Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

What is it the intelligent and cohesive argument against AGW?

I'm not qualified to comment on all of the science, but I'm confident I'm capable of at least understanding it.

Specifically, what is the counter argument to the graphs that show more greenhouse gases are preventing heat energy from being released into space?

From what I understand, different satellites, have recorded this phenomenon independently.

And if we accept that there is less heat going into space at the CO2 and methane wavelength, that is, we agree that this data has been gathered and analyzed accurately, then it would seem indisputable.

Or is that the argument? That the way the data was collected or analyzed is wrong?

So what is the real argument against AGW?

Sorry if this has been asked before, I actually spent a lot of time trying to find the real deal, and I've had trouble sorting through the nonsense and political stuff.
 
kevinquinnyo said:
What is it the intelligent and cohesive argument against AGW?

I'm not qualified to comment on all of the science, but I'm confident I'm capable of at least understanding it.

Specifically, what is the counter argument to the graphs that show more greenhouse gases are preventing heat energy from being released into space?

From what I understand, different satellites, have recorded this phenomenon independently.

And if we accept that there is less heat going into space at the CO2 and methane wavelength, that is, we agree that this data has been gathered and analyzed accurately, then it would seem indisputable.

Or is that the argument? That the way the data was collected or analyzed is wrong?

So what is the real argument against AGW?

Sorry if this has been asked before, I actually spent a lot of time trying to find the real deal, and I've had trouble sorting through the nonsense and political stuff.
Click to expand...

The answer is nicely summarized here:
A.A.Alfie said:
For the most part us deniers are not deniers at all. We believe there is global warming, we believe there is (or may be) a human element. We do not believe that man is 100% responsible or anywhere near it. And we believe that the debate amongst science, politics and public opinion maintains the level of scepticism in a science that many say "is settled". Clearly it's not.
Click to expand...
 
A.A.Alfie said:
You guys seem to think there is still only one side of the debate.
Others say there is more to it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is one side, but I have yet to find among the deniers anything worth calling a side. Monckton is ignorant, self important, and a liar. The best debate on AGW is among the scientists themselves.
 
It's wonderful to see the skeptics here being skeptical about the global warming scare finally.

When Penn posted that he had not seen enough evidence, there was a deluge.

Now some people are coming to reason in the critical thinking circles.

I'm not a denier, and I am not an alarmist. I have poured though most of the data and it is flawed.

First of all, they collected data in order to support their claims. That is a huge red flag.

Tampa, Florida has risen 15 degrees above it's surroundings in the last 100 years. That is raw hard data. Someone has created a model that says .8 degreees on the max is by CO2. I could fit a half a degree in there if it meant a research grant for me. Why didn't the surroundings go down? I know, lets make a factor that uses population growth negate some of the thermal mass. Bingo, we have a factor that supports our claims!! We don't have any support for the factor, but who is going to dive into the orginal data? Ooops, we threw it all out and junk.
 
bob_conklin said:
It's wonderful to see the skeptics here being skeptical about the global warming scare finally.

When Penn posted that he had not seen enough evidence, there was a deluge.

Now some people are coming to reason in the critical thinking circles.

I'm not a denier, and I am not an alarmist. I have poured though most of the data and it is flawed.

First of all, they collected data in order to support their claims. That is a huge red flag.

Tampa, Florida has risen 15 degrees above it's surroundings in the last 100 years. That is raw hard data. Someone has created a model that says .8 degreees on the max is by CO2. I could fit a half a degree in there if it meant a research grant for me. Why didn't the surroundings go down? I know, lets make a factor that uses population growth negate some of the thermal mass. Bingo, we have a factor that supports our claims!! We don't have any support for the factor, but who is going to dive into the orginal data? Ooops, we threw it all out and junk.
Click to expand...

Get ready Bob
Here they come......
 
Piggy said:
They didn't.

Just imagine if someone went and recorded your conversations for a few years, then cherry-picked bits and pieces to generate the appearance of evil-doing and posted them on Web sites frequented by people who already think you're an ***hole.

Would you think that you shot yourself in the foot by having conversations?
Click to expand...
If I had conspired to commit a crime? Damn straight.

It sure looks like these guys were conspiring to destroy data to thwart an FOI. That's a crime.

ETA: I'm not saying they did conspire to commit a crime. I'm only saying that it looks that way. If this wasn't a crime it sure as hell gas the appearance of one. It was sure damn stupid.

Yes, I've said damn stupid things in emails. Conceded.

I still support Cap and Trade.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
no data was destroyed
Click to expand...



So, let's assume that rather than destroy data they had suggesting killing someone if the FOI came through (just an extreme to prove a point).
  • No FOI
  • No murder.
  • No harm.
  • No foul.
  • Right?
RandFan said:
ETA: I'm not saying they did conspire to commit a crime. I'm only saying that it looks that way. If this wasn't a crime it sure as hell has the appearance of one. It was sure damn stupid.

Yes, I've said damn stupid things in emails. Conceded.

I still support Cap and Trade.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Monckton is ignorant, self important, and a liar.
Click to expand...

No doubt if he is producing "lies", he has been taken to court for slander etc. Can you show me where and when this has occured please?

Oh whoops, they probably couldn't take him to task because that would mean producing their dodgy data.

Anyway, see what you can come up with.
 
And there is the fact that rising sea waters or any other claim made can be upheld in a court of law. That is just a tiny thing. It has been tried before, and the evidence did not support a court case. They have all been withdrawn.
 
bob_conklin said:
And there is the fact that rising sea waters or any other claim made can be upheld in a court of law. That is just a tiny thing. It has been tried before, and the evidence did not support a court case. They have all been withdrawn.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Are you saying that the warmers went to sue the deniers (presumably to shut them up). Based their evidence on (say) rising seas, only to not get to court for lack of evidence?
Have you got some references? I'd like to take a look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom