Climategate

[steelish]

Watch this video

[Thorne]

Crime Inc. – what do they know and when did they know it… and how much will it cost the American people?

Oh, and FYI - Al Gore, who denies the allegations that he is a "carbon billionaire" recently bought 9 million dollar California oceanfront property despite his claims that the "oceans will rise significantly". But no. There's no conspiracy.

You're talking about politicians and big business here, so naturally there's a conspiracy to tax and profit from this. But there's no conspiracy regarding the actual science. That means the data collection and interpretation. The numbers are real, the global warming is real. What the politicians do with the information is beyond the control of science. If you want to stop them simply vote them out of office. Don't throw the scientists out along with them.

[denuseri]

lol, How many times will we go dancing around this when two of the people involved with the emails allready said on tv interviews that they were fudging data when and where they needed it fudged to make their numbers stand up sometimes.

All of which doesnt matter...two people out of hundreds is not the biggie,,,to me the "biggie" is saying that we as humans are soely "responisible" for it alone when so many other factors play a part, just becuase they can't or wont figure out or say whats really the prime contributor.

And in so far as the debate goes accross interdisiplinary sciences...well thats just going to happen...its no different really than the whole decan taps vs asteroid impact debate between astonomers and geologists for the end of the dinosaurs.

[DuncanONeil]

My point exactly!!

You are the only person to ever answer this question. And you understood the question quite well as well. You are correct there is no way we can know the answer to that question.

I do disagree with you last bit though. Perhaps the use of the word "depend" is a bit to strong.

Sorry and with all due respect, but that is total rubbish. There is no 'proper' temperature for the planet. The planet gives a rat's ass about its temperature. We as a species, don't, or shouldn't, because large parts of our civilization pretty much depend on more or less the temperature we have now.

[DuncanONeil]

The recent Icelandic eruption released more co2 in ONE DAY than ALL OF EUROPE did in a year.

Perhaps that was the planet trying to cool down! Putting all that "sun block" in the air.

[DuncanONeil]

Research funded by companies is automatically suspect.

Why then is research funded by a Government automatically free from suspicion?

I would hope you can back this up with data. Otherwise it sounds all too much like the usual conspiracy nuts who accuse everyone who disagrees with them of conspiring with the government. The 9/11 'Truthers', the anti-Obama 'Birthers', or any other similar group. They claim to know the real truth and anyone who presents data or information that shows them to be wrong automatically becomes a member of the "conspiracy".

"Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people" are not experts in climatology. While there may be some overlap, especially with weathermen and solar experts, this does not necessarily give them the expertise to analyze and interpret the complex data which climatologists use.

And the claim that the climatologists are pawns of the governments is just misleading. In the modern world virtually all scientific research is financed in some manner by the government or big business/industry. It's just too damned expensive to set up independent laboratories on your own.

The bigger question is, who gains by falsely proclaiming global warming, and who gains by falsely denying global warming. Sadly there are suspects on both sides, making it even more difficult to determine the truth. And the fact that the media will tend to portray only the most dire and horrific effects of GW, or the most dire and horrific outcomes of fighting GW when it doesn't exist, only makes matter worse.

My personal feeling is that the scientists are getting it right. But it's a very complex issue, with a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. And there's still a lot of science to be done. Let them do it.

[DuncanONeil]

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

Why is it that does that do not adhere to the party line are tagged "deniers"?

Go back and read the answer to the question about the "proper global temperature".

[DuncanONeil]

And I wonder how many of the advocats are not climatologists?

No one questions the fact that plants grow better with CO2. But did that demonstration show the impact of additional heat? What about additional rain causing of higher humidity levels in the air? Would the plants be able to grow where they have grown before if these conditions change? None of these questions are demonstrated in the video. Yet they are critical as to whether crops we need for survival could still grow on our farmland!


Dr. Idso is not a climatologist, though his field of study does include the interaction of CO2 with agriculture. But as I noted above, that doesn't mean the plants will continue to grow where we need them to grow. Also, the Center he represents (and founded) refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, and information suggests that a significant portion may come from big oil. Hardly a disinterested party!

He states that CO2 "could not be the primary cause of glacial/interglacial temperature changes", which may well be true, but those changes would have, as now, released CO2 and methane which had been trapped, which explains the rise of those levels after the start of the warming. But claiming that these gases do NOT affect temperatures is blatant lying. Laboratory testing done all over the world have shown that they do, indeed, cause the kinds of effects which climatologists assert. This is not just interpretation of historical data but actual laboratory testing!


Yes, John Christy does oppose those who promote cataclysmic changes from global warming. He does not deny the fact that global warming is occurring, nor that mankind is at least partly responsible. This video is another example of the media spinning the story to suit their own agenda.


Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.

I hope I have cast enough skepticism on these videos to encourage others to research the rest. I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the problems in them all.

As for my own stance, while there is still some question in my mind over the significance of global warming, there is little question that it is occurring. As I have stated, laboratory testing has shown that CO2 and methane and water vapor are significant greenhouse gases. Historically, CO2 and methane levels have increased because of higher global temperatures, as they are released from trapped reservoirs in the tundras and sea beds. But we are already starting to see those same reservoirs beginning to release their gases, which will only further increase the CO2 and methane content in the atmosphere. And this time, the CO2 and methane are LEADING the warming, rather than following.

Things are definitely changing. I don't know if they'll get as bad as some of the doom-criers claim. I tend to doubt it myself. But the changes are, indeed, happening.

[Thorne]

Research funded by companies is automatically suspect.

Why then is research funded by a Government automatically free from suspicion?

I never said it should be free from suspicion, but when research from governments agrees with independent research, or research from other governments, you have to take that into account. Of course, if you really don't want to believe in global warming it's far easier to believe in a vast global conspiracy to fabricate evidence for it. After all, the governments stand to make so much money on it, don't they?

Don't they?

[Thorne]

And I wonder how many of the advocats are not climatologists?

The advocates are the ones doing the research. I wonder how much research the deniers have done?

[DuncanONeil]

I never said it should be free from suspicion, but when research from governments agrees with independent research, or research from other governments, you have to take that into account. Of course, if you really don't want to believe in global warming it's far easier to believe in a vast global conspiracy to fabricate evidence for it. After all, the governments stand to make so much money on it, don't they?

Don't they?

I am glad of that opening line. I really would not expect less from you.
But ... The US Government sees money and is planning to grab a lot of it.

[DuncanONeil]

The advocates are the ones doing the research. I wonder how much research the deniers have done?

That is an interesting comment.
Only AGW advocates are doing research and the results prove AGW.
And the data presented by non-AGW advocates is not a result of research? What is all the data that counters AGW fabricated?

There are four kinds of people in this argument.

1. We are all going to die! Be it from heat, drowning, starvation from the warming.
2. Man is killing the planet by CO2. We can fix this. But we must act, drastically, right now.
3. This warming is a natural event. has happened many times before. Often worse than this.
4. And lastly. Warming!? What warming.

Now that I look this over I see I left somebody out.

• This warming may be a problem. we should put many good minds on this and see what we can find out. Just in case there may be a problem. Then we will know what can be done and how.

Personally I think three of the five are a tad overboard. Some even bordering on hysterical. Makes me wonder about motives.

[Thorne]

That is an interesting comment.
Only AGW advocates are doing research and the results prove AGW.

I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.

And the data presented by non-AGW advocates is not a result of research? What is all the data that counters AGW fabricated?

It's not that they fabricated data, although that has happened, too. It's the cherry-picking of the data in order to satisfy a pre-conceived conclusion which is causing the problems.

1. We are all going to die! Be it from heat, drowning, starvation from the warming.

Ah, yes. The disaster junkies. These are akin to the apocalyptic fundamentalists who are eager for the Rapture! Death and destruction around every corner!

Well, we're all going to die, sooner or later. But chances are humanity will adapt. We're tenacious creatures, after all.

2. Man is killing the planet by CO2. We can fix this. But we must act, drastically, right now.

No, we're not killing the planet. Barring an astronomical event which actually destroys the planet, Earth will be here long after humanity has become extinct. What we are doing is altering our environment, certainly on a local level and probably on a global level as well. This will have long term consequences on our survival as a civilization, and perhaps on our survival as a species. But on the brighter side, it's almost sure to kick evolution into overdrive.

3. This warming is a natural event. has happened many times before. Often worse than this.

It MAY be a natural event, at least in part, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are making it worse than it would naturally be. And yes, warming and cooling cycles have happened many times, and sometimes it's been worse than now. But if you look closely I think you'll find that those events brought about extinctions of large numbers of species. Thinking that we are exempt from these consequences just because we can air condition our homes would be stupid at best.

4. And lastly. Warming!? What warming.

See the pretty ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground?

5. This warming may be a problem. we should put many good minds on this and see what we can find out. Just in case there may be a problem. Then we will know what can be done and how.

This probably comes closer to my own opinion, except I feel that the warming, regardless of the causes, will definitely be a problem. If we are the cause, then there is a lot we can do. Most of us won't be willing to do those things, though. It would mean giving up too many of the luxuries we've become accustomed to. And yes, I do place myself in that crowd. I like my SUV!

But we should also be studying how to best take advantage of this problem. How can we engineer better crops to survive warmer climates? Can we take advantage of longer, hotter growing seasons to increase our food supply? Warmer winters will mean less heating oil consumption. Can we find better ways to cool our homes and business in the summer to reduce our dependence on coal? The list is seemingly endless, and ignoring the problem won't make things any better.

Personally I think three of the five are a tad overboard. Some even bordering on hysterical. Makes me wonder about motives.

We agree on this, at least. Although I wonder which ones you think are overboard. Personally, I think #'s 1,2 and 4 are the worst of them. #3 is better, but perhaps not completely thought out. The last one is closest to my own opinions, as I said.

[DuncanONeil]

This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.

I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.


It's not that they fabricated data, although that has happened, too. It's the cherry-picking of the data in order to satisfy a pre-conceived conclusion which is causing the problems.


Ah, yes. The disaster junkies. These are akin to the apocalyptic fundamentalists who are eager for the Rapture! Death and destruction around every corner!

Well, we're all going to die, sooner or later. But chances are humanity will adapt. We're tenacious creatures, after all.


No, we're not killing the planet. Barring an astronomical event which actually destroys the planet, Earth will be here long after humanity has become extinct. What we are doing is altering our environment, certainly on a local level and probably on a global level as well. This will have long term consequences on our survival as a civilization, and perhaps on our survival as a species. But on the brighter side, it's almost sure to kick evolution into overdrive.


It MAY be a natural event, at least in part, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are making it worse than it would naturally be. And yes, warming and cooling cycles have happened many times, and sometimes it's been worse than now. But if you look closely I think you'll find that those events brought about extinctions of large numbers of species. Thinking that we are exempt from these consequences just because we can air condition our homes would be stupid at best.


See the pretty ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground?


This probably comes closer to my own opinion, except I feel that the warming, regardless of the causes, will definitely be a problem. If we are the cause, then there is a lot we can do. Most of us won't be willing to do those things, though. It would mean giving up too many of the luxuries we've become accustomed to. And yes, I do place myself in that crowd. I like my SUV!

But we should also be studying how to best take advantage of this problem. How can we engineer better crops to survive warmer climates? Can we take advantage of longer, hotter growing seasons to increase our food supply? Warmer winters will mean less heating oil consumption. Can we find better ways to cool our homes and business in the summer to reduce our dependence on coal? The list is seemingly endless, and ignoring the problem won't make things any better.



We agree on this, at least. Although I wonder which ones you think are overboard. Personally, I think #'s 1,2 and 4 are the worst of them. #3 is better, but perhaps not completely thought out. The last one is closest to my own opinions, as I said.

[Thorne]

This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!

I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?

Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.

I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[denuseri]

And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.

Scientific method 101.

Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.

Furthermore...the cherry picking of data by the different proponents of one theory or another (and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point) and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking ) is very often the result of too many scientists taking the word of too many other scientists at face value and or being ruled by their passion as opposed to their reason (scientists are human just like the rest of us) or conducting independent reaserch to confirm their findings.

And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.

When the deccan taps debate began between the astronomers and the geologists the same sorry hyperbole was used and it didnt solve a thing.

In fact...its starting to look as if both parties were right on that one, it wasnt any one event but a series of events.

For a scientific theory to work as a scientific fact it must be cross disiplinarly inclussive.

[Thorne]

And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.

When you are adding knew knowledge to the records, or contradicting existing knowledge, yes. But if you are developing a knew hypothesis and your data contradicts it, there's not going to be any peer review: you'll rework or discard your hypothesis and start over.

Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.

Of course. And when enough evidence has been acquired to prove that the hypothesis is an accurate representation of the real world it becomes a theory. Which means it's a fact in all but name.

(and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point)

If they are unconfirmed they are not theories, they are still hypotheses. It's only after they've become confirmed, through experimentation and observation, that they gain the status of theories.

and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking

The problem I have with this statement is that those who are doing the actual research and accumulating the data are, in general, making that data available for all. Yes, there have been some screw-ups in this area, but it's been shown to be a case of poor record keeping rather than malice. Those who are denying global warming tend to be those who are not doing any actual research but are taking those areas of data which seem to agree with their desires and holding it up, saying, "See? I told you so!" An example is those who look at the temperature readings for the last ten years or so and say, "Look, the temperatures have been dropping, so there is no global warming." While the data confirms the temperature drops, it does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. There are many natural cycles involved which cause global temperatures to fluctuate. Are the temperature dropping as low as we would expect? What will happen when they start to go up again? And they will go up again, believe me!

And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.

I'm not saying they have no business refuting the findings. But they should be looked at more critically when working outside of their own discipline. And when their conclusions contradict the accepted theories their data and records have to be much more rigorous. That's the way the scientific method works.

[denuseri]

lol This is the process I didnt make it...commom acceptance of something doesnt make it correct eaither.

Once upon a time it was thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of creation. A small group of others said no its not.

And the cross disiplinary sciences invloved in climate models etc...are not working outside of their fields per say. Meteorology and Cosmology and Geology and Archeology all deal at times with planetrary weather paterns as part of their field of study...the difference between them and the Climatologist is their primary focus; which as in the case with the decan taps model provided an insight which one disiplinary field (that of the astromoners) was refusing to look at becuase it didnt support their theory.

It isnt my fualt that many of these (cross disipline as well as some climatologists in the minority) scientists are poking holes in the "prefered" model of what the PC green politicans would like to maintain as mainstream in the public eye via both direct and indirect influence over the field of the climatologists.

[Thorne]

This is the process I didnt make it...commom acceptance of something doesnt make it correct eaither.

That's exactly right. Just because a majority of people don't hold to the AGW hypothesis doesn't mean they are right!

Once upon a time it was thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of creation. A small group of others said no its not.

Most people are surprised to learn that the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round. I believe it was Eratosthenes who made the first known measurements of the Earth's diameter, and his calculations were remarkably accurate given the tools he had to work with. Columbus knew the Earth was round before he began his journey across the Atlantic. In reality it was only the uneducated and the ignorant who believed the world was flat.

And the cross disiplinary sciences invloved in climate models etc...are not working outside of their fields per say. Meteorology and Cosmology and Geology and Archeology all deal at times with planetrary weather paterns as part of their field of study...the difference between them and the Climatologist is their primary focus;

Cosmology deals with the origins of the universe, not with weather patterns on Earth, but the others do indeed have some input into global weather patterns. And I assume you would add Astronomy, since the largest driver of climate is the Sun. But you have to remember that Meteorologists deal primarily with relatively short-term weather patterns, not long-term climate patterns. Geologists and Archeologists are concerned with ancient climate patterns, determining what the climate was like thousands and even millions of years ago. The kinds of data they study is much different than the modern data a Climatologist would study. While this kind of data is important for determining climatological trends, it has little bearing on modern data being gathered.

which as in the case with the decan taps model provided an insight which one disiplinary field (that of the astromoners) was refusing to look at becuase it didnt support their theory.

Actually, I doubt Astronomers care one way or another which hypothesis is correct. The Chicxulub asteroid is of interest to them, and I suppose to some extent its effects, but as to whether this event or the Deccan Traps event were the primary cause of the extinctions is of little concern to them. Biologists, on the other hand, are indeed discussing the two events, trying to determine which was the cause of the extinctions, or if both played a role. Personally, I would speculate (and it is just speculation on my part) that the asteroid impact may have initiated the volcanic activity which created the Deccan Traps. After all, they say that the large earthquake which caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami made the Earth "ring like a bell" and actually changed the rotational speed of the planet. I would think that an impact on the order of the Chicxulub asteroid would have done far worse.

It isnt my fualt that many of these (cross disipline as well as some climatologists in the minority) scientists are poking holes in the "prefered" model of what the PC green politicans would like to maintain as mainstream in the public eye via both direct and indirect influence over the field of the climatologists.

I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite scientist who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria.

[Thorne]

Just ran across this video which is relevant to the discussion we've been having, regarding the validity of the claims of climate deniers. I'm not claiming that this is gospel, but it is consistent with other items I've seen and read.

Enjoy!

[denuseri]

That's exactly right. Just because a majority of people don't hold to the AGW hypothesis doesn't mean they are right!

I think the AGW theroists are in the majority here love. lol


Most people are surprised to learn that the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round.

Not in general as a people. Certian individuals suspected it was spherical throughout human history based upon their mathematical deductions and astronomical observations at various times. A people wide consensus was never achived until quite recently historically speaking.


Cosmology deals with the origins of the universe, not with weather patterns on Earth, (oh I would beg to disagree, it covers pretty much everything in existeance...including planatary weather patterns) but the others do indeed have some input into global weather patterns. And I assume you would add Astronomy, since the largest driver of climate is the Sun. But you have to remember that Meteorologists deal primarily with relatively short-term weather patterns (they also keep track of long term repeating weather patterns...including climatic trends) , not long-term climate patterns. Geologists and Archeologists are concerned with ancient climate patterns, (evidence of which is found mainly well within their purview and gives us an excellent historical model for what the earth has been like and will perhaps be like in the future, like we have actually got confirmed geologic data that determines that in the past when the temperature rose signifigantly certian things occured on a global scale, ergo: there will be a rapid global sea rise with glacial reduction once the temperature reaches a certian threshold thanks to these non-climatologists, the climatoligists may now make such a claim with some degree of certitude ) determining what the climate was like thousands and even millions of years ago. The kinds of data they study is much different than the modern data a Climatologist would study. While this kind of data is important for determining climatological trends, it has little bearing on modern data being gathered. Modern climatology has no leg to stand on without the others contributions to back them up.

Actually, I doubt Astronomers care one way or another which hypothesis is correct. (with the deccan taps debate over dinosuar extinction?...oh my, Ive seen them throw things during some debates and lectures over it, they not only clung adamantly to the single asteriod theory to the exclussion of all others as the sole cuase of the dinosuars end, they exerted whatever political pressure they could through the media and academic administrations to attempt to quash all other theories...such rows have been quite common in the scientific comunity in the past and I dont see the climate debate as being any different) The Chicxulub asteroid is of interest to them, and I suppose to some extent its effects, but as to whether this event or the Deccan Traps event were the primary cause of the extinctions is of little concern to them. Biologists, on the other hand, are indeed discussing the two events, trying to determine which was the cause of the extinctions, or if both played a role. Personally, I would speculate (and it is just speculation on my part) that the asteroid impact may have initiated the volcanic activity which created the Deccan Traps. After all, they say that the large earthquake which caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami made the Earth "ring like a bell" and actually changed the rotational speed of the planet. I would think that an impact on the order of the Chicxulub asteroid would have done far worse. (actually they allready came to a moderate amount of consensus on it as one having very little to do with the other, especially since the majority of the volcanic activity took place before the impact...the dinosuars were allready well into decline yet both things killed them in a way..like a one two punch, the rapid climate change from the impact was just the finnishing blow)


I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite (group of) scientist (s) who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria.

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.

[Thorne]

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Now see? That term, "supporting it at all costs" makes supporters sound like raving lunatics who are unable to let go of their pet theory. Yet they are not the ones calling for their opponents to be flogged, or hanged, or imprisoned. For my own case, all I ask is that someone provide tangible, verifiable evidence to support their claims. I've seen plenty of it from the AGW proponents. I've seen damned little of it from the deniers.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.

That's not surprising. The American people as a whole can't be neatly divided down party lines. There are some hard-core right wing nuts and some hard-core left wing nuts. But the majority of people lie somewhere in the middle. Trapped between the wingnuts.

[DuncanONeil]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?

I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.


Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.


I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[DuncanONeil]

A bit of linguistic Pepto here! Should we not be calling an unproven theory a hypothesis?

And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.

Scientific method 101.

Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.

Furthermore...the cherry picking of data by the different proponents of one theory or another (and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point) and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking ) is very often the result of too many scientists taking the word of too many other scientists at face value and or being ruled by their passion as opposed to their reason (scientists are human just like the rest of us) or conducting independent reaserch to confirm their findings.

And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.

When the deccan taps debate began between the astronomers and the geologists the same sorry hyperbole was used and it didnt solve a thing.

In fact...its starting to look as if both parties were right on that one, it wasnt any one event but a series of events.

For a scientific theory to work as a scientific fact it must be cross disiplinarly inclussive.

[DuncanONeil]

"I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite scientist who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria. "

Hear ! Hear!

[DuncanONeil]

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.

I think it is the "all costs" that marks the real difference between the groups. With "all costs" belong to the majority of AGW proponents. Who may have Steven Colbert as their prime news source!

[DuncanONeil]

Did you not see the links from Steelish?

Whish I could find the material that Moncton presented. It was quite interesting!

Now see? That term, "supporting it at all costs" makes supporters sound like raving lunatics who are unable to let go of their pet theory. Yet they are not the ones calling for their opponents to be flogged, or hanged, or imprisoned. For my own case, all I ask is that someone provide tangible, verifiable evidence to support their claims. I've seen plenty of it from the AGW proponents. I've seen damned little of it from the deniers.


That's not surprising. The American people as a whole can't be neatly divided down party lines. There are some hard-core right wing nuts and some hard-core left wing nuts. But the majority of people lie somewhere in the middle. Trapped between the wingnuts.

[Thorne]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?

If you watched the video I posted you would see that the "lack" of warming since 1995 is not quite accurate. There has been slight warming, but it's been at such a slow rate that it is outside the statistically significant values. If I'm correct in my interpretation, that means that they can't say for sure that there has been warming, but they can't say for sure that there hasn't been, either.

But one thing to remember is that the solar sunspot cycle was declining for about the last 8 years, which should have meant cooling temperatures. And for the last 2-3 years there has been virtually no sunspot activity at all, suggesting even more cooling of the atmosphere. Yet the global temps have remained stable, or possibly risen slightly. Now that the sunspot cycle has restarted we should start seeing higher temperatures over the next 5-7 years. Just how high is anybody's guess.

[denuseri]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

[steelish]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.