Clippo

BonnieDundee,

Long & bitter experience on this forum has taught me, (and a quite a few others I believe,) that AGW sceptics CANNOT accept that the overwhelming independent peer-reviewed science has comprehensively debunked all their Exxon stimulated doubts.
No matter how many times you refer to independent science, data measured, collected & analysed by reputable scientists and scientific bodies around the world, they will not accept it’s truth because this truth threatens their Libertarian economic god of the US conservative right. At least, it did about 20 years ago and that’s why many/most? major US corporations set up bodies like Global Climate Coalition and spawned all these phoney US ‘Institutes’ or ‘Centers’ & ‘think Tanks’ Their publicly avowed purpose was to disseminate doubt about the increasing evidence in favour of the man made CO2 evolution link to Global warming, using the media techniques of the tobacco industry in the USA a generation before to deny the smoking – lung Cancer link.
Look back at the so-called ‘evidence’ links that mpkdavies and Poptech, (if they are different posters), have provided in recent posts. See if you can recognise any of these Institutes or Centers and see if you can recognise repeating names of scientists.

Type them into Wikipedia if you wish or go to the link I gave somewhere recently :-
Logical Science Incidentally, you may want to go to the page there which discusses ‘AGW consensus’ for ammo – but the sceptics conveniently try to deny that.

(BTW, I was berated very recently for using Wiki – well let me defend myself. I am fully aware of potential errors and political interference in Wiki but I have said several times previously that I only refer to it as a first source. Isn’t that what exactly what mpkdavies & Poptech said above ?

It seems to me Climate change sceptics particularly, love wiki when it says things they may want to read but it is totally ‘rubbish’ when there are ‘Inconvenient Truths’ to them in it.

Continuing the AGW ‘consensus’ theme, besides the humungous volume of support for AGW from around the world, I see that there is, in the last few days a published survey in the USA which says (I think I published this as a thread recently):-
STATS: Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
An extract :-
(BTW, this poll was carried out for STATS by Robert Lichter who has links, I believe to Fox news – another notorious anti AGW media organisation. So it must be good.
To cover myself I will only say that this information is second hand & I haven’t had chance to verify it in my usual way).

Re:- Mpkdavies statement over ‘models' - ( garbage in, garbage out ) - he frankly is in the climate-modelling dark-ages. He wouldn’t recognise a computer climate model if it hit him on the head.

Much of the ground breaking mathematics which underpins most Climate models, both Atmospheric and Oceanic, was developed by Ed Lorenz who died very recently. He was also responsible for the bulk of the mathematics of Chaos theory – held in the highest regard around the world. A summary of his life & work appears both in Wiki and recently in www.realclimate.com
Furthermore, this site is pure ‘gold’ for scientific FACTS about all disciplines related to global warming. They have a post filter mechanism which stops the ‘mindless’ sceptics diarrhoea -ing the phoney papers and links that you have seen so much of here recently.

Take heart, the dubious efforts of the denial industry have been exposed and are patently not working any more. Even George Bush, as I posted recently, now ‘believes’ in AGW. Furthermore, BP and Shell left the Climate change coalition long before it collapsed and both the chief executives are reputed to have agreed that GW is largely man made. Furthermore, it was reported in Wiki last year that Exxon higher management made speeches which implied they also believed in AGW. I haven’t looked recently to see if they have retracted this but they hadn’t several months after – which was telling !

I promised myself I would limit my contribution here following my very enjoyable forced absence. So, I may not post for several days.