Global Warming, yes or no?

If the entire list is disqualified by one person who is arguably qualified, can the same logic be used to disqualify all of those who say warming is man made because of the outfit guilty of falsifying records to fit what they want to believe? I think physics does have a place in the debate though. I agree on strange things coming from older brilliants - Linus Pauling for example thought vitamin C solved everything.

One last thing from todays news. A 16 year old did research and tests and found a very effective way to treat Cystic Fibrosis. This was part of a science project. His method had not been considered by researchers. Though not published, this kid took information and used the scientific method to prove a theory. He is qualified to speak about CF. He effectively made a better "wedding cake."

Wingedwishes < Not sure to understand : do you contest global warming or its man origin ?

Global warming is just a fact. Everyyear glaciers and ice floes are diminishing, and it is still the case now.
Of course, in the past, there have been some hotter periods on Earth, but a hotter climate is not compatible with our way of life and our food needs for an uncontrollably growing human population.

Man origin is also obvious. Men have destroyed most of forests of the world and release everyyear tonnes of green house effect gazes. It must have an effect on climate... except if physical laws have changed.

Hello eveybody, Thanks for the posts, one thing is for sure this is a 'hot' topic indeed.
I've decided if I don't make it out of this one alive and it all turns to ###!
I would like wwishes to have my butterfly collection, as I found his posts on this thread most confusing.

btw I agree on rumas comments, particularly those aboout global cooling and how this is counteracting the atmospheric warming effects

Earth has not been warming for the last decade. Arctic ice has increased for the last several decades. To claim that you are only qualified if published is naieve. Again - I have personally witnessed people use others work AND used made up data which was then peer reviewed and "stamped approved." Interesting that I witnessed it in Norman Oklahoma! Majority believing something adds no credulity in any way. The credulity of much of the data (not random numbers but selected ones) provided to extol the beliefs of anthropomorphic global warming is in question as well. I do not need an expert to tell me the photos of ice coverage at the poles is increasing when I am not blind. Telling me the planet is warming when the visable shows me otherwise is a bit irritating. Go ahead, think otherwise, I'll trust the photos (unless photoshop is involved).

I did by BSc in Geology and MSc in Environmental Science (which focussed almost entirely on meteorology, oceanography etc etc...subjects closely linked/having an impact upon climate change) nearly twenty years ago now and at the time the prevailing paradigm was that we were approaching another Ice Age!

I tend to favour the explanation that man has had a small (very small?) impact upon global climate (via the so-called "greenhouse effect") but that this is dwarfed in comparison to much larger, natural, climate change. That's just my view though.

However, anyone hear about the so-called "Climategate" scandal here in the UK when emails were leaked/hacked (depending on who you believe) from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? A summary below...

"Hundreds of highly compromising emails and documents have been leaked online from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The emails provide evidence that climatologists systematically colluded in manipulating data to support the view that climate change is real, and is being caused by mankind.

The leaked emails discuss political pressure on scientists, statistical tricks how to hide inconvenient data, how to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer reviews, how to censor information going out to the public, how to decline requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, how to prevent dissenting researchers from publishing in scientific journals, and how to boycott journals who did.

Several authors and recipients of the leaked emails have confirmed their veracity. The leak from the Climatic Research Unit calls into question scientific methods and the results of several public climate research institutes worldwide. The CRU at the University of East Anglia is one of the world’s leading research centers on climate change and the top source of temperature data worldwide. It played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fourth Assessment Report, which is the scientific base of policy negotiations at the Copenhagen Climate Conference next month.

The IPCC spent 100.000.000 $ of public resources in funding reseachers to find proof of man made global warming. The resulting IPCC fourth Assessment Report provided support for the UN policy to mitigate global warming and for a further implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Proposals for a new Copenhagen Climate Treaty including the much disputed Global Emissions Trading scheme were the policy response to the IPCC's biased research results.

The UN Cap-and-Trade CO2 reduction scheme has been widely criticised for giving politicians state monopoly over the supply of a virtual but indispensable commodity of CO2 allowances and for providing politicians with another powerfull instrument to raise taxes most discretely through industry.

Economists view the Cap and Trade's arbitrary allocation of CO2 allowances to countries, industries and individual plants as a dangerous step towards a centrally planned economy. It would be a new cash cow for the climate-industrial complex of emissions traders and big business having access to the right lobbyists. Britain's richest man Lakshmi Mittal recently cashed £1 billion from excess ETS carbon permits attributed under the EU's arbitrary Emissions Trading Scheme (Times). Both Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (head of the IPCC) are reported to have huge business interests in Carbon Trade. The UN's similar cap-and trade sheme would allow politics to tax or subsidise industries at wish. Many economists consider the Copenhagen proposals as a power grab of politics on the market economy and as a most serious restraint on the progress of Western as well as develloping nations.

Michael Mann was Author of the forged "hockey-stick graph"
used by Al Gore and of the Climate Change report of the UN IPCC . He invented the "Nature trick" of adding in real temps to
proxie data.
"It would be nice to try to contain the putative Medieval Warm Period" Wed, 04 Jun 2003. The climate researchers have always declined to share their data with fellow scientists although sharing raw data with fellow scientists is standard procedure and the key to verifying research.

The general picture of the series of emails is one of conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, political pressures, manipulation of data and peer-reviews, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, and organized resistance to disclosure. They produced fraudulent research which the eco-industrial complex has used to their own profit and which ecologists exploited for their political agendas and to brainwash a whole generation .

Phil Jones headed Britain's Centre for Climate Research.
He was at the centre of the biggest scientific scandal in history and resigned from his post.

"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences". July 5, 2005

A list of excerpts from the incriminating emails can be found online including:

Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.

Michell Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'.

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.

Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to Freedom of Information request.

Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.

Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.

Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.

David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.

An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann's very thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past."

Simon

ditto