Is he right to oppose the global warming myth?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....pe-climate-talks.html

/// He won't get the right to speak. The Parliament sadly doesn't even get the right to really influence the decisions at all. 'So this idea that somehow Nick Griffin is going to have any real influence on what happens in Copenhagen is a myth.'///

Well now there's democracy for you.

[Oneeyedvic]

Jake The Peg /// I am constantly amazed by the people who think that they are somehow capable of an informed decision based on schoolboy logic.

There seems to me *two* alternatives: ////

School boy logic at it's best methinks!

[BillyBB]

Jake I am sure you know there are plenty of research papers from prestigious universities that question mans contribution to climate change. Here's one - http://arxiv.org/PS_c.../0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Plenty more out there.
Sadly there seems to be a group of bullies at the IPCC that like to cause problems for anybody that dares to speak out against them. They have 'denormalised' anybody that does not agree and made out basic scientific questioning to be tin foil hat lunacy. Why would proper scientists with verifiable, repeatable work be like that? If they weren't I would have faith but the credibility is shot for me. The models cannot be used to predict yesterday, they over simplify and miss out little things like water vapour.
Show me a body of papers that have released the raw data like normal science protocol and still withstood all criticism.

31000 American science graduates signed up as sceptics, not deniers just open minded and doubtful. That's just in the USA mind. A Greenpeace poll found 47% of physical sciencists did not agree with AGW theories.

[bathtub]

"2/ These hundreds of professional scientists are colluding in an international conspiracy risking the worlds economic future, and their own reputations to get a bit of extra funding."

Jake, I would not call it a conspiracy or give it apocalyptic significance - but the research and its outcomes are definitely driven by funding, as the leaked emails from UAE have demonstrated.

I don't share your snobbery over qualifications or work history (even Einstein got some things wrong, you know, and he'd probably have been cr*ap on the tills at Tesco), but since you appear to insist, I'm a fully-qualified meteorologist of some 30 years' standing.

My view is that global warming is probably a reality, but that the human contibution to it has yet to be fully evaluated. I also remain to be convinced that the current trend can't be reversed or altered by natural events.

If yiou want to carry on claiming a monopoly of right in these arguments as a result of your CV, I trust you'll download a copy of it for us all to see. Obviously it'll be a bit of a clincher and we can all stop arguing and doubting immediately.

[Quinlad]

A well-written post, bathtub, but you've either misunderstood jake or are being deliberately unfair.

He's not saying his CV gives him more knowledge on the subject - he's saying the opposite I think? That even as a scientist himself, he wouldn't consider himself an expert on the very specific science of climate change. So instead of ham-fisted attempts to pull apart the science, he looks to weigh up the expertise on each side of the debate.

On the one side is an overwhelmingly majority of scientists (among them the pre-eminent institutions in world science) and on the other are a much-smaller and less renowned group of scientists or vested interests.

No one is saying that makes the first group definitely right. But it's equally off-beam to decide it must be wrong just because a) scientists have been wrong before and b) we want them to be wrong because it puts us out otherwise.