It's Bloody Cold Here - Is Global Warming All Over?

Linton

smeagold wrote: »

No doubt the same place your getting your info unless of course you were at kyoto last year or are a memebr of the IPCC. pathetic argument. try not to embaress yourself in future will you.

I have provided two references (with numbers) to counter your claim that the Iceland Volcano "emitted more CO2 than has been 'saved' through all the green energy initiatives for the last 5 years."

I gather from your reply that your claim wasnt actually based on anything more than ignorant imagination.

ESKIMO

Sorry to 'rain on your parade'. Of all people, i know the real definition of cold!

Anyone have any matches?...

Linton

ILW wrote: »

....Also the vast majority of professional scientists are paid by corporations or governments with an interest in getting the answers that suit them.

Do you really think that most people who have spent years becoming experts in their particular field because they are fascinated by it would spend their time working out how to produce incorrect results?

Is that how you would behave?

Fortunately governments and corporations tend to pay scientists independently of whether the answers they come up with suit the sponsor. If the sponsors wanted to promulgate a particular viewpoint irrespective of the facts it would be much easier to employ an advertising agency.

If a scientist was known to be faking evidence to satisfy an employer he would have little future in the profession, and would be of little use to any sponsor.

A scientist will advance his/her career more by coming up with irrefutable evidence that a prevailing theory is wrong, rather than by simply going along with the crowd.

Those scientists who have been caught cheating tend more to be those with an "idee fixee" that their unique theory is correct against all evidence to the contrary rather than those conservatively going with the flow.

ess0two

ILW wrote: »

I find it very difficult to take any of the climate change cheerleaders seriously when they insist on flying off to conferences about the subject. Seems it is just a nice little earner for most of them.

Perhaps they should walk instead:cool:

ILW

Linton wrote: »

Do you really think that most people who have spent years becoming experts in their particular field because they are fascinated by it would spend their time working out how to produce incorrect results?

Is that how you would behave?

Fortunately governments and corporations tend to pay scientists independently of whether the answers they come up with suit the sponsor. If the sponsors wanted to promulgate a particular viewpoint irrespective of the facts it would be much easier to employ an advertising agency.

If a scientist was known to be faking evidence to satisfy an employer he would have little future in the profession, and would be of little use to any sponsor.

A scientist will advance his/her career more by coming up with irrefutable evidence that a prevailing theory is wrong, rather than by simply going along with the crowd.

Those scientists who have been caught cheating tend more to be those with an "idee fixee" that their unique theory is correct against all evidence to the contrary rather than those conservatively going with the flow.

I am not saying that many scientists cheat, but quite often the brief they are given is slanted in the favour of what the client wants to hear. Also the clients will tend to take on the people who they know are already sympathetic to their interests. Very few professional scientists could be classed as truly independent.

A._Badger

ILW wrote: »

I am not saying that many scientists cheat, but quite often the brief they are given is slanted in the favour of what the client wants to hear. Also the clients will tend to take on the people who they know are already sympathetic to their interests. Very few professional scientists could be classed as truly independent.

The fact is we already know they cheat. Mann with the bogus 'hockey stick', Jones with his ludicrous 'hide the decline'.

But there's no point arguing with a warmist. It's not science - it's faith.

Mercifully they have lost the argument since their religion's predictions failed utterly to come true and all we have to do now is wait for the political classes to catch up.

ILW

A._Badger wrote: »

The fact is we already know they cheat. Mann with the bogus 'hockey stick', Jones with his ludicrous 'hide the decline'.

But there's no point arguing with a warmist. It's not science - it's faith.

Mercifully they have lost the argument since their religion's predictions failed utterly to come true and all we have to do now is wait for the political classes to catch up.

The politicians have no interest in catching up whilst the "green agenda" is such a money spinner.

smeagold

Linton wrote: »

I have provided two references (with numbers) to counter your claim that the Iceland Volcano "emitted more CO2 than has been 'saved' through all the green energy initiatives for the last 5 years."

I gather from your reply that your claim wasnt actually based on anything more than ignorant imagination.

unfortunately I cant find the original report I read a few months ago but when i do I'll post it.

ILW

A._Badger wrote: »

The fact is we already know they cheat. Mann with the bogus 'hockey stick', Jones with his ludicrous 'hide the decline'.

But there's no point arguing with a warmist. It's not science - it's faith.

Mercifully they have lost the argument since their religion's predictions failed utterly to come true and all we have to do now is wait for the political classes to catch up.

Was that the government funded research dept at the Uni of East Anglia, that decided to ignore any data that contradicted their main theory?

ILW

ess0two wrote: »

Perhaps they should walk instead:cool:

Or use video conferencing, or possibly pick a venue which closest to the majority of delegates. That would muck up a nice little all expenses paid luxury break though.