1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

A basic look at how climate scientists infer that man-made carbon gases are changing the climate, and how this view is contradicted by other climate scientists who are skeptics.
I am a former science correspondent with an interest in reporting the facts, not the media hype. My thanks to 9thgate for checking my script for errors.
Please note that the animation of a photon striking a carbon atom is not meant to be visually correct, it is simply an illustration of CO2 absorbing energy and re-emitting it at a different wavelength. Given the limitations I have in making animations I could not spend an inordinate amount of time making a visually "correct" image of a photon striking an electron which moves into a different orbital plane, and even if I tried it would never be visually correct because on a quantum scale such an illustration is impossible. But thanks to all those who wrote in. The narration that accompanies the illustration is correct.

• Category

  Education

[Sir Lew]

Oh, so sorry my terminology was a bit lax.

We are being told that CO2 is driving temperature changes but there is no paper that demonstrates this to any level of acceptable credibility. (wording acceptable for you?)

The point is, whatever wording you choose, we are paying real money to solve the CO2 'problem' despite there being no evidence that there is a problem.

Sixteen years no warming despite constantly rising CO2. Why should I pay or a failed hypothesis?

[Sir Lew]

By promoting Manns paper you have to accept its contents. It all rests on tree ring interpretation.

Why do you refuse to apply any scepticism to such papers?

[Michael Kohler]

No. He argues in ways that show that he doesn't understand science, as he's not a scientist. Kinda like you.

[Michael Kohler]

Prove? This is science, not mathematics or formal logic. We can't PROVE anything. Proof is, by definition, both final and binary. That's not how science works. Newton didn't "prove" gravity in a way that future scientists have zero to ever add. By using such terminology you demonstrate that you're in no way a scientist, but just another fool on youtube parroting things he doesn't understand. Over and over and over, too.

[Michael Kohler]

I'm saying things about tree rings? Where? What are you even talking about?

[Sir Lew]

Big Oil funding? Sure.

Google "Forbes Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate"

Big Oil funds the Sierra Club.

[Sir Lew]

It is an important point.

YOU are claiming that Manns tree rings are some gold standard and in fact they underpin his entire paper.

I am asking you why you are so unsceptical of his claim that tree rings are usable proxies for T.

I have read his paper and I am even MORE sceptical because it is based on misuse of science and flawed statistical analysis.

[Sir Lew]

The point is Michael that there are things which are claimed but NOT supported by ANY peer reviewed papers at all.

Example - we are still waiting for the paper that proves that the warming over the past 100 years is any way unusual and caused by CO2.

Still waiting for the quantitative model that predicts future climate.

YOU are the one claiming that proclamations from 'scientists' are truth so I am asking YOU to tell me how YOU decide when two opposite opinions are expressed.

[Sir Lew]

Monckton? His arguments stand by themselves, he does not argue from authority. The fact that people like YOU have to misrepresent what sceptics say to try beat us says it all.

[Sir Lew]

Exxon CEO makes more. So what? His job is to keep the oil flowing. What has that got to do with the point I am making?

ie if there is money for 'scientists' to promote one side of a debate only then you get a predictable result.

You deny their is any incentive and yet I listed three people who have made money out of the scam.

So do you equate coal trains with Auschwitz as well?