Man Made Global Warming

[AndyJWest]

The opinions of those on this thread are irrelevant. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and that it will have serious consequences. All the crap about 'conspiracies' and 'cover ups' won't change that one iota. Either the scientists are wrong, or the crackpots. I know who I'd put my money on...

[Walshy]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The opinions of those on this thread are irrelevant. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and that it will have serious consequences. All the crap about 'conspiracies' and 'cover ups' won't change that one iota. Either the scientists are wrong, or the crackpots. I know who I'd put my money on...

Andy scientific consenus on anthropogenic climate change took a bullet to the head, common parlance (joke) , with the climate gate scandal and they've been treading water and trying to claw back credability ever since. And of course you're right our opinions on this thread are irrevelant, yes the climate has warmed at the poles and Greenland, and glacial experts can prove glacial maximums and retreats even without the human factor. It's there in the fossil record, the ice cores, the Irish bog oak samples, etc., I could go on. What's in dispute is this current slight warming blip as man's fault, and that's yet to be proved ................

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Walshy

Andy scientific consenus on anthropogenic climate change took a bullet to the head, common parlance (joke) , with the climate gate scandal and they've been treading water and trying to claw back credability ever since. And of course you're right our opinions on this thread are irrevelant, yes the climate has warmed at the poles and Greenland, and glacial experts can prove glacial maximums and retreats even without the human factor. It's there in the fossil record, the ice cores, the Irish bog oak samples, etc., I could go on. What's in dispute is this current slight warming blip as man's fault, and that's yet to be proved ................

The was no 'climate gate scandal' All there was was an attempt to concoct one out of selective quotation from stolen e-mails. You've been had...

[Walshy]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The was no 'climate gate scandal' All there was was an attempt to concoct one out of selective quotation from stolen e-mails. You've been had...

Andy I haven't been had, they DID doctor the results ......................

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Walshy

Andy I haven't been had, they DID doctor the results ......................

Nope. You were the victim of an orchestrated campaign to discredit science (to a large extent, led by Fox). There have been multiple enquiries, and the scientists have been vindicated in all of them. These are the facts. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Find me a single reliable neutral source that supports the claims of 'falsification of data'. There aren't any.

[ATAG_Doc]

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2).

EAT COWS!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2).

EAT COWS!

No dont eat the cows! They are fed on GM grain made by Monsanto!

[Walshy]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Nope. You were the victim of an orchestrated campaign to discredit science (to a large extent, led by Fox). There have been multiple enquiries, and the scientists have been vindicated in all of them. These are the facts. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Find me a single reliable neutral source that supports the claims of 'falsification of data'. There aren't any.

Ok, I take your counter thrust on the chin. Can you provide links to the reports on the enquiries so I can read them. And the info on the story coming from Fox/Rupert Murdoch scares the bejesus out of me, hate the man and the channel.............

[AndyJWest]

Regarding Fox, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...Media_coverage for a good summary - and the sources they cite for the details. The same article lists the multiple enquiries - though again, you can check this against the original sources. I can see no point in digging out all the information for people who evidently haven't even looked into the background to this concocted 'scandal' - the involvement of Fox was well-reported at the time.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Walshy

Andy I haven't been had, they DID doctor the results ......................

No, they didn't. The scientists were vindicated.