That's one of his colleagues saying "no, you're wrong. He's innocent."

And what about the raw temperature data they couldn't produce because they "lost it"?

So you're saying that just because a government says it runs a country doesn't mean it actually does? What about Sony saying it's an electronics corporation?

See, what I'm seeing is an utter lack of proof to the contrary. And I'm looking. I looked a few weeks ago for a research paper and I'm looking now. I have yet to find a reputable, impartial site that has anything against the IPCC or says it's not doing what it claims. If you can find one, by all means, provide it.

What you're essentially doing is putting the burden of proof on me, when YOU'RE the one making allegations. That doesn't do much for your case, either.




Edit: @Bob: No, that's the result of the investigation, which has cleared him. They looked into the issue, compared it to data elsewhere, and found no wrongdoing.

Also, put simply, with the lost data, there are many other sources to pull from. People are human. Shit happens. Data of a global scale is not going to be irreplaceable. You have the whole world to pull from. One lost source is not going to sink the ship.

Fair enough. Let's set the issue of politicality aside for a moment. You say the IPCC are under review, and of course that's true in some manner. But the thing about reviews is that they come after the fact. In other words, the IPCC reports could, purely theoretically speaking of course, be fraudulent and the public would still accept them. If this were to happen, or has happened as some believe, it would take years to correct the perception of the masses. Like, say, the hockey stick. There are still many people who point to it as absolute proof that we are fucking things up, yet there are scientists as respected as the ones who made it that disagree.

So yes the IPCC is under outside review, but the question is if it is enough. I'm not personally convinced that it is as things stand.

With the news media and corporations all too happy to report even the tiniest issue they find with the argument for global warming, do you think they WOULDN'T jump on it and start a huge debacle?

Also, you really don't know how the scientific review process works, do you? A work has to be reviewed BEFORE it's published.

No, i don't know the exact procedure of the IPCC process. But if it was as rigorous as you seem to believe, the amount of controversy would likely not be nearly as high as it is.

Anyway, this seems to be devolving into "he said she said", so i'm stepping back for the time being.

Snort. Good one Ibian you understand ofcourse very little about the East anglia climate thing it's controversial because the vast majority of people know jack shit about statistical work and misinterpret what the emails contain good job. more importantly you misunderstand something more fundamental or are intentionally doing so. Every paper referenced by the IPCC has been peer reviewed to buggery and back these papers dont get published unless they are on very good grounds any way because no scientist wants to look like a fool.

Well, I'll respect your stepping out. But before you go, some final education:

1) It's not just the IPCC. Any scientific work has to be reviewed before it's published.

2) The controversy is coming from corporate sources who are out looking for anything they can latch onto and twist into a major problem. On the letters bit, did you know there's a site purporting to have the messages? I've never seen such falsified tripe in my life. Examples include quotes around words to make them look like they're in code, where if people were really being sneaky, they wouldn't put them there because it's too obvious. Add to that the entire site is flooded with gibberish and crap that's totally innocent to pad the numbers and you start to realize just how dumb it all is. Deniers will latch onto or fabricate anything they can to keep a controversy going.


And with that, I, too, will step out for now.

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.

wait wait wait...

didn't the story say those people were shot to death? with bullets?

What the fuck does this have to do with global climate change?

(Also, I think calling it global warming is probably a misnomer, or at least a less effective method of conveying the danger. Human Induced Climate Shift or something like that would probably be more effective.)

I'll admit that I haven't read or watched the linked articles or videos because I'm in a hurry, but that example you provided in writing just seems horribly out of context. I'll come back later and watch the video and whatnots.

waaa? No one any where that is reputable is saying that the effects of global warming will come to a head in 20 years what has been said is that the effects may well be to hard to reverse if things continue at current rate. Also the world won't end it will go on just fine it's just humanities place in said world will be pretty negliable as most of our food sources wont exist any more but it's something that will effect us more as time goes on.