Climategate

[DuncanONeil]

[/QUOTE]While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?[/QUOTE]I suppose I would find myself point a finger at AP. Since all the other news outlets seem to take their reports from there verbatim. Thing is when I listen to or read news reports I do not takes notes in order to convince, or lead others to that source. If that becomes necessary that the pleasure of said reading or learning becomes seriously weakened.

[/QUOTE]And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.[/QUOTE]
Unlike certain people I have never denied that the planet had been experiencing a warming. However since that pronouncement has as its start date the end of a period called the "Little Ice Age" hardly seems like man could be the source. When the proponents of Global Heat Disaster dismiss the fact that the planet itself has done this before makes it hard to accept the edict that we puny humans are the sole cause, or even the proximate cause. When the aforementioned disasterites dismiss every bit of evidence that the planet has begun a cooling as an aberation and not worthy of consideration again tends to weaken their position.
Personally I make every effort to avoid the term conspiracy. However I will admit an agenda for the AGW crowd.

[leo9]

Unlike certain people I have never denied that the planet had been experiencing a warming. However since that pronouncement has as its start date the end of a period called the "Little Ice Age" hardly seems like man could be the source. When the proponents of Global Heat Disaster dismiss the fact that the planet itself has done this before makes it hard to accept the edict that we puny humans are the sole cause, or even the proximate cause. When the aforementioned disasterites dismiss every bit of evidence that the planet has begun a cooling as an aberation and not worthy of consideration again tends to weaken their position.
Personally I make every effort to avoid the term conspiracy. However I will admit an agenda for the AGW crowd.

OK, let's go further back and try to start from basics.

A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs infra-red, thus increasing the net heating of the atmosphere for the same level of insolation. There are other significant greenhouse gasses - methane for one, hence the concern over the rapidly increasing release of methane from warming permafrosts - but CO2 is the one whose level is the most directly affected by human activity.

B) Since the Industrial Revolution began the large scale burning of fossil fuels, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen ever more rapidly.

C) The world's climate, and specifically the world's temperature, varies according to a number of cyclical patterns. The net influence of these cycles has been being studied for a hundred years or so and is pretty well understood, and the theory agrees with observation beautifully - up to the last few decades, when the curve went off in entirely the wrong direction. According to the theories that all climatologists were happy with until AGW came into the picture, the world should be gently cooling down (hence the 1970s scare about a "new Ice Age".) Instead it is warming ever faster.

Now my first question is, which of these propositions don't you believe? If (A), you can borrow space in any High School science lab for an afternoon and test it yourself. If (B), note that this is not just one researcher or group of researchers' opinion. The chemistry of the atmosphere is available for anyone to study, and people have been doing quantitative analyses of it since the 19th Century; the results are not hidden or secret or held in one database open to fudging.

I note that you don't dispute that the warming is happening, so the question is the cause. If you believe that the existing theories of climate cycles are enough to account for it, then you can either take my word for it, or do the research yourself to find out, that back in the mid-20th Century, when AGW was a minority crank theory, the consensus of climatology was that no such warming could possibly happen because they knew how the cycles worked and they were on a downward phase. That is why the majority have come around so solidly: they saw results that didn't fit the established theory, so they looked for a theory that correctly predicted what actually happened. That's how science works.

The point is, if you accept the evidence but you don't accept the theory, you are left with the conclusion that something contrary to previous climatological theories is happening, and it is completely unexplained and mysterious. And since there is an explanation available for it which is simple physics, this is a bit like insisting that a pan on the stove is growing hot due to mysterious and unexplained forces, while refusing to see that the stove is heating it.

[Losalt]

OK, let's go further back and try to start from basics.

A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs infra-red, thus increasing the net heating of the atmosphere for the same level of insolation. There are other significant greenhouse gasses - methane for one, hence the concern over the rapidly increasing release of methane from warming permafrosts - but CO2 is the one whose level is the most directly affected by human activity.

B) Since the Industrial Revolution began the large scale burning of fossil fuels, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen ever more rapidly.

C) The world's climate, and specifically the world's temperature, varies according to a number of cyclical patterns. The net influence of these cycles has been being studied for a hundred years or so and is pretty well understood, and the theory agrees with observation beautifully - up to the last few decades, when the curve went off in entirely the wrong direction. According to the theories that all climatologists were happy with until AGW came into the picture, the world should be gently cooling down (hence the 1970s scare about a "new Ice Age".) Instead it is warming ever faster.

Now my first question is, which of these propositions don't you believe? If (A), you can borrow space in any High School science lab for an afternoon and test it yourself. If (B), note that this is not just one researcher or group of researchers' opinion. The chemistry of the atmosphere is available for anyone to study, and people have been doing quantitative analyses of it since the 19th Century; the results are not hidden or secret or held in one database open to fudging.

I note that you don't dispute that the warming is happening, so the question is the cause. If you believe that the existing theories of climate cycles are enough to account for it, then you can either take my word for it, or do the research yourself to find out, that back in the mid-20th Century, when AGW was a minority crank theory, the consensus of climatology was that no such warming could possibly happen because they knew how the cycles worked and they were on a downward phase. That is why the majority have come around so solidly: they saw results that didn't fit the established theory, so they looked for a theory that correctly predicted what actually happened. That's how science works.

The point is, if you accept the evidence but you don't accept the theory, you are left with the conclusion that something contrary to previous climatological theories is happening, and it is completely unexplained and mysterious. And since there is an explanation available for it which is simple physics, this is a bit like insisting that a pan on the stove is growing hot due to mysterious and unexplained forces, while refusing to see that the stove is heating it.

Regarding A don't forget H2O in gas form
As for B and C..
Well, we have ice samples from the last ice age (not the little one, the real one with northern europe covered in ice) where a little of the gasses of the atmosphere is caught allowing us to actually measure how it was then.
Also we can dig up the seeds of various planets to see what was growing where getting an idea about how the climate was earlier.
So to prove your point all we have to do is to compare those two
And then there's trees..
The rings in them change in size depending on growing conditions if I don't remember wrong.
It's a good thing we're not limited to measuring how the weather is today ^^

For the record, this post is in support of Leo9

[DuncanONeil]

It is very difficult to, with any certainty, say what the actual cause is.
However, there has been no reduction in CO2. And yet Phil Jones himself has said no warming since 1995. Further he is willing to admit that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the current temperatures. In addition that the planet has been cooling since 2002.
On the basis of that is it not reasonable to presume that man is not the prime component of the current cycle of warming. With the MWP being warmer it would seem clear that man could not have caused that.

More study is needed, FROM ALL SIDE, on the subject. No research or study should be tossed aside just because some people do not like it.

As far as the "consensus", again from Phil Jones, the only consensus in the field is that there is no consensus.

OK, let's go further back and try to start from basics.

A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one that absorbs infra-red, thus increasing the net heating of the atmosphere for the same level of insolation. There are other significant greenhouse gasses - methane for one, hence the concern over the rapidly increasing release of methane from warming permafrosts - but CO2 is the one whose level is the most directly affected by human activity.

B) Since the Industrial Revolution began the large scale burning of fossil fuels, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen ever more rapidly.

C) The world's climate, and specifically the world's temperature, varies according to a number of cyclical patterns. The net influence of these cycles has been being studied for a hundred years or so and is pretty well understood, and the theory agrees with observation beautifully - up to the last few decades, when the curve went off in entirely the wrong direction. According to the theories that all climatologists were happy with until AGW came into the picture, the world should be gently cooling down (hence the 1970s scare about a "new Ice Age".) Instead it is warming ever faster.

Now my first question is, which of these propositions don't you believe? If (A), you can borrow space in any High School science lab for an afternoon and test it yourself. If (B), note that this is not just one researcher or group of researchers' opinion. The chemistry of the atmosphere is available for anyone to study, and people have been doing quantitative analyses of it since the 19th Century; the results are not hidden or secret or held in one database open to fudging.

I note that you don't dispute that the warming is happening, so the question is the cause. If you believe that the existing theories of climate cycles are enough to account for it, then you can either take my word for it, or do the research yourself to find out, that back in the mid-20th Century, when AGW was a minority crank theory, the consensus of climatology was that no such warming could possibly happen because they knew how the cycles worked and they were on a downward phase. That is why the majority have come around so solidly: they saw results that didn't fit the established theory, so they looked for a theory that correctly predicted what actually happened. That's how science works.

The point is, if you accept the evidence but you don't accept the theory, you are left with the conclusion that something contrary to previous climatological theories is happening, and it is completely unexplained and mysterious. And since there is an explanation available for it which is simple physics, this is a bit like insisting that a pan on the stove is growing hot due to mysterious and unexplained forces, while refusing to see that the stove is heating it.