Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[a_unique_person]

Exactly my point:
We are not in any postion to be stopping the current power source unless we have another to replace it.

So we start being serious now.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wow! Australian of the Year, climate advisor to governments and AGW guru takes a skeptical position. Yeah, he must be wrong.

He is not an AGW guru, he is an interested amateur when it comes to the science climate, much like Al Gore. He is a scientist, but not trained in climate. As an advisor on climate change he is useful to have around as he is an expertise on how it will affect the ecosystems that depend on climate.

 

[Megalodon]

Wow! Australian of the Year, climate advisor to governments and AGW guru takes a skeptical position. Yeah, he must be wrong.

I wonder where all that trust and admiration was when he wasn't doubting AGW.
I'm sure I can find your posts saying that 'AGW must be right, Flannery said so!'

It's telling that that is the only part of my post you replied to, also...

 

[a_unique_person]

Flannery - I can tell you, is a sort of authority on AGW over here.

What about what Monibot said about the warmers in denial?

You have misrepresented what he said. He has no doubts about AGW.

It appears to me (us?) that many of the warmer experts have questions, concerns and doubts now too. Your poster boys are saying these things and distancing themselves from comments, as well as their formerly held certainties.

There have always been gaps in the science, ask any climate researcher. That is the nature of research, otherwise we wouldn't need to do any.

It seems as though you are now prepared to eat your own.
Sounds a lot like the denial of which Monibot speaks imo.

Sounds like you misunderstood Monbiot. As it is, I think Monbiot didn't understand the selective misrepresentation of what many of those letters meant and the context they were written in.

 

[Megalodon]

Flannery - I can tell you, is a sort of authority on AGW over here.

What about what Monibot said about the warmers in denial?

Can you give me a list of their peer-reviewed work on climatology?

It appears to me (us?) that many of the warmer experts have questions, concerns and doubts now too.

Than quote from experts, not talking heads.

Your poster boys are saying these things and distancing themselves from comments, as well as their formerly held certainties.

Find one post of mine where I refer to any of these persons as experts, posterboys, leaders...

It seems as though you are now prepared to eat your own.
Sounds a lot like the denial of which Monibot speaks imo.

So, he's your posterboy, then. Much like Gore who keeps being quoted here by delayers.

 

[a_unique_person]

Global warming is still happening.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

 

[lionking]

Don't blame me, I didn't put Flannery on his pedestal. I have also never heard him described as an "interested amateur".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

Flannery is an advisor on climate change to South Australian Premier Mike Rann, and is a member of the Queensland Climate Change Council established by the Queensland Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation Andrew McNamara.

Whatever anyone wishes to be so, Flannery has great status and influence in this field in Australia. But his current skepticism now leads to his dismissal by some on this forum. Hmmmm.

 

[Megalodon]

Any chance of you replying to the relevant part of my post, where I showed that the comment by Flannery was wrong?

 

[lionking]

So, he's your posterboy, then. Much like Gore who keeps being quoted here by delayers.

You can misrepresent Flannery's status as much as you want, but he's been the greens' poster boy for a great many years.

 

[Megalodon]

You can misrepresent Flannery's status as much as you want, but he's been the greens' poster boy for a great many years.

I'm misrepresenting nothing. He's not an expert if he doesn't actively work on the field.

And I showed that is comment was wrong, independently of his status. You refuse to address that part of my post, and instead throw a hissy fit...

And again I wonder where all that trust and admiration was when he wasn't "doubting AGW".

ETA: BTW, the phrase you quote is obviously about Monbiot. It's your language... learn it, cherish it...

 

[a_unique_person]

You can misrepresent Flannery's status as much as you want, but he's been the greens' poster boy for a great many years.

He has been a good frontman, much as Al Gore is. He is not a scientist with an in depth understanding of climate. There is a difference between 'poster boy', and 'subject matter specialist'.

 

[a_unique_person]

Back on topic about the reaction of the green movement. Tim Flannery would have to be one of the spokesmen for the green movement in Australia in regard to AGW. His comments the other night on ABC TV:



If someone like Flannery can express doubt about this, why is it so difficult for others on this forum to do the same?

You misunderstand what he is saying for a start

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate," the email says.
Climate change sceptics are hailing the emails as proof the research data has been skewed and suppressed.
But Professor Flannery has told ABC TV's Lateline that the scientific community knows enough to say greenhouse gases cause global warming, and that humans are responsible.
"The thing is we deal with an incomplete understanding of the way the Earth's system works, we know enough to say as the IPCC said that greenhouse gases cause warming," he said.
"They are 90 per cent-plus sure that it's caused by humans, we can go that far.
"In the last few years, where there hasn't been a continuation of that warming trend, we don't understand all of the factors that creates Earth's climate, so there are some things we don't understand, that's what the scientists were emailing about."
Professor Flannery says scientists are working to find out how the whole system works.
"These people (scientists) work with models, computer modelling. When the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem. That's when science gets engaged.
"What Kevin Trenberth, one of the most respected climate scientist in the world, is saying is, 'We have to get on our horses and find out what we don't know about the system, we have to understand why the cooling is occurring, because the current modelling doesn't reflect it'.

When he says that, he is really only referring to a couple of years, and the models can't and don't pretend to model such short periods of time. He has no doubt about the validity of AGW.


Look at this graph of the past three decades. Looks pretty clear to me.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/fr...o:1999/trend/plot/wti/from:2000/to:2009/trend

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Would you prefer "Climaquiddick"?

Personally, I hate the "-gate" trope, but I was quoting the original article.

I think the article is OK except for style.

The alleged rule 10 violation was also in the original. Someone good person ought to alert public libraries about the Toronto Sun.

For the children.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

BTW, this is not the first time a religion started out as a criminal scam.

The problem is this time the principals are members of the ruling class.

 

[Megalodon]

BTW, this is not the first time a religion started out as a criminal scam.

Well, as soon as you have any shred of evidence of a criminal scam, let us know, ok?

The problem is this time the principals are members of the ruling class.

Scientists are the ruling class? Seriously?!?

'The hardships that those poor energy industries had to go through, fighting The Scientists, with only the help of governments like China, Saudi Arabia or the US.'

Brings a tear to my eye, it does....

 

[m_huber]

Maybe because this Flannery fellow is wrong to begin with?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814accd954a88b5.jpg[/qimg]

There was no cooling this past decade, even if you cherrypick 98 as the starting point of the last trendline, as I did in this graph.

Moreover, the last 30 years are fully in agreement with the ~0.2 ºC per decade. Even more considering that 09 will probably land between 0.54 and 0.55.

And lastly, how anyone can start talking about cooling on the decade that saw the northern passage open for business is beyond me...

Where is the data set from?
What is the vertical scale normalized to? (What is your 0?)

There may be a decrease in the acceleration of global warming, and if there is, that could need explaining. Of course, there are dozens of possible culprits, and it doesn't necessarily mean we have done anything right, and it certainly doesn't mean we were wrong in the first place. Global warming is still happening, and ice is being lost at an alarming rate all over the world.

 

[Megalodon]

Where is the data set from?
What is the vertical scale normalized to? (What is your 0?)

NCDC, and the 0 is the 20th century average (1901-2000).

There may be a decrease in the acceleration of global warming, and if there is, that could need explaining.

Personally, I think that what needs explaining is how the solar minimum, back to back La Niña and the melting of such a large volume of the cryosphere didn't dampen the warming even more.

Of course, there are dozens of possible culprits, and it doesn't necessarily mean we have done anything right, and it certainly doesn't mean we were wrong in the first place. Global warming is still happening, and ice is being lost at an alarming rate all over the world.

It seems we agree.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Scientists are the ruling class? Seriously?!? ....

You are deliberately pretending to be stupid. A common rhetorical trick among totalitarian apologists.

We are talking about some very rich men manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions. And yes the oil barons will still be in business.

Meanwhile there is an ideology bring pushed so people will sit still for it. And for the intellectuals, an ideology of power.

Amazed that any scientists would sell their professional integrity for an ideology of power? It happened all the time in the past century.

But I suppose if it's your ideology too, that's all that counts. And if the scientist-prostitutes really believe in it too, that means their hearts are pure.

Dismissed!

 

[m_huber]

You are deliberately pretending to be stupid. A common rhetorical trick among totalitarian apologists.

We are talking about some very rich men manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions. And yes the oil barons will still be in business.

Meanwhile there is an ideology bring pushed so people will sit still for it. And for the intellectuals, an ideology of power.

Amazed that any scientists would sell their professional integrity for an ideology of power? It happened all the time in the past century.

But I suppose if it's your ideology too, that's all that counts. And if the scientist-prostitutes really believe in it too, that means their hearts are pure.

Dismissed!

I know a lot of scientists. They are much too concerned about whatever nuance they choose to study to be worried about global domination.

The other thing to point out is that "big oil" companies, like Chevron and BP, are actually leading the way in actually changing where energy comes from. Chevron is the leading geothermal company in the world. Exxon is developing a technology to essentially grow oil in a lab from algae. BP is trying to apply natural gas to as many applications as possible. It isn't just lip service, these private companies are putting billions of dollars behind these projects. Even the oil companies recognize that there is a problem, and in fact, most of them are more aware of the specific challenges than their supposed enemies, the "green" crowd.

 

[m_huber]

Personally, I think that what needs explaining is how the solar minimum, back to back La Niña and the melting of such a large volume of the cryosphere didn't dampen the warming even more.

That's a good point. Climate isn't my area, and I don't usually deal with this small of a time scale. When I do look at climate, I look at graphs more like this:

Notice that we are moving out of the climatic range where Antarctic ice is stable.