It's not as simple as that Mr Anderson. Climate change is an incredibly complex area that involves many different factors (some of which today's scientists aren't even aware of the existence of yet). It would be great if somebody (whether funded by big oil or not) could definitively prove or disprove 'it'. Unfortunately, it's such a vast arcane subject, and there're so many grey areas, that scientists from either side can pull out some obscure set of figures that seems to confound an argument for or against it. Those scientists from the other side can then say 'Ah yes, but you didn't consider factor X', and then come up with another obscure set of figures that seems to reinforce their own ideas. And so on and so on. Neither side is really winning the argument based on facts. It's just a case of argument and counter-argument. And that's made trickier by the aspect that so many of the people involved are biased one way or the other. That's not really how science is supposed to work.

Many of the general UK funding bodies didn't start off being pro-Man-made Climate Change (unlike the IPCC, whose founders began expressly wanting to create a body that would prove that there was Man-made Climate Change - the IPCC is anything but neutral on the topic). However, as MMCC has become a 'hotter' subject, the funding bodies have gradually become keener and keener on any sort of research that appears to have a 'this will add to the Climate-Change theory' angle. To the point where it simply became beneficial to up and coming scientists to go along with the flow.  (This isn't so much the case in the US, although grants for research with an MMCC angle have gone up there dramatically in recent years too.)

There's evidence that the tide is starting to turn now, but up until quite recently, it was very hard to speak out against MMCC without a barrage of scientists (mostly part of or encouraged by the IPCC) speaking out and ridiculing you. That fear of being tagged as a lunatic made many scientists decide it would be in their interests to appear to be going along with the theory, whether they have concerns or not.

The IPCC has been partially discredited by the Climategate scandal. They do clearly have a strong bias in favour of proving MMCC. What we need to do is create a completely neutral body, and get them to look at all the data. The IPCC has made various modifications to much of the datasets we already have, so, where possible, we need to go back to the original data and see exactly what it does say, without modifications and without alterations.

And hopefully a new body wouldn't place so much store on 'computer models'. None of these models have been left unmodified. Many of the model builders set out to build a program that proves a certain theory. If new data appears to dilute the results, the programmers modify the factors used by that program so that it appears to show the 'right results' again. Many of us here have built our own trading systems, so we know the score. No betting system is worth a bean until it's had a chance to prove its worth working with large quantities of new data. Simply curve-fitting a system so that it fits in with past data is no guarantee whatsoever of strong future performance!

We need a neutral body that can make up its own mind, and that won't rely on computer models and datasets that it modifies to suit its own purposes. Then, perhaps, we might start to take out first steps towards seeing if the overall evidence appears to point one way or the other.

Frog, impenetrable wall... hahha I like that, I used to spend many hours on science forums but not so much nowadays as betting takes up much of my time. As for being right, the science says so, and also that there's a high probability that we're in for several decades of global cooling.

Have you ever thought about the consequences of cooling as opposed to warming? It's worse in every respect, from keeping warm, growing food, keeping transport moving, building, etc and all the expense that that entails. If global warming was on the cards it would be far easier and less expensive to adapt to than cooling, and would see less loss of life.
Imagine what's going to happen when the next ice age arrives, life will huddle around the equator again. 

Cat, I just listen to the science as presented. Proper scientists have been calling for an open debate with gravy train scientists for several years now, but their response has always been that the science is settled. They run scared because they know they'll be exposed, even going so far as to destroy data rather than release it under FOI requests.

I found this site interesting:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Morner's claims, sea level rise, and Tuvalu sea level rise are among the many topics. It's no doubt what you would call pro MMCC, but plenty of comments from people who don't agree.

It's all very interesting, but personally I'm going to focus on Euro 2012 research now:)

Myth or no myth, long may it continue. Anything that increases humans awareness on being kinder to the planet is good.

Waiting for scientific proof is the wrong mentality. It's like saying I don't care if i am doing damage or not, i'm not going to do anything until you can completely prove it. How arrogant is that.

If you get a Bentley you will neither be saving or destroying the planet, you will have no effect at all. Take a look at my earlier post about UK car CO2 emissions please. You've also fallen for the propaganda that big cars are bad, as you sit there in your heated home that has a far larger carbon footprint than a Bentley, just ask Al Gore what the carbon footprint of his mansions is ;)

I shouldn't get involved in carbon footprint talk as the very concept is nonsense, CO2 is not a pollutant it's essential for life as we know it, photosynthesis of course, and is currently diminished, hence my earlier post about farmers buying CO2 to raise levels artificially for optimum food production. I didn't make it up - honest. We also use CO2 for other food production such as fizzy drinks, and of course we exhale it with every breath we take.

UA, on the contrary the  myth of mmgw actually takes away attention from real environmental issues by stealing the limelight.

I'd be amazed if the planet was safe for 5bn years Cat, remember we are lust a lump of rock spinning at 1000mph while orbiting a star at approx 60000mph while hurtling through space and colliding with other rocks. Very lucky to have any kind of stable climate at all when you think about it. Have you read about the Milankovitch cycles?

Trev, it's been here for 4bn years already why shouldn't it last another 5?  I agree there is a risk but it's much more likely the planet and life will survive without us.

If you get a Bentley you will neither be saving or destroying the planet, you will have no effect at all. - Ah Trev, if only CO2 was the only thing to come out of cars. I take it that air pollution isn't one of the real environmental issues.

Seriously though, the way global warming has become a global phenomenon is a very negative reflection on humans. Has anyone noticed that the reason why everyone is getting so excited about this is not because of the effect that it has on the planet, but that it might affect humans (a large number) directly. The only environmental issues that humans currently care about on a mass level is the danger to humans. The MMGW myth or non-myth is changing the way humans en masse view the planet in a good way.

You can see it now. Look at childrens tv now, things like Bob the Builder (yes i have children and i'm not a big freaking weirdo). One of his slogans is "reduce, re-use, recycle". In my day it was more He-Man and things like "I have the power".

Long may it continue.

U.A, all I meant was that if a non problem is getting all the limelight then it stands to reason that that's at the expense of any and all real issues. You mention air pollution, but cars are fitted with catalytic converters these days which turn harmful carbon monoxide into harmless carbon dioxide. The biggest polluters are buses which spew out carcinogenic fumes.

The point about "the MMGW myth or non-myth" creating awareness of the planet that you and Cat make I agree with, but that awareness doesn't actually need to be made on the back of a lie, it could me made anyway in an honest fashion.

What angers me about the whole affair is the way essential carbon dioxide has been made the scapegoat, resulting in crazy carbon trading schemes/credits/permits/licences, we used to mock that one day they'd find a way of taxing the air that we breathe, well now they have! Fraud is immense (as would be expected when vast amounts of money are changing hands for worthless pieces of paper/carbon credits) I think it was the Canadian carbon trading scheme that collapsed last year in a heap of fraud.

The UK has recently introduced a hefty carbon tax on flights resulting in other countries seeking legal action and threatening to boycott the UK and cancel export contracts - not great for our economy then!

"China is among more than two dozen countries including India, Russia and the US that opposed the EU scheme, which applies to airlines taking off or landing in Europe.

The EU has said the carbon tax will help the 27-nation EU bloc achieve its goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and that it will not back down, despite claims the charge violates international law."

Just Googled the story and found this, yes you're right, apparently it's called milkshaking...


"The seven-member California Horse Racing Board met in closed session Thursday at Betfair Hollywood Park in Inglewood, Calif., to consider the recommended decision of a hearing officer in O'Neill's case. The board agreed with the officer's recommendations, which included the maximum punishment and fine for the trainer, who turned 44 on Thursday.

While elevated carbon dioxide is associated with "milkshaking," the officer agreed with O'Neill that his horse Argenta had not been fed a mixture of bicarbonate of soda, sugar and electrolytes that enhances performance and combats fatigue. The officer did not indicate what might have caused the overage.

"I'm gratified that the CHRB found that I did not "milkshake" a horse or engage in any intentional conduct that would result in an elevated TC02 level," O'Neill said."



Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2012-05-24/triple-crown-belmont-stakes-2012-ill-have-another-trainer-doug-oneill-suspended#ixzz1way917w4

And Yellowstone is about to blow and I think I read that we are statistically due a major meteor impact any century now!  Not to mention what will happen when some crazy Muslim gets a handful of infidel busting nukes.

But, er,   should i get these solar panels or not ?

Here's another for good measure... :)

Reference
Lund, D.C., Lynch-Stieglitz, J. and Curry, W.B. 2006. Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium. Nature 444: 601-604.
Background
Many people fear -- or at least claim they do -- that global warming will lead to enhanced precipitation and melting of ice in high northern latitudes, which will lead to augmented freshwater runoff to the North Atlantic Ocean, which will lead to a precipitous decline in North Atlantic Deep Water formation, which will produce a swift reduction in the global ocean's thermohaline circulation, which could shut down the Gulf Stream and bring cold times to Europe.

What was done
In a study that comes to bear upon this climate-alarmist scenario, Lund et al. used the δ18O of foraminifera obtained from sediment cores retrieved near the Dry Tortugas and Great Bahama Bank to reconstruct density profiles of the Florida Current (the portion of the Gulf Stream that flows through the Straits of Florida) over the past millennium.

What was learned
In the words of the three researchers, "the cross-current density gradient and vertical current shear of the Gulf Stream were systematically lower during the Little Ice Age (AD ~1200 to 1850)," and they estimate that the "Little Ice Age volume transport was ten percent weaker than today's," stating additionally that "the intervals 0-100 yr BP [years before present] and 1,000-1,100 yr BP are characterized by higher transport."

What it means
In contrast to climate-alarmist contentions that the Gulf Stream could weaken in response to global warming, real-world data indicate that during portions of both the Medieval and Current Warm Periods the strength of the Gulf Stream was actually enhanced relative to what it was during the cooler Little Ice Age, which finding runs exactly counter to what Al Gore and many of his followers have long suggested should be the case.

(so the alarmists should fear cooling - which is what we look to be getting for a few decades!)

Trev, you have succeeded in opening my mind on this matter but I'm no happier about it all.  Especially since, if you're right, the kids are all being told the wrong thing.

Yes, I have Mr Anderson thanks.  I haven't said that I don't believe in mmcc just that it isn't as clear cut to me any more. A lot of the argument is about co2 and the greenhouse effect which, even if it's wrong, doesn't mean mmcc doesn't exist.  I don't understand he science enough to be able to say I agree either way but I am sure that man cannot be fleecing the planet the way we are without having any effect at all.

I understand that the environment changes naturally but when it does species are exterminated, especially the highly adapted and specialised ones like man.  You only have to consider how finely tuned our food production and distribution is to judge the impact of even a relatively minor environmental glitch. If, as Trevh has said, if the planet is cooling rather than warming up it could be worse for us.

In summary I would say that the argument about mmc it's actually moot.  What we have to do is to monitor our environment and do our best to protect it for future generations by understanding and predicting the changes and acting accordingly.

"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions."



http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Finally, at skeptical-science they don't appreciate comments and debate from real scientists so they simply censor/delete them... says it all really.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/on-skepticalscience-%E2%80%93-rewriting-history

Well the schools are right to teach current science otherwise it's intelligent design here we come. It's up to science to be as correct as it can be and for this we rely on the integrity of the scientific cummunity.

Are you a scientist by trade Trev? I am starting to picture you as looking like the inventor from back to the future.

Haha, no Cat, I'm a mere gambler with a questioning and logical mind. Fortunately a friend of mine is a scientist and Masters lecturer who trains international postgraduate students in astrophysics, astrochemistry, solar physics and chemistry of planetary atmospheres including climate science which draws on all of them.

Mr.Anderson, I don't see it as a case of who is being made to appear credible or not, but rather a case of studying and examining the science as presented.

The friend I mentioned above has also responded on a professional basis to all of the points raised on skepticalscience by John Cook, and confirms that there is no substance to them and that the website is peddling junk science. I could list all of his written responses if anyone would like to see them?

I understand that the environment changes naturally but when it does species are exterminated, especially the highly adapted and specialised ones like man.  You only have to consider how finely tuned our food production and distribution is to judge the impact of even a relatively minor environmental glitch.



Just came back to this thread after a few days. I'm rather puzzled by this statement Cat.  Man is highly adapted and specialised?  How can you say that?   Mankind was born with very little in the way of natural advantages. We didn't have highly protective coats, or sharp teeth for ripping apart flesh, or the ability to fly, or to cross large distances at breakneck speed.  And yet, through the use of our brains and our ability to create tools, we've become highly adept at performing all of those and many other functions. Amongst highly developed creatures, I doubt you could find a species that can adapt more successfully to a wide range of habitats and beat more creatures at their own game than **** sapiens.

Now, obviously, if the temperature was to get too high, we'd die out. However, we'd probably find a way around most food shortages. The human population would undoubtedly plummet, but things would have to get very bad before all humans starved to death. With our ability to 'create' food and think of solutions to problems, we'd be much more likely to be able to keep feeding ourselves than most other developed animals.  And if it came to a fight for food, we'd have sufficient weaponry to put most of those other developed animals in the grave ourselves rather than starve to death.

Ha ha, h0m0 is not allowed!  My own genus banned!