Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'

thescouselander

biscit wrote: »

Absolutely.

I sometimes get the impression there are some people, and I certainly don't mean to label all sceptics, but some who haven't grown out of their adolescent resentment of being "told what to do" and they percieve environmental messages as someone bossing them about.

It is all about bossing people about. Just look at the hypocrisy of high profile environmentalists who fly round the globe in their private jets telling us not to eat meat or leave our TV's on standby lest we might emit a teeny bit of CO2. You can bet that non of the restrictions on our lifestyles will affect these sorts of people.

Why should people do as they are told? Last time I checked I was living in a democratic, free country and not some sort of totalitarian communist state.

Cardew

biscit wrote: »

Absolutely.

I sometimes get the impression there are some people, and I certainly don't mean to label all sceptics, but some who haven't grown out of their adolescent resentment of being "told what to do" and they percieve environmental messages as someone bossing them about.

I think you rather miss the point.

In a democracy surely people have the right to question any Government action; and in the case of GW the financial implications for the individual Taxpayer are immense.

One camp argues that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the causes are man made.

The sceptics either dispute the world is warming, or if they accept it is warming dispute how much is attributable to Man and indeed question if any action we take will have any noticible affect.

Who ever is correct, a true scientific study should present factual data and from that data give predictions with a degree of probability.

However, such is the polarisation on this issue that this not happening. A major scientific organisation would appear to be manipulating data and suppressing information in order to support the camp to which they have become attached.

yakky58

Agree with Cardew, I see it at my work. If I am funded to do some work then what is done it to support the funder. I don't bite the hand that feeds me. But this is well known. I think many people miss the point, 'green' represents a whole new world or TAX opportunities, new none productive jobs for people and quangos. Its yet another example of government waste.

We are running out of resources but we are actually spending vast amounts of resource just talking about it. I just wish someone would get on make a plan and start it. I mean 13 years of government and 7 energy white papers. How much has that wasted in 'hot air'.

RHYSDAD

Cardew wrote: »

I think you rather miss the point.

In a democracy surely people have the right to question any Government action; and in the case of GW the financial implications for the individual Taxpayer are immense.

One camp argues that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the causes are man made.

The sceptics either dispute the world is warming, or if they accept it is warming dispute how much is attributable to Man and indeed question if any action we take will have any noticible affect.

Who ever is correct, a true scientific study should present factual data and from that data give predictions with a degree of probability.

However, such is the polarisation on this issue that this not happening. A major scientific organisation would appear to be manipulating data and suppressing information in order to support the camp to which they have become attached.

As we are in a solar grand minimum now, we'll see in about 3-5 years who is right. I'm guessing the Sun has a lot more say in our climate than we do.....:think: