepresented not only by some of the scientists themselves, but by organisations keen to cast doubt over the findings, such as the fossil fuel \ motor industry.

'Climategate' showed that some scientists don't follow the methodolgies that you'd expect them to follow...

 

[benb]

The evidence is definitely there, but it has been obfuscated and generally misrepresented not only by some of the scientists themselves, but by organisations keen to cast doubt over the findings, such as the fossil fuel \ motor industry.

'Climategate' showed that some scientists don't follow the methodolgies that you'd expect them to follow...

I think you could look at any area and find examples of dodgy methodology, publication bias, and, occasionally, outright fraud. These are usually exposed by other scientists. (did I mention they love proving other scientists wrong?)

I don't follow how some people go from that to dismissing a whole area of research, with literally thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of scientific papers published.

 

[Chromatic]

There has always been climate change, and there always will be.
CO2 driven global warming is bollocks, it may have a very tiny contributory effect but CO2 being the source of climate change is nonsense.

 

[benb]

There has always been climate change, and there always will be.
CO2 driven global warming is bollocks, it may have a very tiny contributory effect but CO2 being the source of climate change is nonsense.

And how have you come to this conclusion?

 

[Ian H]

A reasonably balanced report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807

 

[ASC1951]

There has always been climate change, and there always will be.

So?

CO2 driven global warming is bollocks, it may have a very tiny contributory effect but CO2 being the source of climate change is nonsense.

The strong consensus of several thousand well qualified scientists all over the world is that you are wrong. But don't let that influence you.

 

[iLB]

it's quite cold out today, must be true

 

[Archie_tect]

The reason I get tired of having the evidence brought up all the time is that nobody has the power to do what needs doing because the cost of doing what's needed, and the political clout to do it, is beyond one nation and one continent- even when/if the problem becomes terminal- and even then fatalists will happily run with it. Short-term solutions won't cut it- but politicians won't sanction long-term master plans... they certainly can't propose the control of the world's population.

The consequences of climate change will positively benefit some parts of the Earth, so what do those who fiercely promote the evidence propose we can do?

As an architect the sphere of influence I have is limited to educating my clients and everyone I meet to reduce energy use, reduce carbon emissions and reduce waste, re-use and recycle.

 

[2Loose]

...
I don't follow how some people go from that to dismissing a whole area of research, with literally thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of scientific papers published.

Don't even start thinking about the Creationists...