Neither am I dismissing climate change theory as a whole, of course the climate is changing, I’m just suggesting that there may be other more significant factors, like the effect of that big fiery ball in the sky on the worlds oceans and atmosphere for instance..?!

Current climate models largely dismiss solar activity as a causative factor in recent warming on the basis that the sun has in fact shown slight cooling over the last 35 years while temperatures have risen, however, reputable studies have shown that there is an approximate 200 year gap between the action of solar warming on the oceans, and a related change in atmospheric CO2, basically the oceans are such a massive ‘radiator’ that it takes a couple of hundred years from adjusting the thermostat to seeing the related change in global CO2 levels.

The criticisms in the article extract I’ve used relate to direct quotes from ‘respected’ climate scientists and I’ve shown it here just to highlight one aspect of concern, the supposedly acceptable ‘cherry picking’ of results to produce a good ‘climate story’, something which has been widely criticised but continues to form part of the basis foe current projections. (The distinctive ‘hockey stick’ graph showing a recent temperature rise appears repeatedly still even though it has been largely discredited as a blatant manipulation of the data to show a less pronounced medieval warming period and more acute modern temperature rise).

A Recent paper by five eminent Japanese climate scientists was hugely critical of widespread methods, practices and conclusions that are now driving significant sections of national and international economic policy and concluded that human activity was likely not the main causative factor in modern climate change, and yet literally TRILLIONS of dollars in taxes, relief spending, carbon trading etc. depend on this science…

There is a LOT of contrary opinion, both within the field of Paleoclimatology, and from within related disciplines but it’s just not being heard or having anything like the effect it should have because the accepted ‘facts’ of climate science are challenged at the peril of any scientist’s reputation / funding.

I could write a more detailed critique based on specific published data but then ‘real’ scientists would just dismiss this blog as a ‘dodgy message board’, if ‘real’ scientist can’t get their object criticisms of climate science heard or taken seriously, what chance do I have?

A poll in 2009 by Pure Research in USA stated that 76% of scientists think that ‘News’ does not differentiate between ‘well formed logical arguements’ and ‘bullshit’ (I’m para phrasing here). Perhaps for 1 stupid mistake reported in the press there are 10 published papers (much more I think) that go unreported. As the vast majority of the public couldn’t give a toss about the statistical evidence from tree rings for global warming….but leaked e-mails hinting at a massive scientific global conscpiracy..??? Whoa you’ve got me there!!

Not sure what I think about climate change, really. Tend to accept it as vaguely legit, although the fiasco at the University of East Anglia was shameful. Not sure I can leap from that to a generalization about all climate scientists, though.