Climate change and by extension global warming is a ruse

Nick Ruddiman, Peters and professor blackstock at UCL, along with other climate scientists at Brunel, Royal Holloway and the natural history museum.


How exactly is the IPCC jusnk science when it is the collation of work by thousands of the best scientists across the world?

Not only that but thanks to bizarre conspiracy enthusiasts like you they have had to get non scientist sceptics on board to review it, whose minds are warped and twisted by their free market capitalism at all costs dogma and who have never so much as picked up a scientific paper and read it before in their lives. Yet despite these people being involved the conclusion is still clear.

What makes you think you know so much better than thousands of top scientists?

It is t though. Many of the writers aren't scientists, they're pressure groups. Scientists name are in the report that don't agree with it.
The great global warming swindle covers all of this.

It is t though. Many of the writers aren't scientists, they're pressure groups. Scientists name are in the report that don't agree with it.
The great global warming swindle covers all of this.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a reliable source for scientific information. There were complaints when it came out about its accuracy and misrepresentation of data. I think one or two of the scientists involved complained about their work being misrepresented and that they were misled.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/11/broadcasting.science

A documentary which promotes unsupported conspiracy theories about climate scientists being corrupted by grant funding should not be taken seriously. That was pretty much the main basis of the "documentary" from what I remember.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle - obviously it's a biased link but it has reliable references if you want to check where the information has come from. I wouldn't rely entirely on this one for the science but it's a pretty good sum up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

Nick Ruddiman, Peters and professor blackstock at UCL, along with other climate scientists at Brunel, Royal Holloway and the natural history museum.


How exactly is the IPCC jusnk science when it is the collation of work by thousands of the best scientists across the world?

Not only that but thanks to bizarre conspiracy enthusiasts like you they have had to get non scientist sceptics on board to review it, whose minds are warped and twisted by their free market capitalism at all costs dogma and who have never so much as picked up a scientific paper and read it before in their lives. Yet despite these people being involved the conclusion is still clear.

What makes you think you know so much better than thousands of top scientists?

I know what suspicious behaviour looks like, and this is all wrong. There is no reason for scientists to behave like this.

It is t though. Many of the writers aren't scientists, they're pressure groups. Scientists name are in the report that don't agree with it.
The great global warming swindle covers all of this.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is not a reliable source for scientific information. There were complaints when it came out about its accuracy and misrepresentation of data. I think one or two of the scientists involved complained about their work being misrepresented and that they were misled.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/11/broadcasting.science

A documentary which promotes unsupported conspiracy theories about climate scientists being corrupted by grant funding should not be taken seriously. That was pretty much the main basis of the "documentary" from what I remember.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle - obviously it's a biased link but it has reliable references if you want to check where the information has come from. I wouldn't rely entirely on this one for the science but it's a pretty good sum up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

I think you a're getting reviewers and writers confused

The great global warming swindle is right wing free market propaganda, is not written by a climate scientist and has been totally debunked. If you believe that you'll believe anything... It was even found guilty of misrepresentation by Ofcom

All sounds a little tin foil hat though don't you think?

It would, were it not a matter of record.

This is the absurdity of the debate, though. People with an environmental agenda have become extremely entrenched and their first resort to critique is always "You are a right wing, gun-toting, Fox-News-watching, conspiracy theorist", which belies a certain insecurity about the whole thing.

The whole debate has become about a quasi-religious ideology now, every single one of these threads on TSR has become about believers vs non-believers. No matter what, none of the regular contributers here such as Chlorophile or redferry will be convinced of anything other than an impending environmental catastrophe regardless of what is demonstrated. No doubt, there are some members here who would not under any circumstances be convinced that there is any AGW. Myself, I could be convinced - but the evidence to sway me isn't going to be forthcoming in the short term - so I might as well be just as entrenched.

I think the problem you have is that you think that if 1 or 2 or 22 scientists have been engaged in dodgy behaviour, that means number 23 has as well.

The first IPCC report and by virtually everything in climate science is based on Mann 1998.

Mann 1998 is a piece of junk science. The methodology is shoddy and the statistical methods used were beyond inappropriate. Mann et al essentially engineered an algorithm that would only show what they wanted to show (a cold planet followed by a superheating one) regardless of what data was put into it.

It was impossible to follow what they did, because they broke submission rules for all the papers they submitted to, refused to release their datasets, intimidated and made threats to journals. The work was peer-reviewed by friends, and took part in a (documented) conspiracy to stop replies and critique of their paper being published. The IPCC were well aware of the flaws in Mann, yet used it regardless without any qualification.

This is not fabrication. It's matter of record, and has continued for a decade or more with many of the scientists involved.

Does this disprove AGW? No, of course not. But I would ask if scientists behave like this in any other field, and if they did, would you not be the slightest bit suspicious?

This is the behaviour of people protecting quack science - the sort of people involved in defending homeopathy or miracle cures. It's not the work of serious scientists - yet it has been allowed to form the basis of everything since.

My question to you is - if you are so confident in the science, why are you so belligerent and defensive? Surely you could review the literature, accept the faults critically because something that is so obvious should not need the protection of zeal?

My suggestion is that the original people in the field - Mann et al, produced a piece of junk science, but its impact was beyond their expectations. They told some lies in defence of their paper, which snowballed into a huge lie. Since then, others have taken up the mantle (due to the promise of unlimited funding to save the Earth) without questioning the basis. There's too much at stake.

Do I think I know better than thousands of top scientists? No. But I know what suspicious behaviour looks like, and this is all wrong. There is no reason for scientists to behave like this.

It is t though. Many of the writers aren't scientists, they're pressure groups. Scientists name are in the report that don't agree with it.
The great global warming swindle covers all of this.

The first IPCC report and by virtually everything in climate science is based on Mann 1998.

Mann 1998 is a piece of junk science. The methodology is shoddy and the statistical methods used were beyond inappropriate. Mann et al essentially engineered an algorithm that would only show what they wanted to show (a cold planet followed by a superheating one) regardless of what data was put into it.

It was impossible to follow what they did, because they broke submission rules for all the papers they submitted to, refused to release their datasets, intimidated and made threats to journals. The work was peer-reviewed by friends, and took part in a (documented) conspiracy to stop replies and critique of their paper being published. The IPCC were well aware of the flaws in Mann, yet used it regardless without any qualification.

This is not fabrication. It's matter of record, and has continued for a decade or more with many of the scientists involved.

Does this disprove AGW? No, of course not. But I would ask if scientists behave like this in any other field, and if they did, would you not be the slightest bit suspicious?

This is the behaviour of people protecting quack science - the sort of people involved in defending homeopathy or miracle cures. It's not the work of serious scientists - yet it has been allowed to form the basis of everything since.

My question to you is - if you are so confident in the science, why are you so belligerent and defensive? Surely you could review the literature, accept the faults critically because something that is so obvious should not need the protection of zeal?

My suggestion is that the original people in the field - Mann et al, produced a piece of junk science, but its impact was beyond their expectations. They told some lies in defence of their paper, which snowballed into a huge lie. Since then, others have taken up the mantle (due to the promise of unlimited funding to save the Earth) without questioning the basis. There's too much at stake.

Do I think I know better than thousands of top scientists? No. But I know what suspicious behaviour looks like, and this is all wrong. There is no reason for scientists to behave like this.

No, that's completely incorrect. You're just making stuff up now.



No, it isn't "based on it. Modern Climate Science shows the same trend because Mann's trend was correct.



No it's not, the trend is completely correct. You keep saying this yet I would wager you've not actually read the paper.



Even if any of this were true, it's still completely irrelevant because we're not talking about a trend implicated by one study, we're talking about a trend implicated by thousands of independent studies.



Can't tell you how pissed off it makes me when arrogant people who don't understand anything about the science, who get all of their information from politicised sources (inb4 IPCC is run by the new world order/conspiracy of your choice), claim that they know better than scientists who have dedicated their lives to the topic. You do not know better than them. You've not even bothered to understand the science. Stop parading around thinking you know better than the global community of experts, it's an embarrassment for yourself.



We are "belligerent and defensive" when people like you, with not even the most basic scientific understanding, decide that you know better than the scientists because of a host of bizarre political and conspiratorial reasons. Practically all of your arguments are either plain wrong, or blowing up the tiniest little holes into massive mountains whilst completely ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence. This is an incredibly serious issue, we're playing with the future of life on earth as it exists today. It's just monumentally insulting that people like you think scientists are a bunch of money-lusting idiots who don't give a crap about integrity or good science. You don't go into climate science to push a political agenda, you go into climate science because the subject fascinates you and you want to understand how the world works. If you start making up crap, you're completely invalidating your reason for going into the field in the first place. And even if you did start spouting nonsense, I find it incredible that you genuinely think the global climatological community is some massive political sensationalist-circlejerk. There is absolutely zero motive for a scientist to start fabricating or twisting evidence because there's no benefit for them. They're risking their career (on top of the fact that it's an insult to the subject they love) for nothing. You don't earn much as a climate scientist. If you've got an Earth Sciences or Physics degree and you want to earn money, you go into something like Oil & Gas or Investment Banking, the former of which is certainly easier to get into than academia. You have no respect or understanding for science or scientists and you really haven't got a right to comment on this issue. I'm sorry of this comes across as "belligerent or defensive" but there's only so much stupidity a person can cope with.

Also, you've not responded to my last reply to your arguments.

This is utterly pointless. You can't even appreciate the point being made - that we are too far apart for debate to etake place.

Your first resort is to insult anyone who doesn't share your view.

My first resort is that I think you're in a religious fervour.

I'm telling you that you've got the political agenda and no science. You're telling me the same.

There's no room for debate.

This is utterly pointless. You can't even appreciate the point being made - that we are too far apart for debate to take place.

Your first resort is to insult anyone who doesn't share your view.

My first resort is that I think you're in a religious fervour.

I'm telling you that you've got the political agenda and no science. You're telling me the same.

There's no room for debate.

The evidence is far too inconclusive for people to go around talking about it as though it's a fact


Posted from TSR Mobile

Both Chloro have both and I tried to explain it to you and you've ignored my last post with the explanation. You've pretty much failed to listen to his as well. I've studied CC to degree level and he seems pretty sharp too, whilst you've heard some stuff on some bias websites, shoved your head in the sand and won't listen.

You're like the people who thought MMR led to autism and didn't vacinate their children because one report by someone who wasent even qualified 'sort of' suggested a link. Despite the other 99% of reports not showing one.

You're calling all the scientists and IPCC corrupt and in if for the money. They can't spend that money on themselves, it's a research grant that's paid to science councils to do research and produce results with. Sure they get paid for the job they do but that is a fixed salary and everyone who has a job gets paid, they are all corrupt too I suppose?

"Oh the cleaner must be dirtying the floors and making mess so there is more to clean up so he can keep his job!" USE YOUR BRAIN.

Who has the most to gain from playing down CC, fossil fuel and oil companies and business men with those links. There are COUNTLESS examples of corruption with companies and people who have a vested business/financial interest in dening CC, it's been proven that they PAY bloggers and activists, some of whom even admit who they are funded by to promote and spread lies about climate change in order to propogate it's denial and you STILL believe them over us. The very fact we're having to listen to your rubbish arguments, when you've shown you don't understand squat about even the basic science behind it is a sign that paying money to climate change denialists actually works.

Here's one exanple:
Top gear has been against electric cars since forever, even the very promising Tesla models which are a triumph. There is evidence the cars were run around laps of the track for hours an then filmed at the last minute going flat and having to be pushed.

You know what? Top Gear is sponsored by Royal Dutch Shell, an oil company.