Public loses faith in climate change science after leaked emails scandal

[Midas]

Surveys show increase in number of people who believe claims are exaggerated.

The number of Britons who believe the science of climate change has fallen over the last 12 months, according to recent polls. Although the vast majority of people still believe the planet is heating up, there has been an increase in those who believe climate change claims are exaggerated.

Public perception could have been influenced by the recent scandal of leaked emails between climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia. The emails, which appeared to encourage data to be kept from Freedom of Information requests, have been seized upon by climate change sceptics – although none of them dispute the science behind the "greenhouse effect" of gases such as carbon dioxide, which traps solar heat and warms the atmosphere.

A BBC poll, which surveyed 1,000 people, revealed that 25% of adults did not believe in global warming – a rise of 8% since a similar poll in November – and the percentage of those who thought climate change was a reality fell to 75%. Of those who believed, one in three felt climate change had been exaggerated. Only 26% of people thought climate change was "established as largely manmade".

The full story available from here : Public loses faith in climate change science after leaked emails scandal | Environment | The Guardian

[Kiwi 1691]

But, don't forget that many in society are stupid.

[Barry]

But, don't forget that many in society are stupid.

Members of this forum will have noticed this.

[Kiwi 1691]

Members of this forum will have noticed this.

Considering you believe in the big fairy in the sky, what you are insinuating is idiotic.

[DTE]

Leaked emails, stolen from a university server BTW, kept for years and then released to the public merely days before the Copenhagen summit, I'd have thought the British public might have learned in recent years to be more sceptical of blantent media manipulation and propaganda. While most of us still are, it seems the dimwit clan is increasing. It seems some people will accept the word of Melanie Phillips et al at that rag of a newspaper over an informed scientific opinion.

Oh well, you lot can explain to your grandchildren why they have to swim to school

[fubar]

it's all Lie's global warming fiction from people who can't even get the weather forecast for three days correct, are we therefore able to believe them when they say the world will change to such a degree as this,ice caps melting floods all of which are backed by corrupt science I think not
It's interesting to note the people who suffer the most from the push for green energy will be the poor people as we see food produce being used for fuel especially in third world countries like Africa where food is already in short supply Do we really expect them to use food or money that would normally go toward bigger and better crops yields to feed the population.and divert the towards bio fuels when it's hard enough to feed themselves as it is??

Bl**dy H**l their are some thick sick people about if you believe in this nonsense.

[DC]

Where there's money there are bastards, and boy, is there a lot of money in Climate change. The amount of things blamed on climate change is absurd, if it's really hot, climate change, if it's really cold, climate change, drought? climate change. flooding? climate change. Great barrier reef dying? climate change.

[Don]

But, don't forget that many in society are stupid.

Including those who generated the emails in the first place.

[fubar]

Including those who generated the emails in the first place.

Intelectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong (David Fasold)

Their's more of a chance that they were coerced into it as i cant see them making any money from it.Knowing the politics behind it, Job lose could have been used as an incentive just as easy.but it's just as likely to have been big busniess to blame considering the money involved if so dose if warrant a criminal prosecution and a quick look in the bank accounts of those involved would find this out. can't see that happening any time soon can we??

[Midas]

Their's more of a chance that they were coerced into it as i cant see them making any money from it.Knowing the politics behind it, Job lose could have been used as an incentive just as easy.but it's just as likely to have been big busniess to blame considering the money involved if so dose if warrant a criminal prosecution and a quick look in the bank accounts of those involved would find this out. can't see that happening any time soon can we??

Maybe it's just me being cynical, but I'd lay better than even money on it being the government behind it somewhere along the line. Certainly initially they'll be the biggest 'winner' of the CO2 cash that's floating around and would be in the best position to pressure or otherwise coerce scientific bodies to fudge data to give the results they want; businesses have of course latched on to it, but for something like this, surely government has to be the prime mover.

[Don]

Intelectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong (David Fasold

Nor does it preclude one from being a lying SOB, on either side.

[fubar]

Maybe it's just me being cynical, but I'd lay better than even money on it being the government behind it somewhere along the line. Certainly initially they'll be the biggest 'winner' of the CO2 cash that's floating around and would be in the best position to pressure or otherwise coerce scientific bodies to fudge data to give the results they want; businesses have of course latched on to it, but for something like this, surely government has to be the prime mover.

has their been any direct link to the governments been mentioned,as i never read the email mainly because I've never believed in climate change in the first place.but i have a sneaky suspicion that it's a way to slow the emerging markets such as China, as the USA,UK,and Europe go into meltdown??

[fubar]

Nor does it preclude one from being a lying SOB, on either side.

That dose depend on.
ONE You don't believe in the truth when you see it.
TWO Your to thick to know a lie when you see one.
THREE You see the lie but you have something to gain from perpetuating the lie.
FOUR You get sucked into the lie and once your there the shame of the lie makes you perpetuate it further and further, convincing yourself that the lie is so convincing it eventually becomes the truth.
FIVE You have a blinding faith in science.

Tell a credible story often enough and the people will believe anything eventually.(fubar)

[Don]

That dose depend on.
ONE You don't believe in the truth when you see it.
TWO Your to thick to know a lie when you see one.
THREE You see the lie but you have something to gain from perpetuating the lie.
FOUR You get sucked into the lie and once your there the shame of the lie makes you perpetuate it further and further, convincing yourself that the lie is so convincing it eventually becomes the truth.
FIVE You have a blinding faith in science.

Or SIX - Some folk are just pathological liars who lie because, well, that's what a pathological liar does. Ask me how I know.

[fubar]

Or SIX - Some folk are just pathological liars who lie because, well, that's what a pathological liar does. Ask me how I know.

Are you admitting your a pathological liar Don?? if so I'll have to remember that in future quotes??

[Don]

Are you admitting your a pathological liar Don?? if so I'll have to remember that in future quotes??

No, but if I was one and said I was one, it would necessarily be a lie, would it not

My mother happens to be one though, so I usually know one when I see one.

[fubar]

No, but if I was one and said I was one, it would necessarily be a lie, would it not

My mother happens to be one though, so I usually know one when I see one.

Ditto Don.

[DougieG]

FIVE You have a blinding faith in science.

Yes. It is insane when something is a vast scientific consensus supported by piles of evidence to actually believe what they say...

[DTE]

Yes. It is insane when something is a vast scientific consensus supported by piles of evidence to actually believe what they say...

I know. Shocking isn't it? Why not simply base your opinion of this on gut feeling, religious ideology or capitalist doctrine like a rational person?

My feeling is most climate change sceptics are merely jealous of those educated scientist types who manage whole reports without a spelling mistake or sounding xenophobic. Smarmy gits.

[DougieG]

I know. Shocking isn't it? Why not simply base your opinion of this on gut feeling, religious ideology or capitalist doctrine like a rational person?

I know. How foolish. It's just common sense.

My feeling is most climate change sceptics are merely jealous of those educated scientist types who manage whole reports without a spelling mistake or sounding xenophobic. Smarmy gits.

They probably made a pact with the devil. Or the Muslims.

[fubar]

Yes. It is insane when something is a vast scientific consensus supported by piles of evidence to actually believe what they say...

1,2,3,4,5, some people are just plain gullible

[DougieG]

1,2,3,4,5, some people are just plain gullible

I know, it's dreadful. That's why there's so many people that believe the pseudo-science and media spin that perpetuates the pathetic 'evidence' against anthropogenic global warming.

[Barry]

I know, it's dreadful. That's why there's so many people that believe the pseudo-science and media spin that perpetuates the pathetic 'evidence' against anthropogenic global warming.

Show us evidence that Global warming is continuing.
It stopped in 2000. Everyone agrees.

[DougieG]

Show us evidence that Global warming is continuing.
It stopped in 2000. Everyone agrees.

'Everyone' being you? Or maybe David Icke?

[DC]

'Everyone' being you? Or maybe David Icke?

Err, the last hottest year globally on record was 1998...since then polar ice caps have actually recovered quite a lot.

[DougieG]

Err, the last hottest year globally on record was 1998...since then polar ice caps have actually recovered quite a lot.

Evidence? That's not what the published, peer reviewed science articles say.

[DC]

Evidence? That's not what the published, peer reviewed science articles say.

DailyTech - Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

[DougieG]

DailyTech - Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Thanks.

[Barry]

@ DougieG
Show us evidence that Global warming is continuing.
It stopped in 2000.

[DougieG]

@ DougieG
Show us evidence that Global warming is continuing.
It stopped in 2000.

Climate Change - New Scientist

Try the beginner's guide.

Met Office: Climate science

If you can stomach the idea that the Met Office tells the government what to think, not the other way around.

Facts and fictions about climate change - Science Issues - The Royal Society

Or anything from Climate Change - Energy, Environment and Climate Change - The Royal Society

All more reputable sources than any you can come up with.

The simple fact that you still say global warming rather than climate change (the former phrase was cooked up by the media) just goes to show really...

[Barry]

I know, it's dreadful. That's why there's so many people that believe the pseudo-science and media spin that perpetuates the pathetic 'evidence' against anthropogenic global warming.

and

The simple fact that you still say global warming rather than climate change (the former phrase was cooked up by the media) just goes to show really...

Dougie it was you who forgot to call it climate change! oops.

Thank you for those links, I will go through them to see if I can find any evidence of the planet warming since the year 2000.

[DougieG]

and

Dougie it was you who forgot to call it climate change! oops.

Thank you for those links, I will go through them to see if I can find any evidence of the planet warming since the year 2000.

Whoops! Well spotted

[Barry]

Dougie I have asked you for evidence that there has been global warming since 2000.
I do not believe that there is any, and I here present my case:
I will refer to some of your links and some others.

I could spend much more time on this, but I do have a life (of sorts )
From New Scientist:

And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years

That will probably be enough to raise global temperatures by around 2°C to 5°C.

Melting glaciers and precipitation are causing some rivers to overflow, while evaporation is emptying others.

Lots of probables and the melting glaciers has recently been shown to be baseless.

The bottom line is that we will need to cut CO2 emissions by 70% to 80% simply to stabilise

atmospheric CO2 concentrations - and thus temperatures. The quicker we do that, the less unbearably hot our future world will be.

That is not actually do-able, is it?

Dougie, I found this from the met office.
Met Office: Global temperatures 2008: Another top-ten year

Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of

14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C.

That means that the planet is now cooling.
CO2 in the atmosphere is apparently still rising.
They are comparing all the figures with 1961-1990 which were known to be cooler years. You won't remember this, being so young and fresh, but when I was at school the scientists were warning of an imminent ice age.

This graph is the sort of thing I was looking for:

It shows quite clearly that warming stopped in 2000.
This is contrary to all the forecasts.
Remember that this whole discussion was really blown up by Al Gore with his inconvenient truth that the world was warming, and it is all man's and CO2's fault.
CO2 is still rising temperatures are falling.

This from:
World Climate Report More Satellite Musings

We can’t imagine that the global temperatures will stay down forever, but the last 7+ years does provide a clear example that the rate of temperature change is not simply going up and up and up. In fact, the rate of change seems to be slowing.

I think it is pretty clear that warming has stopped since about 2000.
CO2 still going up, apparently -
CO2 Now - CO2 Home

Finally from the Met Office:
Met Office: 2008 global temperature
2008 is below 1997,1998,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005, 2006 and 2007.

I rest my case.

[DougieG]

I don't have much time at the moment, but just allow me to point out your flawed reasoning on this graph:



Look at 1940-55 ish. By your assumptions, warming would have stopped then... There may be lulls but the general trend is incredibly obviously upwards.

[DougieG]

I could spend much more time on this, but I do have a life (of sorts )
From New Scientist:
Lots of probables and the melting glaciers has recently been shown to be baseless.

No no no. You misunderstand the argument about the glaciers. The predicted timescale of the melting has been shown to be a grave error in judgment by a certain few publishers that unfortunately spread.

http://www.domain-b.com/environment/..._Glacier_1.jpg
http://www.domain-b.com/environment/..._Glacier_2.jpg

These sorts of pictures are incredibly common if you just look.

That is not actually do-able, is it?

A) Doable or not is completely irrelevant to the point. B) It is doable. Germany are already well on the way and nuclear power stations are a very reliable source of power. The resources for them will eventually run out but within 50 years or so we ought to have cracked fusion power.

Dougie, I found this from the met office.
Met Office: Global temperatures 2008: Another top-ten year

That means that the planet is now cooling.
CO2 in the atmosphere is apparently still rising.
They are comparing all the figures with 1961-1990 which were known to be cooler years. You won't remember this, being so young and fresh, but when I was at school the scientists were warning of an imminent ice age.

Yes a top ten warm year means that the planet is cooling. OK Barry Once the years start dropping off the top ten then I will take notice. Even then it will be 20 years or so before it is possible to say.

This graph is the sort of thing I was looking for:

It shows quite clearly that warming stopped in 2000.
This is contrary to all the forecasts.

I've already dealt with thus above. You've made a pretty fundamental mistake in your extrapolation.

Remember that this whole discussion was really blown up by Al Gore with his inconvenient truth that the world was warming, and it is all man's and CO2's fault.
CO2 is still rising temperatures are falling.

Yup, short term. It's a lot more complicated than that though.

This from:
World Climate Report More Satellite Musings



I think it is pretty clear that warming has stopped since about 2000.

That same blog says:

We can’t imagine that the global temperatures will stay down forever

In other words, the rate may be entirely temporary. Noone knows.

CO2 still going up, apparently -
CO2 Now - CO2 Home

Of course it is. And CO2 is PROVEN to increase warming by trapping heat. Fill a bottle with CO2, and one with air then seal them and direct the same strength light at them. The one with CO2 will warm up faster. So FACT pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will increase warming in certain areas.

[QUOTE=Barry;98755]Finally from the Met Office:
Met Office: 2008 global temperature
2008 is below 1997,1998,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005, 2006 and 2007.

So what? 1950 was below the entire 40s. Then look what happened. You can hardly say that 2008 being among the 10 warmest years on record is irrelevant.

I rest my case.

Just you try.

[fubar]

The weak link in all this science is still the very fact that the science used to predict climate change Is fraudulent and the constant use of co2 as the cause of climate change is used conveniently because that is exactly what it dose do. The sun plays more of a part in the climate change than anything else and all ways has done equally the axes of the earth has shifted by at least 1 degree and apparently dose so every hundred years or so. but the north and south pole have not changed that much merely shifted by the same degree. Their is a more dangerous situation if we continue to try to valadate this fraudulant science that many people seem to forget if we continue to reduce co2 we could cause the earth to go into a mini ice age which we see at the present time predicted to last at least thirty years.For some convenent resson this fact has gone unnoticed,the fact is global cooling is far more of a problem than global warming will ever be.plus as i have stated before the same science is used to predict the daily weather forcast and as we know they very rarely get it right, and still thay expect us to belive the same science can predict what will happen in the next 30 to 100 years. I don't know if i should laugh or cry.

[DougieG]

The weak link in all this science is still the very fact that the science used to predict climate change Is fraudulent and the constant use of co2 as the cause of climate change is used conveniently because that is exactly what it dose do. The sun plays more of a part in the climate change than anything else and all ways has done equally the axes of the earth has shifted by at least 1 degree and apparently dose so every hundred years or so. but the north and south pole have not changed that much merely shifted by the same degree. Their is a more dangerous situation if we continue to try to valadate this fraudulant science that many people seem to forget if we continue to reduce co2 we could cause the earth to go into a mini ice age which we see at the present time predicted to last at least thirty years.For some convenent resson this fact has gone unnoticed,the fact is global cooling is far more of a problem than global warming will ever be.plus as i have stated before the same science is used to predict the daily weather forcast and as we know they very rarely get it right, and still thay expect us to belive the same science can predict what will happen in the next 30 to 100 years. I don't know if i should laugh or cry.

The idea that the state of the sun influences changes in the weather and climate is laughable. The main proponent of it is unemployed after being proven wrong multiple times yet still adhering to it. The daily forecasts are very accurate indeed. I don't know how much attention you pay to them. To predict the weather to within a couple of hours is incredibly difficult. Remember that they predicted the very heavy snow a few days before, for instance. And climate science is different to meteorology.

[Midas]

The idea that the state of the sun influences changes in the weather and climate is laughable....

I think you need to be a little more careful in what you're saying than that Dougie! Of course the sun influences our climate and the pattern of weather on earth - didn't you realise that even at a most fundamental level the sun warms the air and sea, which in turn create convection currents which have a direct impact on climate? Just see some of the links from highly reputable scientific and meteorological organisations for more details, including ones from NASA, the American Institute of Physics and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (the link is actually from a news aggregator, but originates with NCAR). You're saying they're all wrong?

[DougieG]

I think you need to be a little more careful in what you're saying than that Dougie! Of course the sun influences our climate and the pattern of weather on earth - didn't you realise that even at a most fundamental level the sun warms the air and sea, which in turn create convection currents which have a direct impact on climate? Just see some of the links from highly reputable scientific and meteorological organisations for more details, including ones from NASA, the American Institute of Physics and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (the link is actually from a news aggregator, but originates with NCAR). You're saying they're all wrong?

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough. Of course it is the sun that warms the earth, but some pseudo-scientists have put forward the idea that sunspots and fluctuations of the sun are the main factor behind climate change, which is I think what fubar was referencing.

[DC]

I don't have much time at the moment, but just allow me to point out your flawed reasoning on this graph:



Look at 1940-55 ish. By your assumptions, warming would have stopped then... There may be lulls but the general trend is incredibly obviously upwards.

Dougie you do realise that prior to the 1920s instruments weren't accurate enough to measure in tenths of a degree?

[DougieG]

Dougie you do realise that prior to the 1920s instruments weren't accurate enough to measure in tenths of a degree?

That doesn't have any bearing on the 1940-50 measurements that I was talking about...

The way that old samples are taken is through ice cores, generally accepted as an excellent source of data.

[DC]

That doesn't have any bearing on the 1940-50 measurements that I was talking about...

The way that old samples are taken is through ice cores, generally accepted as an excellent source of data.

Actually ice cores are not an effective method. They assume that the gases inside were trapped in a completely dry, suspended enviroment, such is found with dry ice. However, ice is in fact wet, even after being frozen for millenia. These tiny pockets of water adjust and change the chemical make up of gases inside the cores.

[Barry]

It is indicative of the state of denial of global warming and CO2/warming 'linkists' that when faced with statistics showing the planet has cooled since 2000, still say that it is evidence of a general warming trend.
There is no possible argument to continue against those that are in denial of facts which are presented with solid evidence.

That is why I am definitely resting my case!

[DougieG]

It is indicative of the state of denial of global warming and CO2/warming 'linkists' that when faced with statistics showing the planet has cooled since 2000, still say that it is evidence of a general warming trend.
There is no possible argument to continue against those that are in denial of facts which are presented with solid evidence.

That is why I am definitely resting my case!

OK, run away from my points then.

[DTE]

It is indicative of the state of denial of global warming and CO2/warming 'linkists' that when faced with statistics showing the planet has cooled since 2000, still say that it is evidence of a general warming trend.
There is no possible argument to continue against those that are in denial of facts which are presented with solid evidence.

That is why I am definitely resting my case!

Hmmmn...looks like a general warming trend to me.

[Midas]

Hmmmn...looks like a general warming trend to me.

And to continue the top end of that graph in more detail, courtesy of the Met Office .....



Plus a couple of their reports on climate trends - Met Office: Global temperatures 2008: Another top-ten year and Met Office: News release.

[fubar]

Found this interesting article on the net. well worth a read
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

[Barry]

Found this interesting article on the net. well worth a read
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

Ah yes!
F0 + P0 + ED − F − P − K − AA − ST = 0
I had always thought that.
Thanks Fubar

[DougieG]

Ah yes!
F0 + P0 + ED − F − P − K − AA − ST = 0
I had always thought that.
Thanks Fubar

Exactly why none of us deserve an opinion on climate change. Come back with a PhD in climate science and I will listen to you.

[Don]

Joy Behar(The View) speaking to Eve Ensler - "Every scientist at every note believes in it."

And what is it that convinces Ms. Ensler,author of The Vagina Monologues and science maven extraordinaire, of the veracity of global warming?

Eve Ensler, - "We just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis."

Ladies and Gentlemen, the final word is in, The Vagina hath spoken. No further deviation from the party line will be tolerated. Unbelievers will be shot. That is all.