Poll: global warming

[Cully]

What a bizarre thread this is turning out to be. There would appear to be a number of posters whose only qualification on the subject of climate change is the speed at which they can google some statement/fact/report/rubbish and then pass judgement on other posters googled facts. I had no idea that we had so many experts on this subject who appear to lead ordinary working lives eg Exile - paper clip salesman and Saigon - professional chicken sexer.


As Saigon quite rightly said, I can't be bothered to waste any time even thinking about something I know nothing about and don't know why anybody else would pretend to claim otherwise.

Embarrassing but entertaining thread. :lol:

My opinion on global warming is available for a small fee.

[SaigonSaddler]

Interesting interview regarding the hacked emails:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ ... dium=email

Superb mate! :mrgreen:

[Neuromantic]

Of course, Data is the most important tool in our armory. I am at a guess as to what statistical methods have been used to say that the null hypothesis (no global warming) is incorrect? Could you enlighten me. All I have seen thus far are correlations and descriptive graphs which do not show causality. I am interested to hear your response

Firstly, the question of 'global warming' or 'no global warming' comes down to probability.

This would be generated by observation and recordings over a wide range of environmental conditions.

Basically, what would happen if the earth was warming/cooling/staying the same.

The mean temperature across the whole world another factor, on land, sea and air. Glaciers, tundra and ice-caps are an obvious environmental factor, sea level rise/fall would be another - these are indicators, incidental factors like weather pattern change, lake level change, desertification, precipation changes etc. Then we would be able to observe if any of these had a change on the living environment - seasonal growing patterns, algal blooms, reef bleaching, changes in wild population ranges and a whole host of other factors, including simple observations, right up to ice core analysis dating back 740,000.

It's safe to say, with complete confidence that these indicators all point to a warming of the earth. The IPCC, most governments, the vast majority of the scientific community agree completely with this. The only people debating this point are internet cranks, sites run by oil companies, the Saudis, a small minority of very vocal sceptics...........and Exile :?

Then the question of what is causing this warming. Scientists in the 1930s thought they had found a connection with the sun and solar activity, some people got excited up until the 1980s, but when the data was reviewed by others and the data largley fell apart and since 1980 the correlation has gone in the wrong direction (there is noneto explain recent warming). The few papers that have tried to show connection have not stood up to examination.

The only clear correlation is with the CO2 in the atmosphere. The science on the CO2 warming connection is definative (yes even at 300 odd PPM) found in 1845 and 1896. CO2 does warm the atmosphere.

Why is mankind the cause? Because we are pumping in extra CO2 that the natural systems don't compensate for. There is a balance in naturally emitted CO2, but we are contributing extra. CO2 is increasing as a result, the earth is warming and we are the cause.

In order to answer the question, warming is beyond reasonable doubt, man's influence is 90% probability according the IPCC.

Now, I haven't linked to any threads to support my statement in this post, but I have to plenty of up to date, relevant and respected findings in the preceeding two pages on this thread which is where I would direct you to now, should you require the scientific evidence of what I've just stated.

Just as I thought no statistical or quantitative basis! All conjecture. If someone says that global warming is happening because of this F statement, or this T - then fair enough - but there is NO causal proof!!

Refuted.

Next please! :P

[SaigonSaddler]

Of course, Data is the most important tool in our armory. I am at a guess as to what statistical methods have been used to say that the null hypothesis (no global warming) is incorrect? Could you enlighten me. All I have seen thus far are correlations and descriptive graphs which do not show causality. I am interested to hear your response

Firstly, the question of 'global warming' or 'no global warming' comes down to probability.

This would be generated by observation and recordings over a wide range of environmental conditions.

Basically, what would happen if the earth was warming/cooling/staying the same.

The mean temperature across the whole world another factor, on land, sea and air. Glaciers, tundra and ice-caps are an obvious environmental factor, sea level rise/fall would be another - these are indicators, incidental factors like weather pattern change, lake level change, desertification, precipation changes etc. Then we would be able to observe if any of these had a change on the living environment - seasonal growing patterns, algal blooms, reef bleaching, changes in wild population ranges and a whole host of other factors, including simple observations, right up to ice core analysis dating back 740,000.

It's safe to say, with complete confidence that these indicators all point to a warming of the earth. The IPCC, most governments, the vast majority of the scientific community agree completely with this. The only people debating this point are internet cranks, sites run by oil companies, the Saudis, a small minority of very vocal sceptics...........and Exile :?

Then the question of what is causing this warming. Scientists in the 1930s thought they had found a connection with the sun and solar activity, some people got excited up until the 1980s, but when the data was reviewed by others and the data largley fell apart and since 1980 the correlation has gone in the wrong direction (there is noneto explain recent warming). The few papers that have tried to show connection have not stood up to examination.

The only clear correlation is with the CO2 in the atmosphere. The science on the CO2 warming connection is definative (yes even at 300 odd PPM) found in 1845 and 1896. CO2 does warm the atmosphere.

Why is mankind the cause? Because we are pumping in extra CO2 that the natural systems don't compensate for. There is a balance in naturally emitted CO2, but we are contributing extra. CO2 is increasing as a result, the earth is warming and we are the cause.

In order to answer the question, warming is beyond reasonable doubt, man's influence is 90% probability according the IPCC.

Now, I haven't linked to any threads to support my statement in this post, but I have to plenty of up to date, relevant and respected findings in the preceeding two pages on this thread which is where I would direct you to now, should you require the scientific evidence of what I've just stated.

Just as I thought no statistical or quantitative basis! All conjecture. If someone says that global warming is happening because of this F statement, or this T - then fair enough - but there is NO causal proof!!

Refuted.

Next please! :P

Jesus H Christ. :lol:

Now, I haven't linked to any threads to support my statement in this post, but I have to plenty of up to date, relevant and respected findings in the preceeding two pages on this thread which is where I would direct you to now, should you require the scientific evidence of what I've just stated

Didn't you read that far? :D

I should say that with both you and sj batting for the other side, concerning some of your bizarre ideas in the past, is only entirely beneficial to our position :wink:

[Neuromantic]

Just one question: Are there Statistical confirmations of Global Warming's causality? Or are they descriptive graphs and correlations? Simple question.. :wink: :wink:

[SaigonSaddler]

Just one question: Are there Statistical confirmations of Global Warming's causality? Or are they descriptive graphs and correlations? Simple question.. :wink: :wink:

Statistical data results in graphs and correlations, so both.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

Also notice, the links are either primary data, and/or extensively referenced to the statements made. I can get hold of many more if you need... :wink:

[canadiansaddler]

Not relevant - but one of my favourite quotes

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

[Ned_Kelly]

The UN secretary-general today called on world leaders for immediate action on climate change - before flying thousands of miles to the US for a music concert and then leaving in the interval to jet to Europe.
:lol: :lol:

Ya gotta love that bit from the top of this link...... http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

[Neuromantic]

Just one question: Are there Statistical confirmations of Global Warming's causality? Or are they descriptive graphs and correlations? Simple question.. :wink: :wink:

Statistical data results in graphs and correlations, so both.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

Also notice, the links are either primary data, and/or extensively referenced to the statements made. I can get hold of many more if you need... :wink:

Ahh so you admit there is NO causal data! Thank you! :mrgreen:

[Pedagogue]

Metfanwy - interesting graphs there. Serious question for you (not a wind-up, I promise) - how do scientists/meteorologists estimate the temperature of hundreds or even thousands of years ago? Is it from the soil, rock strata, very old trees? How accurate are these methods of estimation?

[gerryhatrick]

How accurate are these methods of guesstimation?

[Morty]

Metfanwy - interesting graphs there. Serious question for you (not a wind-up, I promise) - how do scientists/meteorologists estimate the temperature of hundreds or even thousands of years ago? Is it from the soil, rock strata, very old trees? How accurate are these methods of estimation?

Tree rings are often used for the last hundred years or so. Further back, the most usual source is ice cores.

I'm at work at the mo, so shouldn't really spend my time looking for links on the subject - but I'm sure Saigon will have some to hand! ;-)

[aaaae]

What a bizarre thread this is turning out to be. There would appear to be a number of posters whose only qualification on the subject of climate change is the speed at which they can google some statement/fact/report/rubbish and then pass judgement on other posters googled facts. I had no idea that we had so many experts on this subject who appear to lead ordinary working lives eg Exile - paper clip salesman and Saigon - professional chicken sexer.


As Saigon quite rightly said, I can't be bothered to waste any time even thinking about something I know nothing about and don't know why anybody else would pretend to claim otherwise.

Embarrassing but entertaining thread. :lol:

My opinion on global warming is available for a small fee.

Imagine how many posts there would be in UTS (or any football message board for that matter) if people only posted opinions if they held expert qualifications? Perhaps we'd just be left with Pedagogue correcting the grammar of........hang on I can't think of a single thing anyone on here could post on :D

[sj]

What a bizarre thread this is turning out to be. There would appear to be a number of posters whose only qualification on the subject of climate change is the speed at which they can google some statement/fact/report/rubbish and then pass judgement on other posters googled facts. I had no idea that we had so many experts on this subject who appear to lead ordinary working lives eg Exile - paper clip salesman and Saigon - professional chicken sexer.


As Saigon quite rightly said, I can't be bothered to waste any time even thinking about something I know nothing about and don't know why anybody else would pretend to claim otherwise.

Embarrassing but entertaining thread. :lol:

My opinion on global warming is available for a small fee.

Imagine how many posts there would be in UTS (or any football message board for that matter) if people only posted opinions if they held expert qualifications? Perhaps we'd just be left with Pedagogue correcting the grammar of........hang on I can't think of a single thing anyone on here could post on :D

Cully--- crime, that's my specialist subject. :D

[SaigonSaddler]

Just one question: Are there Statistical confirmations of Global Warming's causality? Or are they descriptive graphs and correlations? Simple question.. :wink: :wink:

Statistical data results in graphs and correlations, so both.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

Also notice, the links are either primary data, and/or extensively referenced to the statements made. I can get hold of many more if you need... :wink:

Ahh so you admit there is NO causal data! Thank you! :mrgreen:

Evidence for global warming is overwhelming - agreed?

CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing - agreed?

There is a very close relationship between this warming and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Look in the above links for this evidence.
There has been no relationship between solar activity and warming since 1980.
There is no evidence for aliens controlling the warming process.
Or Atlanteans.
Thank you. :wink:

[SaigonSaddler]

What a bizarre thread this is turning out to be. There would appear to be a number of posters whose only qualification on the subject of climate change is the speed at which they can google some statement/fact/report/rubbish and then pass judgement on other posters googled facts. I had no idea that we had so many experts on this subject who appear to lead ordinary working lives eg Exile - paper clip salesman and Saigon - professional chicken sexer.


As Saigon quite rightly said, I can't be bothered to waste any time even thinking about something I know nothing about and don't know why anybody else would pretend to claim otherwise.

Embarrassing but entertaining thread. :lol:

My opinion on global warming is available for a small fee.

Imagine how many posts there would be in UTS (or any football message board for that matter) if people only posted opinions if they held expert qualifications? Perhaps we'd just be left with Pedagogue correcting the grammar of........hang on I can't think of a single thing anyone on here could post on :D

This a specific scientific question though PJD. Anyone can express their opinions on it, but when statements such as 'it's down to the sun. End of' or 'It's a giant scam', or even 'It's closely linked to CO2 increase' then all of these statements need to be supported. Only the CO2 statement has been backed up thus far.

[SaigonSaddler]

Metfanwy - interesting graphs there. Serious question for you (not a wind-up, I promise) - how do scientists/meteorologists estimate the temperature of hundreds or even thousands of years ago? Is it from the soil, rock strata, very old trees? How accurate are these methods of estimation?

The long term ice core record is perhaps the best evidence.
Duration - up to 800,000 years, I've linked to studies citing 740,000
Delta deuterium data, with more negative results indicating colder temperatures.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Sediment cores going back millions of years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Tree rings, coral growth and isotope variations in ice cores.

All harbour inaccuracies, but they are the best we have, and inaccuracies can be reduced when studies run in tandem and are repeated, as they have been. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

[aaaae]

Interesting comment from someone at the Met Office, in The Times-

"This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings."

Is it me or is that just nuts?

[aaaae]

Interesting comment from someone at the Met Office, in The Times-

"This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings."

Is it me or is that just nuts?

The Times source for this is the comments section of the Daily Mail, so doesn't seem to be very water tight! :roll:

[sj]

Metfanwy - interesting graphs there. Serious question for you (not a wind-up, I promise) - how do scientists/meteorologists estimate the temperature of hundreds or even thousands of years ago? Is it from the soil, rock strata, very old trees? How accurate are these methods of estimation?

The long term ice core record is perhaps the best evidence.
Duration - up to 800,000 years, I've linked to studies citing 740,000
Delta deuterium data, with more negative results indicating colder temperatures.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Sediment cores going back millions of years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Tree rings, coral growth and isotope variations in ice cores.

All harbour inaccuracies, but they are the best we have, and inaccuracies can be reduced when studies run in tandem and are repeated, as they have been. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

Saigon------ but this a football website. Yes we all know one another quite well but is still aint an academic journal.

[Neuromantic]

Just one question: Are there Statistical confirmations of Global Warming's causality? Or are they descriptive graphs and correlations? Simple question.. :wink: :wink:

Statistical data results in graphs and correlations, so both.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

Also notice, the links are either primary data, and/or extensively referenced to the statements made. I can get hold of many more if you need... :wink:

Ahh so you admit there is NO causal data! Thank you! :mrgreen:

Evidence for global warming is overwhelming - agreed?

CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing - agreed?

There is a very close relationship between this warming and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Look in the above links for this evidence.
There has been no relationship between solar activity and warming since 1980.
There is no evidence for aliens controlling the warming process.
Or Atlanteans.
Thank you. :wink:

Agreed and Agreed.

However, if you are scientificaly minded, you would know that there are millions of confounds out there and extraneous variables/interactions. You cannot say it is down to humans from that information - as it is a correlation.

[SaigonSaddler]

Just one question: Are there Statistical confirmations of Global Warming's causality? Or are they descriptive graphs and correlations? Simple question.. :wink: :wink:

Statistical data results in graphs and correlations, so both.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

Also notice, the links are either primary data, and/or extensively referenced to the statements made. I can get hold of many more if you need... :wink:

Ahh so you admit there is NO causal data! Thank you! :mrgreen:

Evidence for global warming is overwhelming - agreed?

CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing - agreed?

There is a very close relationship between this warming and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Look in the above links for this evidence.
There has been no relationship between solar activity and warming since 1980.
There is no evidence for aliens controlling the warming process.
Or Atlanteans.
Thank you. :wink:

Agreed and Agreed.

However, if you are scientificaly minded, you would know that there are millions of confounds out there and extraneous variables/interactions. You cannot say it is down to humans from that information - as it is a correlation.

Something this all-encompassing ie - the earth, environmental processes, measurements of huge data sets over long time spans is all down to probability in the end. In point of fact, that's what all scientific theories boil down to, including Pavlov's salivating dogs responding when a bell rings, gravity, evolution and continental drift.

The probabilities (based on the number of individual studies finding the same results) on this are extremely high due to all the information coming in on (warming) climate change, extremely high for mankind adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere, and very high (90%) as this CO2 being the direct cause. The confounding variables you suggest do not alter these points significantly as the evidence is mutually supporting, can be predicted and can be replicated with similar studies. Eg there are many ice-cores with similar results, there are many temperature measurements on every continent, there are many studies into rising CO2 and corresponding rising temperature.

Specific findings however are easier to classify. If you are suggesting that scientists at this level simply don't know what they are doing, then the reason for peer review is for others to point that out. I'm sure there are many people who would love to do just that. They haven't because they cannot.

Alternative theories - solar variation, massive fraud and anything else as an explanation have much lower probabilities, declining to the utterly absurd in the latter case.

I just follow the weight of the evidence, which is extremely compelling in this case. You may choose to disagree, which is your right.

[Neuromantic]

I couldn't care how much evidence there is, if it doesnt show a probability of less than >.05 then it is not causual evidence. It's just evidence, no causal relationships can be ascertained. I am sure Pedogogogogue would back me up on this!

[SaigonSaddler]

I couldn't care how much evidence there is

Obviously.

Welcome to the wonderful world of undergraduate science. :wink:

[Exile]

Finally, you can vomit up as much rhetoric as you wish, but at this late stage in the global warming debate (the stage when the policy is being made), we really need to see the hard facts of accurate scientific evidence, and not your personal conclusions. You have teased us with a solitary graph in this post, and drawn a lot of inferences from it. Back it up.

...Having started the thread and having vomited up plenty of scientific evidence I now have proof that you don't read my posts.

I'll back it up when I have time - it won't be soon, my humble apologies for this. Feel free to claim the moral high ground for having the last post with plenty of links. :wink:

[SaigonSaddler]

Finally, you can vomit up as much rhetoric as you wish, but at this late stage in the global warming debate (the stage when the policy is being made), we really need to see the hard facts of accurate scientific evidence, and not your personal conclusions. You have teased us with a solitary graph in this post, and drawn a lot of inferences from it. Back it up.

...Having started the thread and having vomited up plenty of scientific evidence I now have proof that you don't read my posts.

I'll back it up when I have time - it won't be soon, my humble apologies for this. Feel free to claim the moral high ground for having the last post with plenty of links. :wink:

Dear Tim,
This has nothing to do with morals, ethics or the price of fruit., and I do read your posts with great care.

This is a scientific question that requires nothing more than to look at the scientific evidence. When prompted to do so, you have given a lot of supposition, drawn erronous conclusions from a sliver of data and regurgitated misnomers from sceptical websites. This is not science, and neither are your personal interpretations of data sets.

The best information you posted was that of the Bristol university research team. Excellent in itself, but hardly a solid basis for the destruction of CO2 warming connection.

You seem to think that consensus is valueless. Wrong. The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

Finally, the debate is, unfortunately for you, settled on global warming. What's that - you don't agree? You and a tiny minority of actual scientists involved (none of whom publish in the mainstream), a host of internet nutters and some high profile oil sponsored cronies (What, I can't accuse the fringe of being in bed with the oil companies but you can accuse the entire scientific community of fraud? Not sure about that one).

Please do post links and concrete evidence of either comprehensive fraud, or warming evidence, if you can. And please continue to do so. :wink:

[ShyTallKnight]

Finally, you can vomit up as much rhetoric as you wish, but at this late stage in the global warming debate (the stage when the policy is being made), we really need to see the hard facts of accurate scientific evidence, and not your personal conclusions. You have teased us with a solitary graph in this post, and drawn a lot of inferences from it. Back it up.

...Having started the thread and having vomited up plenty of scientific evidence I now have proof that you don't read my posts.

I'll back it up when I have time - it won't be soon, my humble apologies for this. Feel free to claim the moral high ground for having the last post with plenty of links. :wink:

Dear Tim,
This has nothing to do with morals, ethics or the price of fruit., and I do read your posts with great care.

This is a scientific question that requires nothing more than to look at the scientific evidence. When prompted to do so, you have given a lot of supposition, drawn erronous conclusions from a sliver of data and regurgitated misnomers from sceptical websites. This is not science, and neither are your personal interpretations of data sets.

The best information you posted was that of the Bristol university research team. Excellent in itself, but hardly a solid basis for the destruction of CO2 warming connection.

You seem to think that consensus is valueless. Wrong. The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

Finally, the debate is, unfortunately for you, settled on global warming. What's that - you don't agree? You and a tiny minority of actual scientists involved (none of whom publish in the mainstream), a host of internet nutters and some high profile oil sponsored cronies (What, I can't accuse the fringe of being in bed with the oil companies but you can accuse the entire scientific community of fraud? Not sure about that one).

Please do post links and concrete evidence of either comprehensive fraud, or warming evidence, if you can. And please continue to do so. :wink:

Saigon: You seem rather tense. You need to learn to relax more. There is no need to get personal about people who dare to hold different views to yourself. Despite your best efforts, I don't think there is a scientific correlation between volume of posts and quality :lol:

[Bernie]

The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

A poll of theologians found that 97% of them believe in God.

[aaaae]

The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

And some of the leading lights in this field have been found to be bending the evidence. Given it's weight, why do you think they need to do this?

[SaigonSaddler]

Finally, you can vomit up as much rhetoric as you wish, but at this late stage in the global warming debate (the stage when the policy is being made), we really need to see the hard facts of accurate scientific evidence, and not your personal conclusions. You have teased us with a solitary graph in this post, and drawn a lot of inferences from it. Back it up.

...Having started the thread and having vomited up plenty of scientific evidence I now have proof that you don't read my posts.

I'll back it up when I have time - it won't be soon, my humble apologies for this. Feel free to claim the moral high ground for having the last post with plenty of links. :wink:

Dear Tim,
This has nothing to do with morals, ethics or the price of fruit., and I do read your posts with great care.

This is a scientific question that requires nothing more than to look at the scientific evidence. When prompted to do so, you have given a lot of supposition, drawn erronous conclusions from a sliver of data and regurgitated misnomers from sceptical websites. This is not science, and neither are your personal interpretations of data sets.

The best information you posted was that of the Bristol university research team. Excellent in itself, but hardly a solid basis for the destruction of CO2 warming connection.

You seem to think that consensus is valueless. Wrong. The consensus of the scientific community in this field (97% according to the latest study) is a clear demonstration of the weight of evidence, not of conspiracy, martians, communists or anything else. If you have evidence of fraud of course, please share it.

Finally, the debate is, unfortunately for you, settled on global warming. What's that - you don't agree? You and a tiny minority of actual scientists involved (none of whom publish in the mainstream), a host of internet nutters and some high profile oil sponsored cronies (What, I can't accuse the fringe of being in bed with the oil companies but you can accuse the entire scientific community of fraud? Not sure about that one).

Please do post links and concrete evidence of either comprehensive fraud, or warming evidence, if you can. And please continue to do so. :wink:

Saigon: You seem rather tense. You need to learn to relax more. There is no need to get personal about people who dare to hold different views to yourself. Despite your best efforts, I don't think there is a scientific correlation between volume of posts and quality :lol:

:lol: :wink: