• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

The arguments made by climate change sceptics

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and curb human-induced climate change.

But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.

So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?

The arguments and counter-arguments are set out here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
 
This is more like it. More grist for the Conspiracy mill.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.html

Was Russian secret service behind leak of climate-change emails?

FSB accused of paying hackers to discredit scientists after stolen correspondence traced to server in Siberia

Independent online. By Shaun Walker. 7 December 2009

The news that a leaked set of emails appeared to show senior climate scientists had manipulated data was shocking enough. Now the story has become more remarkable still.

The computer hack, said a senior member of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, was not an amateur job, but a highly sophisticated, politically motivated operation. And others went further. The guiding hand behind the leaks, the allegation went, was that of the Russian secret services.

The leaked emails, which claimed to provide evidence that the unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, colluded with colleagues to manipulate data and hide "unhelpful" research from critics of climate change science, were originally posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, at a firm called Tomcity, an internet security business.

The FSB security services, descendants of the KGB, are believed to invest significant resources in hackers, and the Tomsk office has a record of issuing statements congratulating local students on hacks aimed at anti-Russian voices, deeming them "an expression of their position as citizens, and one worthy of respect". The Kremlin has also been accused of running co-ordinated cyber attacks against websites in neighbouring countries such as Estonia, with which the Kremlin has frosty relations, although the allegations were never proved.

"It's very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services," Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said in Copenhagen at the weekend. "It's a carefully made selection of emails and documents that's not random. This is 13 years of data, and it's not a job of amateurs."

The leaked emails, Professor van Ypersele said, will fuel scepticism about climate change and may make agreement harder at Copenhagen. So the mutterings have prompted the question: why would Russia have an interest in scuppering the Copenhagen talks?

This time, if it was indeed the FSB behind the leak, it could be part of a ploy to delay negotiations or win further concessions for Moscow. Russia, along with the United States, was accused of delaying Kyoto, and the signals coming from Moscow recently have continued to dismay environmental activists.

When Ed Miliband, the Secreatary of State for Climate Change, visited Moscow this year, he had meetings with high-level Russian officials and pronounced them constructive. But others doubt that Russia has much desire to go green.

Up in the far northern reaches of Russia, there are stretches of hundreds of miles of boggy tundra; human settlements are few and far between. Often, the only inhabitants are indigenous reindeer herders, who in recent years have reported that their cyclical lifestyle is being affected by the climate: they have to wait until later in the year to migrate to winter camps, because the rivers do not freeze as early as they used to. In spring, the snow melts quickly and it becomes harder for reindeer to pull sleds.

Much of Russia's vast oil and gas reserves lie in difficult-to-access areas of the far North. One school of thought is that Russia, unlike most countries, would have little to fear from global warming, because these deposits would suddenly become much easier and cheaper to access.

It is this, goes the theory, that underlies the Kremlin's ambivalent attitudes towards global warming; they remain lukewarm on the science underpinning climate change, knowing full well that if global warming does change the world's climate, billions of dollars of natural resources will become accessible. Another motivating factor could be that Russia simply does not want to spend the vast sums of money that would be required to modernise and "greenify" Russia's ageing factories.

But global warming also brings with it a terrifying threat for Russia, the melting of permafrost, which covers so much of the country's territory. Cities in the Siberian north such as Yakutsk are built entirely on permafrost, and if this melts, are in danger of collapsing, along with railways and all other infrastructure.

But many in Russia's scientific community are deeply sceptical of the threat from global warming. And only 40 per cent of Russians believe climate change is a serious threat, a survey shows

Russia's commitments ahead of Copenhagen have been modest. In June, the President, Dmitry Medvedev, said Russia would reduce emission levels by 10 to 15 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. But what this actually means is a whopping 30 per cent rise from the present levels. Using the 1990 figures as a benchmark is a way to gain extra leeway, because emissions in Russia have tumbled since the Soviet Union collapsed and much of its polluting industrial complex went down with it.

Of course, Russia is not alone in falling short on climate commitments. But nor does it have a track record for openness for dismissal of the claims against the FSB to be straightforward. The Tomsk hackers in the message along with their leak, wrote of their hopes that the release would "give some insight into the science and the people behind it". Similar insights into the hackers themselves look extremely unlikely.
Of course, if the hacked info. wasn't dumped there by Russian Intelligence, there's just a chance that Russian intelligence might now be motivated to point an accusative finger further along the chain, if only in self defence.

Expect more revelations as to possible identity of the real hackers. Murky business. 8)
 
Surly if it was the Russian secret service, they wouldnt be dumb enough to use a Russian server.
 
petrosio said:
Surly if it was the Russian secret service, they wouldnt be dumb enough to use a Russian server.
Quite. What with the Tomsk FSB also apparently having previous for openly congratulating patriotic hackers.

Murky business. It can only get murkier. 8)
 
FWIW I don't think the contents of the hacked emails was nearly as shocking as some have suggested. However, "taken out of context" or not, they do indicate that the scientists involved have a particular agenda and may from time to time reject data which does not fit their preferred model. I don't think this approach is unique to climate scientists or even particularly unusual across academia as a whole.

However the release of the emails does cast doubt on some of the claims made by these particular scientists and should act as a reminder to us all to treat pronouncements from all "experts" with a healthy scepticism. A Fortean approach, in fact...

Edit: I also think that making a fuss about the way the emails were obtained is somewhat redundant at this point, and weakens the other arguments of those focusing on this. It's no different from MPs' expenses - yes the data was obtained illegitimately, but there's a strong public interest case for it being published, especially if the world's population is going to be asked to make major lifestyle changes on the basis of questionable evidence.
 
Quake42 said:
...

Edit: I also think that making a fuss about the way the emails were obtained is somewhat redundant at this point, and weakens the other arguments of those focusing on this. It's no different from MPs' expenses - yes the data was obtained illegitimately, but there's a strong public interest case for it being published, especially if the world's population is going to be asked to make major lifestyle changes on the basis of questionable evidence.
Context and timing are everything. The timing of the disclosures, just long enough before the 'Copenhagen Summit' and the cherry picking through 13 years worth of inter-office, inter-boffin, e-mails, for all sorts of allegations to cause maximum embarrassment. The sometimes extravagant claims made about stuff from the wonderful world of statistical analysis that only another statistician might understand. Not enough time for a proper assessment of the evidence, or chance to rebut the allegations, as the story propagates through the old and new media.

As to claims of rejected data, sometimes a statistical model can only cope with a certain level of complexity, anomalous data being just that, anomalous. You really can have too much detail. Sometimes, what's on offer is just plain nonsense and apparently, according to some of the e-mail correspondence, a downright embarrassment to the profession.

I, personally, still think there was something not quite right about the MP's expenses disclosures, as I may have mentioned on the appropriate Thread. Some of the fuss may have been appropriate, some of it may actually have gone a ways towards undermining Parliamentary democracy and the authority of Parliament.

There's something here for everybody, no matter on which side of the fence they happen to be, from a Conspiracy point of view.
 
I, personally, still think there was something not quite right about the MP's expenses disclosures, as I may have mentioned on the appropriate Thread. Some of the fuss may have been appropriate, some of it may actually have gone a ways towards undermining Parliamentary democracy and the authority of Parliament.

I agree, and I think that a lot of the reporting on expenses focused on trivialities at best and was grossly irresponsible at worst. Nonetheless, was it a good thing overall that the information came out? Yes, I think it was, and the same thing applies to the climate scientists' emails.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
There's something here for everybody, no matter on which side of the fence they happen to be, from a Conspiracy point of view.

For me the striking thing is how honest the scientists were under the circumstances. There are millions of lives, and perhaps the future of the planet at stake: for goodness' sakes, what would it take to get them to just do some plain cheating, fake some results, make up some numbers....?

These guys would NEVER get a job in sales, marketing, PR, politics, the Law or journalism...
 
Long article:

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working
Think environmentalists are stooges? You're the unwitting recruit of a hugely powerful oil lobby – I've got the proof
George Monbiot guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 December

...

When I use the term denial industry, I'm referring to those who are paid to say that man-made global warming isn't happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped. Reading Climate Cover-Up, you keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts which you can see every day on the comment threads. The book shows that these memes were planted by PR companies and hired experts.

...

The people who inform me, apparently without irony, that "your article is an ad hominem attack, you four-eyed, big-nosed, commie sack of shit", or "you scaremongers will destroy the entire world economy and take us back to the Stone Age", are the unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... l-industry
 
Monbiot's a bit of a one-trick pony - his articles are all on the same subject and are increasingly dreary and tedious as a result. I used to follow his columns with interest but I find them unreadable now.

He also uses some well-worn tricks to discredit opponents: they're in the pay of Big Oil or other shadowy forces, or they're unwitting and illiterate dupes who don't realise they're being taken for a ride. It doesn't add a great deal to the debate IMO.
 
My opinions are not swayed by the oil companies but by my own experience, we in northern Europe have seen little evidence of climate change, ok we've had lots of rain and flooding lately but i'm old enough to r emember seeing it all before so is it surprising we have our doubts?
 
petrosio said:
My opinions are not swayed by the oil companies
Ah, but that's just what they want you to think! ;)
 
petrosio said:
ok we've had lots of rain and flooding lately but i'm old enough to r emember

So am I. 53 next month, but I don't recall anything like the floods of two or three years ago. I'm old enough to remember snow being on the ground for months at a time....we don't seem to get that now.
 
Copenhagen climate summit: Sarah Palin calls on Barack Obama to boycott meeting
Sarah Palin has called on President Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate change conference and to stand up to the "radical environment movement".
Published: 6:35AM GMT 10 Dec 2009

The former Alaska Governor seized on news that climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia have been accused by global warming sceptics of falsifying data to make the case that the phenomenon is real and man-made, something they deny.

Writing on the editorial page of The Washington Post Mrs Palin said: "The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue."

She added: "'Climategate', as the e-mails have become known, exposes a highly politicised scientific circle - the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies been pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather but they would change our economy for the worse. :roll:

"Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicised conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen."

Mrs Palin's article appeared at a time when the scandal over the leaked e-mails was gaining increasing exposure in the US and being used by Republicans to fuel climate sceptic arguments.

A recent poll released revealed that now only 45 per cent of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity, down from 56 per cent two years ago.

Mrs Palin, last year's Republican vice-presidential nominee, has become a leading voice for her party's conservative grassroots supporters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh ... eting.html

Sometimes, America really scares me. :(
 
Did anyone see the 'documentary' on BBC 1 last night at 10:45? it sought to make it very clear that gobal warming is here and all our fault - there did not seem to be any rational argument or evidence against presented at all.

Very well timed I thought.
 
Here's a link to an interesting article on how Josh Willis' work on ocean temps for the period of 1993 to 2003 used to 'prove' AGW at the time can now been used to dismantle the AGW theory with the subsequent temperature data.

The nub seems to be, that bearing in mind temperature and heat are different things, if the temp is rising then where is the heat going, because it's not going into the oceans?

Whole paper here;
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-c ... lsified-th


Conclusion quoted below;
Analysis and Conclusion

Though other criteria, such as climate sensitivity (Spencer, Lindzen), can be used to test the AGW hypothesis, ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.

Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.

It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed.

Assuming the hypothesis is not false, its proponents must now address the failure to skillfully project heat accumulation. Theories pass through stages of development as they are tested against observations. It is possible that the AGW hypothesis is not false, but merely oversimplified. Nevertheless, any refinements must include causal mechanisms which are testable and falsifiable. Arm waiving and ad hoc explanations (such as large margins of error) are not sufficient.

One possibility for the breakdown may relate back to climate sensitivity. It is assumed that most feedbacks are positive, amplifying the slight warming (.3º-1.2ºC) caused by CO2. This may only be partially correct. Perhaps these feedbacks undergo quasi-cyclical changes in tandem with natural fluctuations in climate. The net result might be a more punctuated increase in heat accumulation with possible reversals, rather than a monotonic increase. The outcome would be a much slower rate of warming than currently projected. This would make it difficult to isolate and quantify anthropogenic forcing against the background noise of natural climate signals.

On the other hand, the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science.
 
An interesting article from Physics World

Global warming resulting from slowly changing Earth systems could be up to 50% greater than previously thought, according to research by UK and US scientists. The study reinforces the notion that certain poorly understood systems such as ice sheets or vegetation are integral to accurately predicting future temperatures. It also paints an ever-bleaker outlook for our planet at a critical time when world leaders are gathering for a United Nations conference in Copenhagen to discuss practicable ways of mitigating climate change.

"If we want to build an agreement that is going to last for many, many centuries – so for our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren – then we need to be taking in these issues," lead author Dan Lunt of the University of Bristol told physicsworld.com.


Related Link: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41202
 
In the Philipines the Logging companies have armed private militias. But the resistance are armed as well. Here is a report of the New Peoples Army taking Direct Action against those companies which are desstroying the planet.

New People's Army Front 30 seized 13 automatic rifles consisting of two M14s, five Garands and six carbines on November 11 in a raid on the office of the Surigao Development Corporation (SUDECOR) in Barangay Pakwan, Lanuza, Surigao del Sur. The guerrillas conducted the disarming operation without firing a single shot.

After disarming the Special Civilian Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) and SUDECOR guards, the Red fighters confiscated seven chainsaws from the company. The peoples guerrillas also destroyed four bulldozers, two log yarders, a timber jack, a crane, two dumptrucks and a welding machine.

The objective of this punitive action was to put a stop to SUDECORs logging operations, said Ka Maria Malaya, National Democratic Front-Northeastern Mindanao Region (NDF-NEMR) spokesperson. She added that it was about time they ended the companys plunder and relentless destruction of the environment and people's livelihood.

The company uses bulldozer dragging, a method where bulldozers drag felled logs and destroy small trees in their path. The method likewise erodes the soil and contributes to the siltation of rivers. SUDECOR has thus been responsible for the rapid destruction of the environment and has been depriving the national minorities and settlers of their livelihood, said the NDF-NEMR spokesperson.
 
Scunnerlugzzz said:
Here's a link to an interesting article on how Josh Willis' work on ocean temps for the period of 1993 to 2003 used to 'prove' AGW at the time can now been used to dismantle the AGW theory with the subsequent temperature data.

The nub seems to be, that bearing in mind temperature and heat are different things, if the temp is rising then where is the heat going, because it's not going into the oceans?

He agrees the oceans are getting warmer. The air is geting warmer. How does this argue against global warming?

Nobody is claiming the model is perfect, but this is hardly going to make anyone think C02 is irrelevant.
 
Here's an interesting article that attempts to use logic and basic science to explain how we know that climate change is anthropogenic. It lacks the impact of my own analogy involving bodily functions and swimming pools, but it's a little less preachy.
 
wembley9 said:
Scunnerlugzzz said:
Here's a link to an interesting article on how Josh Willis' work on ocean temps for the period of 1993 to 2003 used to 'prove' AGW at the time can now been used to dismantle the AGW theory with the subsequent temperature data.

The nub seems to be, that bearing in mind temperature and heat are different things, if the temp is rising then where is the heat going, because it's not going into the oceans?

He agrees the oceans are getting warmer. The air is geting warmer. How does this argue against global warming?

Nobody is claiming the model is perfect, but this is hardly going to make anyone think C02 is irrelevant.

I'm not sure that he is claiming the model is not perfect, he seems to be saying that as it stands it is just plain wrong.

It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate...Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis.

The reason that it is hardly going to make anyone think CO2 is irrelevant is because it is being ignored.
There is no serious debate or reanalysis despite the fact that the very theory being touted as being proof positive of AGW only a few years ago can now be used to demonstrate that it was wrong in light of the more recent data.
 
'more recent data.'?!
Of course we're all prepared to believe tomorrows' data. But it won't contradict the current paradigm. Because it's very weak science.
 
Climate change? Well, we'll be dead by then
Ben Goldacre The Guardian, Saturday 12 December 2009

So as we career towards a mediocre outcome in Copenhagen, why do roughly half the people in this country not believe in man-made climate change, when the overwhelming majority of scientists do?

Firstly we have the psychological issues. We're predisposed to undervalue adverse outcomes which are a long way off, especially if we might be old or dead soon. We're inherently predisposed to find cracks in evidence that suggests we should do something we don't want to do, hence the enduring appeal of stories about alcohol being good for you.

Suggesting that personal behaviour change will have a big role to play, when we know that telling people to do the right thing is a weak way to change behaviour, is an incomplete story: you need policy changes to make better behaviour easier, and we all understand that fresh fruit on sale at schools is more effective than telling children not to eat sweets.

This is exacerbated because climate science is difficult. We could discuss everything you needed to know about MMR and autism in an hour. Climate change will take two days of your life, for a relatively superficial understanding: if you're interested, I'd recommend the IPCC website.

On top of that, we don't trust governments on science, because we know they distort it. We see that a minister will sack Professor David Nutt, if the evidence on the relative harms of drugs is not to the government's taste. We see the government brandish laughable reports to justify DNA retention by the police with flawed figures, suspicious missing data, and bogus arguments.

We know that evidence-based policy is window dressing, so now, when they want us to believe them on climate science, we doubt.

Then, of course, the media privilege foolish contrarian views because they have novelty value, and also because "established" views get confused with "establishment" views, and anyone who comes along to have a pop at those gets David v Goliath swagger.

But the key to all of this is the recurring mischief of criticisms mounted against climate change. I am very happy to affirm that I am not a giant expert on climate change: I know a bit, and I know that there's not yet been a giant global conspiracy involving almost every scientist in the world (although I'd welcome examples).

More than all that, I can spot the same rhetorical themes re-emerging in climate change foolishness that you see in aids denialism, homeopathy, and anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists.

Among all these, reigning supreme, is the "zombie argument": arguments which survive to be raised again, for eternity, no matter how many times they are shot down. "Homeopathy worked for me," and the rest.

Zombie arguments survive, immortal and resistant to all refutation, because they do not live or die by the normal standards of mortal arguments. There's a huge list of them at realclimate.org, with refutations. There are huge lists of them everywhere. It makes no difference.

"CO2 isn't an important greenhouse gas", "Global warming is down to the sun", "what about the cooling in the 1940s?" says your party bore. "Well," you reply, "since the last time you raised this, I checked, and there were loads of sulphites in the air in the 1940s to block out the sun, made from the slightly different kind of industrial pollution we had then, and the odd volcano, so that's been answered already, ages ago."

And they knew that. And you know they knew you could find out, but they went ahead anyway and wasted your time, and worse than that, you both know they're going to do it again, to some other poor sap. And that is rude. :evil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ate-change
 
That's a nice, concise article that reassures my view that AGW is real. In a broader sense, the idea of a 'zombie' theory being conjectured is brilliant. I'd read about 'self-immunising' theories but a zombie theory...?
 
shruggy63 said:
That's a nice, concise article that reassures my view that AGW is real. In a broader sense, the idea of a 'zombie' theory being conjectured is brilliant. I'd read about 'self-immunising' theories but a zombie theory...?
They´re the meat and drink of about 90 to 95% of all Forteana. Richard Dawkins coined the term, ´memes´ for them. Persistent ideas, clichés or truisms, that refuse to die, but keep popping up, like influenza viruses, or bad pennies. ´Zombie processes´ is computer speak, for unnecessary programmes which keep running in the background and are difficult to close down.
 
That seems to work for 'self-immunising' God theories but a 'zombie' theory seems a little bit different. It stumbles along & wants to consume brains?
 
shruggy63 said:
That seems to work for 'self-immunising' God theories but a 'zombie' theory seems a little bit different. It stumbles along & wants to consume brains?
And it simply will not die.

I think 'zombie processes' were what the writer had in mind. They're also often linked to back-door computer viruses and trojans, these days.
 
Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists
Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Monday, 14 December 2009

Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The researchers – all experts in climate or solar science – have told The Independent that the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed.

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an "alternative" climate conference in Copenhagen last week.

However, problems with the data used to establish the correlation have been identified by other experts and the flaws are now widely accepted by the scientific community, even though the studies continue to be used to support the idea that global warming is "natural".

The issue has gained new importance in the light of opinion polls showing that nearly one in two people now believe global warming is a natural phenomenon unconnected with CO2 emissions. Public distrust of the accepted explanation of global warming has been exacerbated by emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which appeared to suggest that scientists were engaged in a conspiracy to suppress contrarian views.

Many sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate's natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the Sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles.

A further study published in 1998 by Mr Friis-Christensen and his colleague Henrik Svensmark suggested a possible explanation for the warming trend with a link between solar activity, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds.

However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming. Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

Mr Laut's analysis of the flaws is accepted by most scientists familiar with the research, including Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the hole in the ozone layer. "There is definitely a problem [with these studies]. Laut has really pinned it down but the [sunspot] argument keeps reappearing and it's quite irritating," Professor Crutzen said.

etc...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 39867.html

Another Zombie argument killed off :twisted: ...for now
:(
 
If you have a couple of hours to spare....

Drama on 3 - The Contingency Plan

By Steve Waters.

A powerful new [radio] version of the play originally staged at The Bush Theatre in London, addressing the subject of climate change. As Britain faces unprecedented and catastrophic floods, government and scientists argue over what action to take. A young glaciologist arrives in Whitehall determined to convince the powers that be of the importance of immediate action. But he is also bent on avenging his father, a scientist whose views were discredited a generation ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... ency_Plan/
 
Back
Top