I may have been wrong about Global Warming

[DodgyAgent]

Nope, it is right. 'Checking' needs to involve more than swallowing everything posted at WUWT uncriticaly and unsceptically. Like I said, there is a list of dissenting scientists on Wiki, that runs to a grand total of around 70. So either

1. The total number of scientists in the world is 140
2. The wiki list has missed off several tens of thousands of scientists, who dissent but keep quiet about it or
3. The 50-50 number is the same level of bollox as 'arctic ice is up' (as we approach maximum melt, this year will be the 2nd or 3rd lowest on record <- oooh look a recovery!).

Likewise the percentage of scientific organisations who disagree with the IPCC is not 50%, it is 0%. There really is practically no debate in the scientific community; they have moved on from is it happening? to how bad will it get? and what can we do about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

The climate changes all the time. Something you fail to admit

[pjclarke]

I wasn't sure if you were a gibbering fool or simply misinformed.
The oil companies are not suppressing facts you idiot, Royal Dutch Shell has been lobbying against coal, funding 'progressive' think tanks, and promoting carbon capture. Exxon paid four times more to the Stanford Global Climate and Energy project, than they ever gave to sceptics

Exxonmobile slipped Stanford $100m over 10 years, out of the >$1,000 billion that they make every day. Their conversion to emissions reduction, while welcome, is a little late, prior to this they had a long history of funding think tanks, lobby groups and astroturf (fake grassroots) organisations, some of whom knowingly disseminated misinformation, well-documented here:

Exxon Secrets

leading to two Senators drafting an open letter to the CEO asking the corporation to cease and desist inflicting reputational damage on the country … here's an extract

Indeed, while the group of outliers funded by ExxonMobil has had some success in the court of public opinion, it has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community. Rather, what has emerged and continues to withstand the carefully crafted denial strategy is an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the problem and causation of climate change. Instead of the narrow and inward-looking universe of the deniers, the legitimate scientific community has developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research and writing across all climate-related disciplines and in virtually every country on the globe.

Where most scientists dispassionate review of the facts has moved past acknowledgement to mitigation strategies, ExxonMobil’s contribution the overall politicization of science has merely bolstered the views of U.S. government officials satisfied to do nothing. Rather than investing in the development of technologies that might see us through this crisis—and which may rival the computer as a wellspring of near-term economic growth around the world—ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years. The net result of this unfortunate campaign has been a diminution of this nation’s ability to act internationally, and not only in environmental matters.

Senators Snowe and Rockefeller to ExxonMobil: Stop funding denialists | Climate Science Watch

[pjclarke]

The climate changes all the time. Something you fail to admit

[pjclarke]

But everyone doesn't accept man is responsible for Global Warming. Often in these debates warmists simply show graphs of temperatures warming and say "see told you so". This is simply evidence of warming. But because we have warming doesn't mean it must be man made. To prove it was man made you would have to demonstrate that the warming is unprecedented. That's what Michael Mann's paper puportedly did. But there are plenty of published scientific papers that contradict what he published.

No there are not. And even if there were evidence that the current warming is not unprecedented, the argument 'it has happened before naturally therefore it cannot be manmade this time' is an obvious logical fail.

[EternalOptimist]

No there are not. And even if there were evidence that the current warming is not unprecedented, the argument 'it has happened before naturally therefore it cannot be manmade this time' is an obvious logical fail.

And the alarrrmists, 'we cant work out what caused it so it must be.....' is so obviously daft, it shouldn't need saying

[DodgyAgent]

And the alarrrmists, 'we cant work out what caused it so it must be.....' is so obviously daft, it shouldn't need saying

Every tyranny is built by instilling fear into people. The word "denier" is very much the type of language to suppress any form of dissent

[EternalOptimist]

Every tyranny is built by instilling fear into people. The word "denier" is very much the type of language to suppress any form of dissent

true. and their universities are booting even non-sceptics out, if they don't follow the dogma.

and they crow about no one writing contradictory paper

scammers, fraudsters and charletans, one and all

[pjclarke]

And the alarrrmists, 'we cant work out what caused it so it must be.....' is so obviously daft, it shouldn't need saying

Nobody IS saying that. Read the chapter in the IPCC AR5 on Attribution.

[pjclarke]

true. and their universities are booting even non-sceptics out, if they don't follow the dogma.
l

That's quite serious. Who was it?

[pjclarke]

scammers, fraudsters and charletans, one and all

Ah Yes, 'Steve Goodard', alias Tony Heller.

A reader wondered if NASA really did cook the books, so we are checking Doocy’s claim about fudging the numbers.
We asked Fox News for their source and while they didn’t respond, a number of conservative news outlets have made much in recent days of a*blog post*from a man who writes under the pseudonym Steven Goddard. Goddard charged that until 2000, NASA reported that in the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 and that the country has been cooling since then.
"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered U.S. climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer," Goddard wrote. […]

All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected Goddard’s conclusions.
Mark *C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder, said no fabrication has taken place.
"Goddard's results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data," Serreze said.
Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.
"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote.
.
As for what the blog said, we found that experts across the spectrum found fundamental flaws in its analytic methods. By relying on raw data, it ignored that the number and location of weather stations and the methods of measuring temperatures across the United States have changed greatly over the past 80 years.

The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the corrections for flawed data produce valid results. The bare bones approach used in the blog post provides no solution to the issues of weaknesses in the raw data.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

From <http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/>


When even Watts says you're wrong, you need to take a good look at yourself, ask who is the real charlatan here ......