For the record, I do not believe in a conspiracy.

Since Big Oil must fund anyone who challenges AGW, are you seriously trying to tell us that there isn't Big $$ in funding AGW research by governments?

There is much more being revealed  about unsubstantiated non peer reviewed references the IPCC used to convince the world of the dangers of AGW:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-wi...

@TalJechin

I totally concur with your opinion on pollution being overshadowed!

Well, it's time we settle this with a poll, a mighty forum device that no thread has survived ever! : )

I used to find this motive thing hard to understand too.

Apparently the bad guys in this conspiracy are the scientists themselves who get status and a good income from spewing out "politically correct" science, and socialist/social democratic/non-laissez faire politicans who want an excuse for controlling people and limiting businesses' freedom with green laws, emission restrictions and taxes.

Personally I have more faith in elected politicians all over the world and in the scientific community as a whole (though both can make mistakes of course) than in a world of big bussiness who has by definition no other interests than the profit of its shareholders. Most politicians whether on the left or right don't invent problems so they can increase taxes, rather they use taxes if they honestly think they will help fix a problem. But this is very hard to explain to a certain kind of people.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/22/10 at 17:11:53:

I think you are downplaying the real issue here. Firstly it wasnt a miscalculation or anything, it was adding a completely unsubstaniated claim as fact (and worse for political reasons). Secondly the scientists werent quick to point out the claim (those who were were ignored). Third it doesnt bode well for the IPCC if pieces of the report are made in a way that would have gotten me an F in highschool.

I was about to write that I couldn't believe belaji would be so shallow as to attack the miscalculation of the Himalayan glacier melt.

But then I remembered his other claims.

Yes, the Himalayan glacier prediction was wrong, and the scientists were quick to point it out.  Their revised claim still shows global warming and shrinking glaciers, but that doesn't seem to matter to those who wish for "climategate".  Oh well, there are some things that won't change, and the mind of a "climategate" afficiando is one of them.

kylemeister wrote on 01/16/10 at 15:00:25:



Quote:

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread gets a lot of interest (views) as did solar flares.

By the way, the question of where the joules are is quite an interesting and serious one for thinking people. If the world is heating, that energy needs be be somewhere. But where is it? Not in the atmosphere, nor the oceans.

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
Climategate email

In defense of my decision to allow silly threads:

The bandwidth issue is a red herring.  If bandwidth were indeed an issue, I would prune many of the old unread threads first anyway.

This thread has quite a few members contributing to it, so I am loathe to cut it even though I disagree with most of the comments.   

If disagreement were the criteria, there would be very little chit chat (or any other conversation) allowed.   

I agree with Markovich that there's been very little hard science presented in this thread.  But I still don't see why Markovich would like the thread destroyed.  I will continue to tolerate this thread as long as the members contribute appropriately.