Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35987451)

Are you trying to explain to me the paper that I posted and had already read and fully understood?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35987414)

Thank you for that, Hugh. The point I was making was that the original algorithm used would have produced a spike, whatever figures you put into the formula. It was either a deliberate manipulation or a crass mistake, but either way, it proves that no-one should stand back from questioning scientific conclusions. They are human to, and can deceive and they can make mistakes.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35987306)

By 'open minded' I meant that I don't accept everything at face value. And what I said was that there is not a proven link between carbon emissions and warming because the atmosphere absorbs so little carbon.

Incidentally, the reason scientists are not trying to have an open debate about this is because they are shouted down and threatened.

Anyway, it is clear you are just sucking it all in so you won't want to consider anything which is contrary to the establishment view, so 'nuff said.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35987306)

By 'open minded' I meant that I don't accept everything at face value. And what I said was that there is not a proven link between carbon emissions and warming because the atmosphere absorbs so little carbon.

Incidentally, the reason scientists are not trying to have an open debate about this is because they are shouted down and threatened.

Anyway, it is clear you are just sucking it all in so you won't want to consider anything which is contrary to the establishment view, so 'nuff said.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------


But the question you have omitted relates to the amount of carbon emissions the atmosphere absorbs.

I am more concerned with the impact of that on our oceans, which is where most of it goes.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35987456)

Hugh's quote doesn't support your point though. It talks about refinements based upon more extensive data available now that was not available then.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35987501)

'Sucking it all in", "establishment view" .. really?

Let me put it this way: if you are right, the case is not proven and so we should delay until the doubters are convinced, we would arrive at the point where it is too late. Is this a prudent strategy?

Maybe we should proceed on a basis of caution and assume the case for climate change has been provisionally proven and attempt to slow down or reverse the effects. What is the worst that can happen, a cleaner planet?

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35987561)

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35987561)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35987570)

The organisation who state that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and don’t believe vaccinations are a major contributor to health improvements.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...limate-change/

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35987575)

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Climate Change denial organisation PSI are based and registered in the U.K.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35987570)

The organisation who state that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and don’t believe vaccinations are a major contributor to health improvements.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...limate-change/

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35987553)

I was talking about the apparent deception of the scientists who produced the original hockey stick graph that
initially led me to question what we were being told.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------



Why so argumentative? I was simply challenging the view that carbon emissions were the cause of any global warming and whether temperatures were being adjusted to take into account legitimate matters or were being manipulated.

I don't recall saying we should not be doing anything and in fact I have welcomed any attempt to clean up the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35987657)

But why are you challenging the scientific consensus? If it is not on the basis of "knowing you are right" then it must be on the basis of verified peer reviewed evidence, correct? If the latter then please share ..