http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO-s_YUZ5O8 haha doh!

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

http://online.wsj.com/article/ ... 04574571613215771336.html

Great article from Mike Humle there. Imo those other reporters really need to do a bit more homework and interview someone other than the very scientists centred around this controversy.

The Nature editorial is very scary and reveals much about its own political/ideological biases (this is supposed to be a reputable scientific journal after all). 'Scientists' vs 'deniers'? Pffft.. if only it were that simple.


edit: http://online.wsj.com/video/cl ... CD-A0F1-FFE48154E5F4.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/ ... 04574572091993737848.html


edit2:

Quote :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO-s_YUZ5O8 haha doh!

That guy does sound like an a**hole

I don't think this has been covered here yet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8387737.stm

The IPCC's information, which it admits was never subjected to peer review (despite this being the IPCC's mandate) and was based on very loose journal reports, has been found to be exceedingly inaccurate.

Despite this, Rajendra Pachauri (head of the IPCC) says the IPCC conclusion is accurate, and that the date (2035 stated in the IPCC report vs. 2350 in the scientific study) doesn't need revisiting.

This from the man at the IPCC that says that climate science from the UEA CRU is robustly unbiased.

Quote from Intrepid :

I just don't like having to pay for it.

Don't pay for it then. You have a choice. Make one.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200 ... mategates-hidden-decline/

That's probably the best visual and textual analysis of what's been going on that I've seen so far. Great read.

Cheers Sam

Here's one for fun...


'Climate Change linked to fish aggression'

Quote :

Warmer ocean temperatures caused by global warming could cause sharks and other fish to become more aggressive, according to a new Australian study.
Research conducted by the University of New South Wales found that a slight lift in water temperatures — just two or three degrees — can cause some fish to become up to 30 times more aggressive than they normally would be.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/wor ... hange-could-enrage-sharks

Quote :

The studies were conducted on young damsel fish

:goldfish:

Bwahaha!!

oh bloody hell

Quote from tristancliffe :

Don't pay for it then. You have a choice. Make one.

I can not wait for the day they impose an Internet Licence! See how you like it then!

Quote from Intrepid :

I can not wait for the day they impose an Internet Licence! See how you like it then!

What charitable ISP gives you free Internet access?

Daniel Hannan: Climategate: Green activist at ... ing conspiracy theorists

Quote from amp88 :

What charitable ISP gives you free Internet access?

Well I can choose which ISP I use. it's a service where competition is fruitful and we have reaped the benefits. A private service is considerably different to a public one. An ISP is NEEDED to access the internet whereas a TV licence is not 'needed' technologically speaking (not legally speaking) to access TV broadcasts.

However paying a licence which then funds a Internet regulator as well as broadcaster that monopolises the web would be a totally whole new ball game I am sure many of you wouldn't be happy about. Unless you want all your blogs regulated like TV news stations?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8396579.stm

"It's quite tough to put a news story together on this issue" That's the excuse! lol Fairplay highlighting the issue on Newswatch, but who really watches Newswatch? No one! Also highlighting a "full range of opinion"... bollox do they! But interesting to see the BBC behaving like the slimy organisation they really are.

It's been...2 weeks?

Population in general is certainly not aware of this (Not a SINGLE mention of it in the mass media(mainly TV here) here in French Canada, I only found a couple of newspaper editorials).

Our leaders and/or their close advisors certainly are though..you guys think this will affect in any way the outcome of Copenhagen ?

I think it will probably prevent a legally binding commitment being agreed, yes.

The emails and documents don't prove that the theory of man-made global warming (or "climate change" as it's now being termed, since the global warming trend has now vanished) is a hoax. What is implicit, though, is that the science behind the theory is not "settled", as is insisted upon by Al Gore, Gordon Brown, and many climatologists.

Also implicit is that there needs to be a review of the scientific process behind climate study, to ensure that: where evidence doesn't suit the theory then the theory is discarded; when evidence is "unhelpful", it is not discarded or concealed, and; that both the scientific methodology employed in theses and also the post-conclusion peer review process are open and transparent, not guarded incestuously by the scientists performing the scientific research.

There are many ripples through the broader scientific community in reaction to the revelations about the science of climatology, mostly regarding the peer review process. It seems clear that many scientists are concerned that confidence in their own reputations as scientists could be undermined by the standard of "settled" science of climatology. There's a real potential for the "scientist" to become a source of mockery all down the cynical side of community, and so I'm anticipating reviews in many "seats of learning" to be subject to critical review and change, where necessary, to bolster practices of transparency, evidential support/data availability and reinforced and vigorous peer-review mechanisms.

Scientists do generally pride themselves on the distinction between science and religion - Galilean principles, in other words - and anything that blurs that distinction (faith without proof of AGW) will be regarded as a top priority to address.

Well, that's how I see it all falling back to earth, anyway

Quote from SamH :

I think it will probably prevent a legally binding commitment being agreed, yes.

The emails and documents don't prove that the theory of man-made global warming (or "climate change" as it's now being termed, since the global warming trend has now vanished) is a hoax. What is implicit, though, is that the science behind the theory is not "settled", as is insisted upon by Al Gore, Gordon Brown, and many climatologists.

Also implicit is that there needs to be a review of the scientific process behind climate study, to ensure that: where evidence doesn't suit the theory then the theory is discarded; when evidence is "unhelpful", it is not discarded or concealed, and; that both the scientific methodology employed in theses and also the post-conclusion peer review process are open and transparent, not guarded incestuously by the scientists performing the scientific research.

There are many ripples through the broader scientific community in reaction to the revelations about the science of climatology, mostly regarding the peer review process. It seems clear that many scientists are concerned that confidence in their own reputations as scientists could be undermined by the standard of "settled" science of climatology. There's a real potential for the "scientist" to become a source of mockery all down the cynical side of community, and so I'm anticipating reviews in many "seats of learning" to be subject to critical review and change, where necessary, to bolster practices of transparency, evidential support/data availability and reinforced and vigorous peer-review mechanisms.

Scientists do generally pride themselves on the distinction between science and religion - Galilean principles, in other words - and anything that blurs that distinction (faith without proof of AGW) will be regarded as a top priority to address.

Well, that's how I see it all falling back to earth, anyway

I'll agree with this.

Quote from SamH :

Scientists do generally pride themselves on the distinction between science and religion - Galilean principles, in other words - and anything that blurs that distinction (faith without proof of AGW) will be regarded as a top priority to address.

it's a shame that certain media outlets and organisations have chosen to ignore that

Quote from SamH :

I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smells of elderberries.

http://www.duke.edu/~rfb/palace/wavs/fartu.wav

Had to do it.

I've added a poll to the thread. I'm curious to know where people are with the science behind the AGW theory.

Please note that it's a public poll. We're all friends so there's no need to be shy.