Bad science ....

[Digit]

but my money is on the IPCC data being more accurate.

I find that surprising eeyore when you consider how they have revised so many of the earlier 'predictions' which is what has made me suspicious of them.
I would also point out, rather cynically, that most of the pros have a vested interest also, remember Al Bore's Nobel?
And how high were sea levels gonna rise according to him?

Roy.

[Doggle Avaddit]

Originally Posted by eeyore

now of course it depends on who you believe and i'm sure there is "data" out there that is contrary to the IPCC findings, particularly on websites funded by those with a vested interest in denying that anthropogenic global warming is happening.

but my money is on the IPCC data being more accurate.

That just about sums things up for me. I subscribed to "New Scientist" for years until I realised the futility of taking any scientific data/findings/interpretation as "fact". For every study that shows X there will be another that shows X is incorrect and Y is the correct situation. Some of these Y findings are not very popular - so unpopular that they don't even get published for fear of the scientsits' careers ending for daring to go against the current taboos.


And yes, those with vested interests are often those who provide the funds for research, without which no research can take place. So basically all the information out there is skewed to hell and therefore you have to put your money on what you reckon the real situation might be.

This may sound cynical, but in my cynical mind it makes perfect sense.

[Digit]

The day a scientist admits he doesn't know DA I'll hand in my club tie, the best you can hope for is a bland, 'the results are unclear!' or similar.

Roy.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

And yes, those with vested interests are often those who provide the funds for research, without which no research can take place. So basically all the information out there is skewed to hell and therefore you have to put your money on what you reckon the real situation might be.

This may sound cynical, but in my cynical mind it makes perfect sense.

but at least research papers, at least in the univeristy sector, have to be peer reviewed so researchers arent likely to get away with publishing something seriously skewed without getting panned during critique.

Also most research grants are offered on the basis of a proposal , not a prediction of what will be discovered , so while it is true that researchers funded by oil interests may be under pressure to disprove global warming, and those employed by greenpeace et al likewise under pressure to predict armageddon, those in the university sector who are funded via nerc, or by their universities ought to be fairly impartial.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Digit

but my money is on the IPCC data being more accurate.

I find that surprising eeyore when you consider how they have revised so many of the earlier 'predictions' which is what has made me suspicious of them.


Roy.

look at the graph on this site roy - a different page of the the one you linked to yourself in fact

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

second graph down shows the temperature anomalies and that trend is quite clearly upwards, for the same period in which sunspot activity is trending down

[Digit]

And take a look at this, you will have go through quite a few names before you even find a climatologist I'm afraid.

How many scientists signed the IPCC report? Please include a reference if possible.? - Yahoo! Answers.

Quite what a mathematician's value is to the IPPC I'm not sure.
Basically eeyore they all have an axe to grind, pro and con, but the UN were promulgating 10 degree C temp rises and twenty feet sea rises a few years ago.

Roy.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Digit

Quite what a mathematician's value is to the IPCC I'm not sure.

statistical analysis ?, Computer modelling ? any number of useful functions.

see here for a complete run down on how the IPCC functions

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...kgrounder.html

I found this bit particular relevant

The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors

I'm not saying they are perfect , but how many anti websites or organisations can truthfully say that about their "research" ?

[Digit]

And even that is contested eeyore...

A Major Deception on Global Warming

...look at the manner in which the first report showed a graph of the Medieval warm and the Little Ice age which Hanson then managed to lose on their next report.
I'll make a deal with you, when science actually achieves their much publicised, and untrue, 'consensus', then I'll begin to take their word for it.
Which ever way they decide.

Roy.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Digit

Quite what a mathematician's value is to the IPPC I'm not sure.
Basically eeyore they all have an axe to grind, pro and con, but the UN were promulgating 10 degree C temp rises and twenty feet sea rises a few years ago.

Roy.

Probably about the same as the Chairman of the IPPC who has his PhD in Economics and one in Engineering !!,so he really knows about climate...........


Anyway,here's a few interesting sites,not funded by the big bad energy companies,whereas I obviously am,still waiting for the cheque in the post though !.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Watts Up With That?

Skeptical Real Climate Science

If some of you could actually look on these sites you may just get a different picture ?,there are many,many more links as well,I could post dozens more,but just start with these few,they are obviously set up by loonies and cranks who think for themselves ,but they do seem to have put a lot of effort into them !.

[Digit]

And Al Bore dropped out of his climate studies!

Roy.