Climategate

[Forthgoing]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

A. Gore != Climatologist. Quit making a strawman of the argument by thinking everything Gore espouses is what the debate (between AGW and non-AGW) really concerns.
B:

This graph does not at all apply to what you are saying.

Quit making nonsensical strawman statements and don't tell me what to think.

It applied to your statements to me in your reply to my 1st post, or don't you know what you are saying?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

Quit making nonsense strawman statements and don't tell me what to think.

Mimicry is the highest form of flattery, but hardly applicable here.

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

It applied to your statements to me in your reply to my 1st post, or don't you know what you are saying?

Clearly you are mistaking what I'm saying. Flashing graphs without commentary isn't an argument. I can deduce what you are implying, but I'd rather you spell it out so I don't assume too much. So, why don't you actually post an argument, and not hackneyed platitudes?

[Forthgoing]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Mimicry is the highest form of flattery, but hardly applicable here.

Clearly you are mistaking what I'm saying. Flashing graphs without commentary isn't an argument. I can deduce what you are implying, but I'd rather you spell it out so I don't assume too much. So, why don't you actually post an argument, and not hackneyed platitudes?

You shouldn't flatter yourself by claiming I was mimicking you. Flattery isn't applicable here.

Clearly you didn't click on the link below it and read the article that went with it or the 2nd article that is on topic with this thread.
I deduce that you like to imply, spell out and assume a lot of nonsense. So why don't you quit making asinine arguments and full of shit platitudes.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

You shouldn't flatter yourself by claiming I was mimicking you. Flattery isn't applicable here.

And yet it's still nearly a word-for-word reformulation.

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

Clearly you didn't click on the link below it and read the article that went with it or the 2nd article that is on topic with this thread.

No, see, if you want to post, it is commonly assumed you have an argument. Linking to outside websites as your persuasive arsenal does not fly.

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

I deduce that you like to imply, spell out and assume a lot of nonsense. So why don't you quit making asinine arguments and full of shit platitudes.

You are making a strong case for just how much I should consider your responses logically valid. If you're only arguing out of political ideology, as it is quite clear you are, I recommend you stop replying.

[Forthgoing]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

And yet it's still nearly a word-for-word reformulation.

No, see, if you want to post, it is commonly assumed you have an argument. Linking to outside websites as your persuasive arsenal does not fly.

You are making a strong case for just how much I should consider your responses logically valid. If you're only arguing out of political ideology, as it is quite clear you are, I recommend you stop replying.

No it's me outmatching you.

I'll post whatever I please, it's now going to be easily assumed by me that your arguments are mostly nonsense. Linking to outside website articles has been done in this thread several times, even by you and it is commonly done on all forums so you criticizing me for doing so is just more shit from you. I've been hitting you with my arsenal quite well, so why don't you fly away so you won't be hurt anymore.

You should now quit making such statements while you're behind and concede.

[Scrum]

Ballz? Is that you?

This troll has a familiar scent.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Ballz? Is that you?

This troll has a familiar scent.

Well, consider that he isn't making an argument, and has resorted to oneupsmanship.

Also, should I be surprised you know what balls smell like?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

No it's me outmatching you.

I'll post whatever I please, it's now going to be easily assumed by me that your arguments are mostly nonsense. Linking to outside website articles has been done in this thread several times, even by you and it is commonly done on all forums so you criticizing me for doing so is just more shit from you. I've been hitting you with my arsenal quite well, so why don't you fly away so you won't be hurt anymore.

Again, missing the point. Posting a graph and adding nothing but a link isn't a valid post. If you do not possess the capability to form an argument based on the graph, rather allowing a website's author to do your critical thinking (something I should say is quite common with your ilk), you have no business discussing the validity of scientific data.

You have made it abundantly clear that you have nothing to add to the discussion besides talking points and unassisted pictures, so continuing with the flat retorts will be a fruitless endeavor. Might I suggest you take up a hobby? Something that would suit you better than posting here, like coloring outside the lines, showing you know how to think outside the liberal bias.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Al Gore, and others, crying "The sky is falling" is a turn off when their goal is to control all industry in the world. And it takes years to find out of the science is correct or incorrect. Him using Hurricane Katrina as a scare tactic to make his point has gone nowhere now that we have had two seasons with almost no hurricane activity.

And? No one should take science from a politician and expect to have an objective consensus rather than an opinion. If you are a layperson, get the science from committees (e.g., the National Research Council or the IPCC) that specifically assemble and pour over thousands of varying papers from dozens of fields of study in order to assemble a scientific consensus. They often cite conflicting reports and tell you how they conflict, and which conclusion the committee reached and why. Or you can open up a textbook (oh, the horror!).

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Now scientists have found that:
Half-precessional dynamics of monsoon rainfall near the East African Equator : Abstract : Nature

HughRuss did a good analysis. However, this paper is nothing new. I've read papers a while ago that concluded it was a localized variability. From what I gathered from the abstract, this paper looked at local climate variability in insolation from the past 25,000 years. Of course you would find a strong correlation with insolation over that period (who has argued otherwise?). This is in congruence with mainstream scientific opinion.

Mote (atmospheric scientist) and Kaser (glaciologist) published a paper that suggested that tropical glaciers, which are at high elevations, are controlled more by precipitation than by air temperatures.

Originally Posted by Geotimes

Mote and Kaser, both authors on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, have taken some flak for the report, Mote says, both from Gore fans, who say they are trying to undo his work, and from anti-global-warming bloggers, who call them “all sorts of names” for asserting that global warming is still robbing most other glaciers of their ice, Mote says. That most of the world’s other glaciers are being lost due to global warming is a point, he says, that he wants to emphasize.

Whether Kilimanjaro should be held up as sign of global climate change has been a political issue for several years, says Douglas Hardy, a glaciologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Ironically, Kilimanjaro is “pretty insignificant in terms of the volume of ice that’s there,” Hardy says. “It has this great iconic value, but that doesn’t necessarily warrant singling it out — either to use as an icon, or to point out that it’s not an ideal icon.”

Geotimes - August 2007

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You guys take everything every "global warming scientist" says as truth (almost like a religion) yet time after time we find out after more studies are completed that they were wrong.

First off all, I don't take any of what a scientist says as "truth" (what does that really even mean, "truth"?). No, most unlike a religion, you accept or reject conclusions that scientists reach based on evidence. Of course there are conflicting studies, but that is why peer review is a necessary but not a sufficient part of science. No, no one should base their scientific arguments on an appeal to authority for the singular reason that there are no authorities in science, only experts.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Or, with the emails, that they are willing to hide, destroy and change data to make their points.

Why do you keep chanting this without having ever backed it up? Oh of course, you don't need evidence.

No data were hid; over 95% of data have been available, and the rest are currently under contract (capitalism at work). Data can be requested from the NMSs, as I have said. However, some have a policy to only license raw data to third parties unless they are used for research purposes (yes, they want to make money). Of course, the scientific community has long argued that all data should be open and free, but sadly that isn't the socialist paradise we live in.

All raw data are available from the NMSs where they originated. Do you really think that a national meteorological service will hand their only copies of weather station data to a university in Norwich, England? Data sets (notice the difference between data sets and raw data) used for CRU and HadCRU models have been freely available for some time. The only thing you have to go on is a small percentage of raw data was tossed out in the 1980s, for reasons explained. The CRU has never been a primary custodian of raw data (that's the job of the NMSs). Making FOI requests on that basis is frivolous, as explained in this email.

Where is the evidence that data have been changed? That one, I would liked explained. It seems that I have to come back to the same points that were refuted when this news broke off. Do you not understand the difference between changing proxy temperature data to suit one's agenda, and putting the actual instrumental temperatures on a graph next to the reconstructions and then openly explaining what you did, including the divergence of tree ring proxy data, in your research? That's some devious plan to change data, then openly explain what you did, and give the entire proxy series and the instrumental temperatures as a comparison... those bastards! It should be noted that different methods and proxies have been used for years now; we are talking about research and emails from 1998-1999.

As you can see, the divergence problem in the tree ring proxies was openly discussed in Briffa et al. (1998):

Originally Posted by Briffa et al.

It is salient to note that relative tree-ring width, and basal area increment, also show a relative decline and divergence from the temperature curve(s), arguing against the decline in density being a compensation reaction to increasing ring growth (as is seen in forestry soil fertilizing experiments). I would imagine that higher temperatures, and possibly some increasing sensitivity to lower summer soil moisture are involved, but some additional growth-limiting factor must also be implicated. Higher CO2 would be expected to increase basal area growth, so I consider it unlikely that this is the factor.

So they sent emails to conspire to hide this apparent decline in proxy temps, but also openly talked about it in a peer-reviewed paper. What a conspiracy to fudge data!

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You make your pompous posts about people not understanding science yet the scientists that are trying to scare everyone seem to make a LOT of mistakes.

It isn't pompous to state blatant realities. When you go through the arguments against global warming, you typically find that they are either due to ignorance or ideology. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant of a topic if one openly admits it and seeks to rectify that fact.

I really don't see anyone actively trying to scare people. Scientists do their jobs and state what they think the reality is, and if that scares you, then too bad.

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

I believe Global Cooling and Warming are caused by natural Earth and Sun cycles and not by mankind.

This has been talked about and discussed in the scientific literature. It is widely accepted that CO2 is driving the current climate. This conclusion has been tested and confirmed by a variety of different methods. Evidence shows that as temperature and CO2 have gone up, solar activity and TSI have dropped off since the 1970s (link). If this had not been the case, we would be in even worse shape. Studies done about the Phanerozoic show how dramatic CO2 can change temperatures on the planet (link). You can do the math yourself to calculate the contributions of the radiative forcings.

http://www.americanthinker.com/%232%...enHouseGas.gif

Water vapor isn't a long-lived greenhouse gas (it lasts about 10 days), 99.99% of it is concentrated in the troposphere, and the amount of it is completely dependent on temperature. The last fact is the reason why scientists don't refer to water vapor as a climate driver, but instead a feedback. Without even knowing it, you have just made an argument as to why the climate is so sensitive to changes in CO2 (or insolation). The fact is that humans emit to 29Gt of CO2 per year, which in turn contributes to the annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 15Gt per year. The natural carbon sinks in the environment can only take in so much of the CO2 that we contribute; this is what is perturbing the balance and causing recent increases to global temperature.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

The fact is that humans emit to 29Gt of CO2 per year, which in turn contributes to the annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 15Gt per year. The natural carbon sinks in the environment can only take in so much of the CO2 that we contribute; this is what is perturbing the balance and causing recent increases to global temperature.

So how much does the average violent volcanic eruption emit?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Swift

So how much does the average violent volcanic eruption emit?

Volcanic activity contributes approximately 0.3GT of CO2 per year (2005). Mega-eruptions, however, can have a cooling effect on the climate due to the albedo feedback.
Source: British Geological Survey

[Forthgoing]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Again, missing the point. Posting a graph and adding nothing but a link isn't a valid post. If you do not possess the capability to form an argument based on the graph, rather allowing a website's author to do your critical thinking (something I should say is quite common with your ilk), you have no business discussing the validity of scientific data.

You have made it abundantly clear that you have nothing to add to the discussion besides talking points and unassisted pictures, so continuing with the flat retorts will be a fruitless endeavor. Might I suggest you take up a hobby? Something that would suit you better than posting here, like coloring outside the lines, showing you know how to think outside the liberal bias.

There you go again Hughie showing what a full of shit snob you are.
My new hobby will be to oppose and pick on you.

[Forthgoing]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

This has been talked about and discussed in the scientific literature. It is widely accepted that CO2 is driving the current climate. This conclusion has been tested and confirmed by a variety of different methods. Evidence shows that as temperature and CO2 have gone up, solar activity and TSI have dropped off since the 1970s (link). If this had not been the case, we would be in even worse shape. Studies done about the Phanerozoic show how dramatic CO2 can change temperatures on the planet (link). You can do the math yourself to calculate the contributions of the radiative forcings.

Water vapor isn't a long-lived greenhouse gas (it lasts about 10 days), 99.99% of it is concentrated in the troposphere, and the amount of it is completely dependent on temperature. The last fact is the reason why scientists don't refer to water vapor as a climate driver, but instead a feedback. Without even knowing it, you have just made an argument as to why the climate is so sensitive to changes in CO2 (or insolation). The fact is that humans emit to 29Gt of CO2 per year, which in turn contributes to the annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 15Gt per year. The natural carbon sinks in the environment can only take in so much of the CO2 that we contribute; this is what is perturbing the balance and causing recent increases to global temperature.

And none of what you stated proves that mankind has much of a effect on global warming or cooling. You don't actually believe the sun has no major effect on this planet and that natural earth cycles have no effects on our planet?

The graph --- Mankind O.28% effect.

Are you for world population control?

Meteorologist John Coleman perspicaciously asks:

How can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? How can a trace element possibly be the cause of systemic Global Warming? It can't. That's all there is to it; it can't.... Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

Increased levels of CO2 has more likely benefited all life forms on the planet, summarizes Coleman. Many other scientists have come to the same conclusion.

Robinson, Robinson & Soon, in their cogent 2007 published research paper found here, provided empirical evidence that invalidates AGW alarmists hypotheses. They also found overwhelming support for the general benefits that are derived from natural global warming.

Here is the summary of their findings:

1- A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.

2- Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence - actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate - shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing.

3- Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

4- While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.

5- Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated...., but U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon use are not correlated.

6- We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

7- Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Dr. Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, looks at climate change in a refreshingly contrarian fashion. He has stated:

To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

There are other fundamental objections to the AGW theory:

(1) The infamous "Hockey Stick" statistical debacle, nicely summarized here, effectively cherry-picked data from tree rings to estimate temperature change over the past 1000 years. The report erroneously declared that the largest increases in world temperature occurred in the 20th century. These results could not be reproduced by anyone. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) later found the statistical methods first employed inappropriate and the findings bogus.

(2) The reported NASA temperature data glitch discovered by Canadian Computer Analyst Steve McIntyre that wrongly kicked all temperature records up several tenths of a degree was a severe setback for AGW modelers. This software "failure" was overseen by one of AGW's fiercest proponents, the notorious Dr. James Hanson. NASA's GISS and Hanson have recently come under fire again for poor data collection methods and questionable accuracy.

(3) As recently presented in American Thinker, Lord Monckton competently summarizes for us that many of the highly publicized AGW "facts" are simple documented anomalies of natural climate cycling -- designedly misrepresented for the cause of AGW.

To wit: The Oceans are not catastrophically rising nor are they warming. In fact, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. The Snows of Kilimanjaro are not melting but ablating because of friction due to a cooling atmosphere and natural cooling trends. The world's 160,000 glaciers are not suddenly receding, but appear to be re-advancing, including those ice shelves in Antarctic and the polar ice sheets, all of which cycle regularly in ice mass. Lord Monckton, a science-journalist, provides even more evidence here.

(4) Finally let us not forget the astute investigation of automated weather stations by US Meteorologist Anthony Watts. Watts painstakingly discovered that a large fraction of the nation's 1,200 stations have been wrongly sited in man-made heat-absorbing centers. (Examples include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat absorbing concrete, next to air conditioners, diesel generators and asphalt parking lots, even at sewage treatment plants. Some are located in areas experiencing excessive nighttime humidity, and at non-standard observing heights, including one actually sinking into a swamp.) Watts' discovery profoundly undermined the veracity of historical temperature data documented in the United States -- data that had been used by AGW proponents.

There are three indisputable and fundamental facts that were wantonly ignored in the UN's IPCC sham of a report. The UN breathlessly but insidiously "forgot" to include the specifics that:

(1) The Earth has largely benefited by past warming cycle's and that these previous "warmings" had nothing to do with man's activities. These earlier natural cycles were not catastrophic events; they were, in fact, beneficial to all life forms. They provided warmer and longer growing seasons, more areas available for crops, etc. We know, for instance, that Greenland was once green, that Eric the Red planted and grew grapes in what is now Nova Scotia, Canada, that the Romans planted grapes in England, etc.

(2) Solar/Sun Spot activity is the originator of most climatic change and most weather patterns on Earth. It is king. There is no larger factor of influence. CO2 influence is negligible and pales in comparison. CO2 follows the trend of temperature; it does not cause it.
American Thinker: Global Warming? Bring it On!

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

There you go again Hughie showing what a full of shit snob you are.
My new hobby will be to oppose and pick on you.

It's good to know that you'll be fully employed trolling this forum. All the sooner we can ban you.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

And none of what you stated proves that mankind has much of a effect on global warming or cooling. You don't actually believe the sun has no major effect on this planet and that natural earth cycles have no effects on our planet?

Are you trolling for fun, or are you this ghastly illiterate?

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

The graph --- Mankind O.28% effect.

Again, do you intend on making an argument based on this stat? Or are you going rely on shock-effect to do it for you?

Originally Posted by Forthgoing

Are you for world population control?

Non-sequitur.

[JaJae]

The Met Office is now saying the credibility of climate change theory is questionable and they will spend 3 years going over data to come to further determinations.

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.

The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

CRU was compromised. NASA is being sued. And the Met is second guessing. All in time for Copenhagen.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The Met Office is now saying the credibility of climate change theory is questionable and they will spend 3 years going over data to come to further determinations.

CRU was compromised. NASA is being sued. And the Met is second guessing. All in time for Copenhagen.

That's funny; it doesn't seem like John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, is "second guessing" or saying "the credibility of climate change theory is questionable".


BBC News - UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

The UN's official panel on climate change has hit back at sceptics' claims that the case for human influence on global warming has been exaggerated.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was "firmly" standing by findings that a rise in the use of greenhouse gases was a factor.

It was responding to a row over the reliability of data from East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit

Leaked e-mail exchanges prompted claims that data had been manipulated.

Last month, hundreds of messages between scientists at the unit and their peers around the world were put on the internet along with other documents.

Some observers alleged one of the e-mails suggested head of the unit Professor Phil Jones wanted certain papers excluded from the UN's next major assessment of climate science.

Professor Jones, who denies this was his intention, has stood down from his post while an independent inquiry takes place.

In a statement, Professor Thomas Stocker and Professor Qin Dahe, co-chairmen of the IPCC's working group 1, condemned the act of posting the private e-mails on the internet, but avoided commenting on their content.

They went on to point to a key finding that states: "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal.

"[It] is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth.

"Through further independent scientific work involving statistical methods and a range of different climate models, these changes have been detected as significant deviations from natural climate variability and have been attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases."

They added: "The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide.

"The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these e-mail exchanges."

The row comes ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit which starts on Monday.

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, said it was no coincidence the information was released in the run-up to the summit.

He claimed unnamed conspirators could have paid for Russian hackers to break into the university computers to steal the e-mails.

He said the theft was a scandal and was "probably ordered" to disrupt the confidence negotiators have in the science.

Earlier, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband told the BBC he would be "very surprised" if there had been any wrongdoing on the part of the East Anglia University scientists.

"We're in a moment when the world is about to make some big political decisions," he said.

"And there will be people who don't want the world to make those big decisions and they are trying to use this in part to say somehow this is all in doubt and perhaps we should put the whole thing off.

"Well, I just think they're wrong about that."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was "very clear" and called doubters a "flat Earth group".

He said: "There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change."

'Open and transparent'

Meanwhile, the Met Office said it would publish all the data from weather stations worldwide, which it said proved climate change was caused by humans.

Its database is a main source of analysis for the IPCC.

It has written to 188 countries for permission to publish the material, dating back 160 years from more than 1,000 weather stations.

John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, said the evidence for man-made global warming was overwhelming - and the data would show that.

"So this is not an issue of whether we are confident or not in the figures for the trend in global warming, it's more about being open and transparent," he told the BBC.

The Met Office said it had already planned to publish the material long before the row and denied reports that government ministers had tried to block the publication.

[Forthgoing]

Originally posted by Hughie The Snob
It's good to know that you'll be fully employed trolling this forum. All the sooner we can ban you.

Are you trolling for fun, or are you this ghastly illiterate?


Again, do you intend on making an argument based on this stat? Or are you going rely on shock-effect to do it for you?


Non-sequitur.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

That's funny; it doesn't seem like John Mitchell, head of climate science at the Met Office, is "second guessing" or saying "the credibility of climate change theory is questionable".


BBC News - UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

Of course individual climate scientists are going to protect their professions. That's abundantly clear. I wouldn't expect anything else from them.

What I said was the Met is second guessing. Last week it was their official position to support AGW based on their data. This week it is their official decision to spend the next few years going back over their data to make sure it isn't flawed.

This is a direct result of "Climategate" and public awareness. I'm sure the checking of the data will be just as political as everything else in climate science and will be framed in such a way as to protect their jobs, but they are allowing for the chance that their data could be compromised or incorrect. Last month they would have said their data and science stands for itself. This week they are saying they gotta back the train up and verify their shit.

That's a huge change that shows the Met has been impacted by "Climategate." They have to publicly second-guess themselves in order to keep their credibility. What this shows is that a huge wrench was thrown into the debate.