Climate Change Honesty required!

Cardew

Some of the posters in this section who see everything through a green haze would do well to take heed of this article.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.”
He said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to their critics: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”
He added: “There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”
Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to the IPCC’s reports, has been forced to stand down while an investigation takes place into leaked e-mails allegedly showing that he attempted to conceal data.
In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Cardew

More today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

Follow the other links from the article.

Ken68

Maybe Cardew it is enough that Mr Jones and others are finished.
But the leaker should be tracked down. And UEA funding reduced.

DCodd

Waits for stephen163......;)

Cardew

DCodd wrote: »

Waits for stephen163......;)

Or Cepheus!

I suppose he will start a campaign to get the editor of The Times sacked now for daring to publish such facts.(he is trying to prevent a 'deniest' becoming editor of The Independant)

It really is a sad state of affairs when scientists are scared of their research being subject to outside scrutiny.

Cardew

I have no idea who is correct on the great ‘man-made climate change’ debate and neither has anyone else.

However one thing is certain, actions of many scientists, and the ‘Al Gore clones’ who have a vested interest in promoting their theories on climate change are responsible for strengthening the hand of the vested interests amongst the deniers; and spawning these types of article.

The Billion Dollar hoax

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2236621

Global Warming Fraud Collapses Amidst Deception And Scandal

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2236613

Talk about an own goal!!

cliffski

So cardew, which do you think has more lobbying money to try and skew the debate?

1) Enviornmentalists
2) The global fossil fuel lobby?

Dont make me lagh and pretend its not 2). Also, explain to me why NASA's own data, 100% independent from the IPCC comes to the exact same conclusions? Are NASA tree hugging hippies trying to con us all too?

If climate change could be fixed by drinking beer and eating cakes, all the current 'skeptics' would accept every word of it. The truth hurts.

Cathk

Just a quick one, is all excess co2 not absorbed by the sea which is not yet saturated?

Cardew

cliffski wrote: »

So cardew, which do you think has more lobbying money to try and skew the debate?

1) Enviornmentalists
2) The global fossil fuel lobby?

Dont make me lagh and pretend its not 2). Also, explain to me why NASA's own data, 100% independent from the IPCC comes to the exact same conclusions? Are NASA tree hugging hippies trying to con us all too?

If climate change could be fixed by drinking beer and eating cakes, all the current 'skeptics' would accept every word of it. The truth hurts.

Nobody is disputing that there is a lobby on either side of the debate.

My point is that if scientists have a theory they should make all the data and methodology for their predictions freely available for scrutiny by those scientists who are sceptical - it doesn't matter if those sceptics are funded by the oil industry or any other group with a vested interest.

Nobody is disputing that there is a concensus amongst scientists that climate change is occuring and that Man contributes. However I suggest you don't make statements like that about NASA without backing it up with some facts.

The trouble is that neither you, I or anyone else knows:

1. Extent of climate change.

2. Effect of any climate change.

3. Man's contribution to climate change.

JennyR68

Cardew wrote: »

The trouble is that neither you, I or anyone else knows:

1. Extent of climate change.

2. Effect of any climate change.

3. Man's contribution to climate change.

Precisely why we should err on the side of caution.

Lotus-eater

Cardew wrote: »

The trouble is that neither you, I or anyone else knows:

1. Extent of climate change.

2. Effect of any climate change.

3. Man's contribution to climate change.

Precisely why all data should be freely available.
No one should be saying it's all a con.
We should all start living more sustainable lives.