Climategate

[Wiscoman]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Only on one side, unfortunately.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

I did. Not a fact.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

A-freakin'-men.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

No argument there.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.

[steelish]

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

[Wiscoman]

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

[IAN 2411]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

[Wiscoman]

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[DuncanONeil]

Again, your logic is fail.
You rail at the presentation by anyone that cycles exist as if it does not matter. Yet you admit cycles exist. Even claim there is no way of knowing where in said cycle this point in time is.
All of this being said it seems that those being true you also can not claim that the current belief in a runaway warming must be considered true. Based on your own statements concerning planetary cycles. You have no way of knowing if this cycle is about to turn, as some evidence suggests, or if the actions you are in favor of will result in a catastrophic result.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[steelish]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist. So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

[Wiscoman]

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Which does nothing to prove this is the result of a cycle.

Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist.

What's this have to do with something that's cyclical? If it happened before and it's a cycle, it'll happen again. Otherwise, it's not a cycle, is it?

So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

No, we don't know that at all. Albert Einstein once said, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Taken out of context -- as I just did -- this would seem to suggest quite a bit of dishonesty on his part. Clearly, this debunks his theories. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be happy to know that they were attacked by a wild theory that is now debunked.

[DuncanONeil]

all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

Sorry but here you have a massive fail. There is no logic whatsoever in this statement. Conversely to claim that the cycles of nature are to be discounted because they present an impediment to the intended outcome is also illogical.

[DuncanONeil]

Well, apparently we know which side it is that blindly follows one side, just stick with Wisco. Which side is the one that merely denies the others right to have an opinion and question data?

Only on one side, unfortunately.



Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.



I did. Not a fact.



A-freakin'-men.



No argument there.



Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees.



The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.



The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.