"Well it's cooling. We're getting very cold winters and you're saying the world's warming? Even if you don't understand the science, that's illogical"
That's the exact moment this guy lost credibility for me. As a scientist, he should know better than to say such ridiculous, manipulative shit. If you didn't think this guy was Cherry-picking evidence, that simplistic statement says it all.
The problem with "climategate" was not that it actually disproved anything that had previously been said about Global Warming (the expression "storm in a tea cup" comes to mind), but rather, that it made the IPCC appear weak and incompetent, and gave climate change "skeptics" a strong foothold to push their agenda.
I mean the interview is a complete farce, whatever side of the fence to sit on. This debate is highly politicised, and highly publicised, two things which have created a great deal of misinformation.
The media has created so much conjecture surrounding this topic. Aside from that, the scientific papers discussing climate science are not really accessible to the general public, except through the IPCC, which has taken a pounding in terms of credibility.
hes canadian, he cant possible know what hes talking about.
The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.
People are too stupid to effectively conspire to do anything, but not too stupid to come up with conspiracy theories.
I felt strange about this guy from the beginning. I wanted to know what others thought.
It is too bad we (the public) do not have access to the info regarding the matter like you've said.
I feel scientist have failed at proving climate change to the public though.
I don't think it is the fault of scientists as such, it is the nature of the system.
Unfortunately, you can only really access scientist journals through a paid subscription or alternatively, through a tertiary institution.
There are some journals that can be accessed for free, and I'm happy to provide some passwords for people interested in looking for literature regarding climate change.
In my eyes, it is the media and governments, two entities without an intimate knowledge of climate change, that have caused the problems regarding the "proof". Aside from that, it is a complex problem you can't really understand properly without reading some of the literature IMO.
I just recalled that there is a thing such as the 11 year sun cycle.
Scientist agree that this cycle could in fact cause rises in temperature.
I am not denying that.
.A leaked draft of a UN climate change report to be released later this month shows the planet isn't warming as quickly as previously believed, reports say.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts carbon emission-caused global warming would increase average temperatures by between 1.5-4.5 C, rather than the 2007 report claim of 2-4.5 C, according to a summary obtained by the National Post.
The report suggests the threshold for climate change damage may not have been crossed as most experts say that global warming of less than 2 C won't cause harm.
Author and British House of Lords member Matt Ridley, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the latest UN study "dials back the alarm."
"It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet," Ridley wrote.
Report co-author Myles Allen, director of Oxford University's Climate Research Network, said the report isn't a "Bible" on climate change, the Telegraph reports.
"It is not a Bible; it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly, both sides are seriously confused on how science works — the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel."
The report is expected to be released Sept. 27.