MickC

This would be a good place to start in my view. http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

The site is put together by an Australian, John Cook, and references what you would call the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change. One of the ideas of the site is to link back to peer reviewed scientific literature.

What you will see here is essentially what all the national science academies around the globe believe.

John Cook is also co author of a recent book (you can find it on the site) which was launched in Australia in the last month or so by John Hewson and Bob Carr. He was also going to send copies to every Australian Federal politician - I assume he has now done so.

Its good to see what Leo Lane is pinning all his hopes on, not to mention his reputation - namely the link to Roy Spencer's site. Roy Spencer's view is an extreme minority one amongst scientists and there would not be a single reputable scientific institution anywhere in the world that supports it. If you key in "Roy Spencer" to the search box on the www.skepticalscience.com site I linked earlier, you will be able to see the broader scientific communities views on Roy Spencer's contribution to the debate, again linked back to peer reviewed scientific literature.

Enjoy

RPG

Thank you for demonstrating that debate on Climate Science has nothing to do with facts.

I guess you believe in a flat earth as well?

MickC

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5t12.jpg

There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville)

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/

rpg
Summarising: 1000's of scientists involved in corruption and deceit and no amount of enquiries will exonerate any one of them.

Leo
Who actually is Malcolm Roberts?

For goodness sake, give up on it.
All the predictions of temperature rise are from computer models.
The Uppsala University Global Energy Group has shown that the models
are using the wrong values for available fossil fuel burning.

They have published the real values, but it seems that the IPCC does
not want to know.

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/validity-of-the-fossil-fuel-production-outlooks-in-the-ipcc-emission-scenarios/

Link to the paper is down the introduction in blue.

Now go read it and when the IPCC puts it into their computer models
that will be the time to discuss the matter.
I don't know what difference it will make to the computer output.

Bazz

Uppsala University Global Energy Group merely disagree with the extent of climate change as posited by the IPCC, they still believe action needs to take place:

"Presentation by Kjell Aleklett, Global Energy Systems Group, Uppsala University.

With dwindling fossil fuel resources and climate changes looming, researchers argue that the world as we know is about to change. The fossil fuels that have predicated the matchless expansion of the 20th century show difficulties in keeping up with increasing demand. At the same time, continued use of remaining fossil fuel deposits risks pushing the world towards catastrophic climate changes.

On 9 june 2010 SEI executive director Johan Rockström and researcher Karl Hallding teamed up with Professor Kjell Aleklett from Global Energy Systems Group, Uppsala University to discuss future energy and climate security challenges.

- IPCC predictions are exaggerated
One of Europe’s leading experts on fossil fuel, Haleklett argues that the gloomy IPCC predictions of climate change are exaggerated simply because the world’s oil resources will reach its peak within the next 20 years or so.

- However, this doesn’t mean we can continue with business as usual. We are faced with challenges far beyond the climate ones once our fossil fuel deposits have run out, he says."

http://sei-international.org/video-archive/1821

ammonite, demonizing skeptics is fashionable, and of course alarmists are nothing if not fashionable. what debate?

This is my opinion, why do you think I should post "facts" that you approve of? I guess you join the other alarmists in trying to silence dissent of your beliefs, what's up, can't stand to see or hear any disagreement? get over it.

At least you didn't call me Herr Goebels as sarnian does when flaming me .. I love it when he does that, as it just shows what hysterics you are and have no tolerance whatever.

bonmot, of course always attempts his demonizing with out of context "summaries" "rpg - Summarising: 1000's of scientists involved in corruption and deceit and no amount of enquiries will exonerate any one of them."

bonmot, were there thousand of scientists at CRU? .. no of course not, you exaggerate again and again, like most alarmists, you want to amplify ridicule your opponent. Yet, AGW belief and support is on the decline, regardless of the demonising, or maybe, because of it .. whatever .. carry on.

I repeat, I don't believe there is conspiracy outside of CRU, where it was obvious if you care to read the emails .. they were published, if you don't see corruption there, well nothing will help you be objective.

The rest, well it's convenient group think, if you spend any time with researchers and scientists as I do, and with the academic community, it is easy to see how people go along with things. No one wants an adversarial existence in research if there is an easier way to get grants. Why would you.

Climate science is not all CO2 related .. so the actual research on that is actually quite small, but of course in alarmist's minds it exaggerates automatically.

I see the current group think with alarmists is to demonize skeptics, and you all show your true adherence to the cause .. thanks for underlining the current trend.