

Scientists to ‘fast-track’ evidence linking global warming to wild weather - rpm4321
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-to-fasttrack-evidence-linking-global-warming-to-wild-weather-9773767.html

======
MaysonL
From the article:

 _“We want to clear up the huge amounts of confusion around how climate change
is influencing the weather, in both directions. For example, the typhoon in
the Philippines that dominated the UN climate change talks in Warsaw last
November and that many people put down to climate change – it turned out it
had no detectable evidence. And the same goes for Hurricane Sandy,” Dr
Friederike Otto, of Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, told
The Independent.

But there are plenty of other cases where climate change is likely to have
been involved, she said. Examples include last year’s record heatwave in
Australia – the severity of which an eminent scientist concluded this week
“was virtually impossible without climate change” – and the flooding in the UK
at the start of the year, which Dr Otto’s department has just established was
made 25 per cent more likely by global warming._

In other words, a lot of freaky weather has no connection to climate change,
and a lot does.

------
paulhauggis
So let's recap:

-no longer allowing differing scientific opinions (in many communities regarding climate change, this is banned)..which reminds me of the same tactics the catholic church used to use in the middle ages -'fast-tracking' science from 1 year to 3 days (which I find extremely hard to believe)

If I proposed this in any other professional field of study, there would be
outrage.

I would like to see an investigation on where taxes in many of these European
countries are going and who is funding these studies.

So much money is now involved in climate change, it's difficult to see how
many of these 'scientific studies' are actually based on facts.

~~~
dmfdmf
I agree this is about politics and money, not science. The leaked emails from
the Climate Research Unit proved they were manipulating data and blocking the
work and careers of anyone disagreeing.

~~~
dalke
To be more precise, fitting data to a model can be part of an inclusive
definition of "manipulating data", and asking to delete emails discussing AR4
in order to avoid a Freedom of Information request definitely falls under
"blocking the work of someone disagreeing", so I am not saying you are wrong.

But if you mean fraudulently manipulating data, and having the ability to
actually block or seriously and negatively affect the careers of everyone who
disagreed? For that, there is no evidence in those emails.

Eight different committees, from multiple countries and organizations,
"investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of
fraud or scientific misconduct." This includes the Department of Commerce, as
requested by Senator Inhofe, who believes that global warming is "the greatest
hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".

