I watched the programme again At least ten professors contributed to it. They were experts in their field. At least one was with the IPCC until he was misquoted or edited on the govermental report he then threatened legal action to prevent the IPCC from using him as an author on the official report against his wishes.

I have seen threads criticising the programme for being polemic. After viewing it again they did at least quote the opposing view.

BBC news today only stated the human contribution to climate change again no counter view.

David Cameron is going to tax us to the hilt making air travel on a regular basis for those who can pay.

After watching it the first time I was still open minded.Now I have watched it again and the benefit of hindsight we are being conned why are these people being suppressed why are we not having a proper open debate by the press...

I also watched it a second time, and understood some more that I did last time. I think they are putting up a pretty convincing case, much more convincing than anything I have seen from the pro-AGW lobby.

Even Channel4 declares it as a polemic.

Of the experts in GGWC, one has complained about his views being distorted. Paul Reiter, although making a valid point about the IPCC "consensus" is not a climatologist and doesn't claim to be.

Patrick Michaels, Ian Clark and Tim Bell are wheeled out every time the media want some sceptics as they are only a small number of the 1000s of scientists, the vast majority of which believe that there is a clear link between modern climate change and CO2 emissions.

Robbie Writer that would be a reasonable answer if it wasnt for the fact that no clear evidence has been shown publicly that we are responsible for global warming.

The problem I have personally is that Tony Blair is pushing this along... The same Prime Minister who told us we could be bombed in 45 Minutes..

I would at the very least expect a proper public debate siting both sides. we are not getting that, maybe there is just to much money invested into the Global Warming by Humans argument and anyother view is lost in the hype.

The IPCC report, The Royal Society, The New Scientist, in fact look in quality scientific publications and you will find the clear evidence.

Nobody scientific is arguing the evidence is 100%, because that is impossible, at least at the moment. But people like Carl Wunsch (who appeared in the documentary) argue that we have to go with the very high-probability what climate change is caused by man-made CO2.

Whereas the documentary was pure propaganda.

Well I am certainly no fan of Tony Blair myself, he is a lier. But scientists have linked climate change with man-made CO2 emissions way before mainstream politicians got involved.

I agree though there should be a debate with both sides. Two climatologists head-2-head.

Newsnight failed to do that tonight unfortunately.

Interesting, your view seems to stem from a mathmatical point. Whilst quoting 1000's of scientists to enforce your view, does not the question who edited all these scientists theories come into play? The data would have been astronomical containing many theories incl 'for' and 'against'. IPCC only published their conclusion.

I think we agree on some issues. Yes there are a lot of scientific publications following the popular view but doesnt it concern you that scientists are being threatened or sent to coventry by thier piers if they dont agree. I have an uneasy feeling that in this case money talks, so watch your back.

l'll be interested to see what NS makes of Nigel Calder this Thurs.

Mr calder will be on his own with five opposing him..

Yeah but, Robbie Writer,

It's difficult to believe an IPCC report when we know that certain views and conclusions were left out of it; especially when we learn that those changes were led by those who have an interest in doctoring the results.

Transparency has always been the key; the general public is so used to spin that we now question almost everything that is handed out to us from on high. Also, governments have a confirmable record of being liars to the public (Watergate, Iraq) so it's no wonder conspiracy has grown up about this particular issue.

quote:

Originally posted by rickyjk:
Mr calder will be on his own with five opposing him..

I expect no other from NS

Im a bit disapointed in the media they usually challenge these reports. The press imparticular
are very submisssive on Human global warming

quote:

Originally posted by rickyjk:
I think we agree on some issues. Yes there are a lot of scientific publications following the popular view but doesnt it concern you that scientists are being threatened or sent to coventry by thier piers if they dont agree. I have an uneasy feeling that in this case money talks, so watch your back.

Of course scientists should not be thereatened, but I'm afraid 'sending to Coventry' cannot be avoided. Views can become very entrenched.


This argument is not about the reality that CO2 will cause warming but about the size of the expected warming.

The comments are interesting in view of how acrimonious the discussion gets.

These posters are scientists:
Crandles, Chris Crandles of Climateprediction.net
Rabbet, Prof Eli Rabbet, prof of physics.
Lumo, Lumo Motti physicist
Lab Lemming, Anon research scientist.
Carl (initially posting anonymously) is a scientist working for Climateprediction.net who considers climate sensitivity could still be high.

It's a real handbags at dawn job.


If a scientist went on there and tried to claim CO2 has no effect, or very little (as Lubos Moti had been attempting until fairly recently) they'd get laughed out.

quote:

Originally posted by rickyjk:
I think we agree on some issues. Yes there are a lot of scientific publications following the popular view but doesnt it concern you that scientists are being threatened or sent to coventry by thier piers if they dont agree. I have an uneasy feeling that in this case money talks, so watch your back.

I agree that nobody should be theatened. But you cannot avoid people being ostracised.

The floowing link is to a debate between some scientists over the likely temperature rise we'd expect for a miantained doubling of CO2.


James Annan, climate modeller JAMSTEC.
Carl, modeller at ClimatePrediction.net.
Crandles, again, ClimatePrediction.net
Lubos, physicist.
Rabbet, Prof of physics.
Belette (I thinks she's another physicist)

It's a case of handbags at dawn.

That's between researchers who obviously accept that more CO2 = warmer planet. If someone went on there and said "CO2 has no effect", they'd get shredded, or ignored.

I will not accept the human global warming theory until there is a proper debate.

This bullying one sided argument is a disgrace in a democracy..

Now the government with no further debate has set a target reducing carbon emissions by 60%.

>>I will not accept the human global warming theory until there is a proper debate.

This bullying one sided argument is a disgrace in a democracy..

Now the government with no further debate has set a target reducing carbon emissions by 60%.<<

there is no proper debate - its false debate. on the one side you've got science, on the other its PR from oil companies and libertarians.

libertarians despise the issue because it is a rare case of science destroying an ideology. so libertarian think thanks receiving money from exxon mobile are behind all of this nonesense.

there is also money to made in PR.


people forget that science is extremely conservative. the scientific community has moved this way because it has had to from the weight of evidence. now theres these upstarts crying foul.

but they do it through the popular press.

quote:

I will not accept the human global warming theory until there is a proper debate.

This bullying one sided argument is a disgrace in a democracy..

Now the government with no further debate has set a target reducing carbon emissions by 60%.

There has been a debate for 20 years. It appears that the leadership of the main parties are doing the correct thing and following the science - we'll have to see.

PS. the debate continues.

The debate is not a public debate and the accusation against privately funded scientists is ridiculous until it is in the open debate in the press on the television then it is flawed..
The Ipcc report itself is biased and is based only on one scientific point of view...