Great Climate Change Swindle, who is trying to swindle who?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by August

It is silly to say that human activity is the one and only factor which is causing global warming / climate change.

OTOH, without human activity there would probably have been a slight cooling instead.

(From the IPCC WG1 TS)

[treekiller]

You have to consider the source of those charts Wombat. It is now well established that the IPCC has manipulated the data for political purposes.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by treekiller

You have to consider the source of those charts Wombat. It is now well established that the IPCC has manipulated the data for political purposes.

Really?

Did the Nobel Prize committee know this?

How come there have been no papers exposing this well known fact?

How come no one has come up with a different natural-only forcing projection using un-manipulated data?

How did the manipulated data get past the IPCC's review process?

Why don't any of the scientific organisations that have released statements supporting the IPCC know about this well known fact?

Why aren't there any scientific organisations that have released statements refuting the IPCC, in the light of this well known fact?

Can you provide a peer reviewed scientific source that details how the data was manipulated?

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by treekiller

You have to consider the source of those charts Wombat. It is now well established that the IPCC has manipulated the data for political purposes.

Have you read the IPCC report?
I mean the report, not just the ececutive summary?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Have you read the IPCC report?
I mean the report, not just the ececutive summary?

Good question.

They are very well referenced with hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers. Plus the report went through a very stringent scientific review. Then it went through a political review by hostile governments such as the USA. Claims of data manipulation are very difficult to believe.

Claims that it is well established that there was data manipulation by this Nobel laureate organisation, are from some other planet.

[spot1234]

It is however a well known fact among certain circles even though no evidence exists for these allegations and when examined they amount too little more then an urban myth. Enough people repeating it gives the illusion of uncertainty and doubt which is the aim of these factoids.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by spot1234

It is however a well known fact among certain circles even though no evidence exists for these allegations and when examined they amount too little more then an urban myth. Enough people repeating it gives the illusion of uncertainty and doubt which is the aim of these factoids.

Care to elucidate on those "certain circles" ?

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by flogger

Given the complete muzzling of any view and evasion of any fact that dissents from the religion of climate change in our media on this issue, its a bit rich trying to censure this tiny tiddler that has escaped the net.

Actually the real situation is quite the opposite. What with the the Bush administration having censored it's own climate scientists, and the fossil fuel industry putting out a lot of simply untruthful analysis, and even the prestige press biased by their journalistic principals, it is the scientific view that is the muzzled one.

Originally Posted by flogger

If people are interested in misinformation then they should start with the whole dodgy premise of AGW, which has so many cavernous holes in it . Needless to say the media ignores such 'inconvenient facts'.

There appears to be a cavernous hole in your critical thinking.

No scientific organisation disputes AGW.

Practically no scientific research published in the last 15 years disputes AGW.

So the pieces you read that doubt AGW should set off your internal bullshit detector.

The "whole premise" of AGW is indisputable and simple to understand.

"Greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effect." It is a consequence of very well understood optics, because it has been studied earnestly for over a century, and has a history in physics of nearly twice that.

Originally Posted by flogger

The great global warming swindle documentary is a darned sight closer to factual reality than Al Gores fictional piece after all and he got the Nobel Prize for his nonsense !!.

Well, no.

The great global warming swindle was full of misinformation, and had a counter-scientific conclusion.
In fact the reason that they were not penalised for not being impartial is that the reality of global warming is not controversial because it is so well established.
"The link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007", say the regulators - and that's why they don't fault Channel 4 for not providing an impartial viewpoint. (Slap on the wrist for 'Swindle').

Inconvenient truth did not have misinformation, and had a scientific conclusion.