Climategate

[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.