Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Piggy]

Just on the "science is settled" and "there is no debate" line.
Here's a little item just showing what the masses think.

"Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."

"This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely."

Full report

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ns_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming

So what?

That doesn't change the fact that the science is, indeed, settled and that there is no legitimate debate over AGW. (Although there's plenty of legitimate debate over what to do about it.)

This public debate merely shows that lots of people are mis-informed. Which is clearly important, of course.

But it's a mistake to claim that the public misinformation can somehow cast any real doubt on what's actually happening to the planet.

 

[Piggy]

Oops....

 

[Piggy]

I WAS TRYING TO GET THE WHOLE THING.

Sorry Piggy. I came here to get just that so I didn't have to "cherry-pick".

There's an excellent link bookmarked on my home computer. Unless someone has re-posted it, I'll do so tonight. It pretty much sums up the bogosity of the charges.

 

[Piggy]

I find it interesting to watch the bullying, ridicule and ad homs come out from these guys when anybody questions their priests. They really give the warmer crowd a bad name. The religious fervour with which they take others to task hasn't been seen since the burning of witches.

I've observed before too that they debate by attrition then say that due to the lack of objectors there is consensus.
Seems similar to some of the stuff in the emails so I guess the tactic shouldnt be a huge surprise.

Fortunately some have thick skins. The truth will eventually win out; it is not the black and white they claim.

Of course we're persistent, for the same reason that we're persistent against Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Truthers, and Creationists.

The relentlessness comes from having all the facts on our side.

The fervor comes from the truly horrible consequences we and our kids and grandkids will face if nothing is done about the warming.

Now, if you care to stop claiming that you're right because others say you're wrong, and get down to facts, be my guest.

 

[Piggy]

Anyone who questions any aspect of your religion must be silenced by way of discrediting, ridicule, misinformation, smears, lies and slander.

No. First, they are directed to the research.

The ones who refuse to deal with the research, and who trot out lies and irrelevancies, simply have their errors pointed out to them.

At which point they start crying that they're being smeared and ridiculed.

 

[RandFan]

There's an excellent link bookmarked on my home computer. Unless someone has re-posted it, I'll do so tonight. It pretty much sums up the bogosity of the charges.

Thanks Piggy.

I just find it odd that it can be so hard to get a sincere question answered. And I'm on the side of those giving me grief. Could a sincere person on the other side of the fence get a fair shake?

I would hope so.

 

[RandFan]

Another page done. How's that 'it's not silly' hypothesis working out for you?

Your 'questions' were quite silly too, as it was a 'what if' hypothetical that didn't happen.

By the way, if this goes on another page, it'll still be quite silly.

Has this been posted yet?

GreyICE, do you see how that was done? I came to the forum to address this so called "scandal" because I assumed that people who had information on the issue could answer my questions. Instead of Ryokan calling me silly and telling me to go away he posted a video from one of the best Youtubers out there.

BTW: I highly recomend his video series debunking creationism.

Thanks Ryokan.

 

[BenBurch]

Piggy, all they need to do is meet the test I laid out in #235. Not one of them seems to be capable of it.

 

[Wangler]

That isn't a hypothesis, its a hunch. A hypothesis would give me something to test so that I could decide between that case and the hypothesis generally accepted by science. Can you deliver on that?

I think you have a good point, here. I guess what I am trying to say is that the world has been warming since the last ice age. There have been periods since then when the warming has accelerated, and there have been periods of cooling as well.

My hypothesis is that the rate of warming experienced since the beginning of the industrial revolution is not significantly different than maximum rates of warming experienced in the past.

Remember, this is a hypothesis voiced by a "common joe".

Svante Arrhenius settled that 150 years ago. If we know how much CO2 has changed we can compute how much warming there will be. Period.

Then why do the CRU scientists complain about not being able to account for the recent lack of warming? If it is known to the degree you seem to infer, that should not be a problem.

We then need to prove man put the CO2 there. Isotopes prove that. Period.

I agree with this statement.

You need to show me where Arrhenius (and Fourier) were wrong.

Well?

I'm not sure that is what is needed. If the application of the principles set forth by Arrhenius (and Fourier) were directly applicable (I mean, if Arrhenius said "doubling of CO2 should increase the temperature by X", this should be the dominant forcing) then you wouldn't necessarily need temperature graphs, just look at the Mauna Loa CO2 measurement.

But, perhaps we should begin yet another thread in the Science section?

 

[BenBurch]

Look, I am not going to teach you how science works here, and anyway its clear you really don't understand the issue even at the most basic level.

For example, what CO2 does, and which we can calculate, is trap heat in the system. It changes the hysteresis, that is, the amount of time that solar energy spends in the system before being re-emitted. This is a physical fact, and we can see a correlation in the paleoclimate record that is quite clear, validating the basic physics.

Regardless of the CO2 level, the system is chaotic and will have up and down cycles masked on top of that overall energy retention time, and they don't EVEN mean that the energy retention has changed, just that the energy is in a different part of the system; For example energy expended melting ice is still in the system even though the air temperatures do not reflect that - the system takes a bloody long time to come into thermal equilibrium.

Arrhenius predicted that doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 4 degrees C which later physicists, aware of factors he was not, modified to 2 degrees C. In fact we see exactly this effect in the climate record and also on Venus and on Mars.

Basically what I am saying is that your hunch does not have the power to overturn the work of tens of thousands of PhD scientists for over a century, nor do a few out-of-context emails regarding a single institution's data set have the power to make the ice stop melting. You are simply wrong.

 

[bignickel]

Then why do the CRU scientists complain about not being able to account for the recent lack of warming? If it is known to the degree you seem to infer, that should not be a problem.

If you're referring to the one of the emails, I suggest you watch the video linked to above. It was one scientist, referring to 'we' as three people, except that the other two people actually don't agree with him. And what's he's referring to is the El Nino/La Nina warming cycle, and the effect of solar radiation on countering it, not Global Warming temps.

By the way: is it just me, or does Alex Jones sound like Andy Devine?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Piggy, all they need to do is meet the test I laid out in #235. Not one of them seems to be capable of it.

How the hell would Ben know. Everyone is on ignore.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

GW Denial is only growing among folks who don't know what the data actually shows. Doesn't change the facts on the ground.

I am not a GW denier, I am an AGW skeptic.
The earth is warming. Man has only a very minor contribution to that warming.

But of course the issue of "climategate" cannot be addressed without considering the science, because the validity of the charges being made in "climategate" cannot be evaluated without looking at what the researchers did and why.

The reason "climategate" won't stop the "greens" is simply b/c it's a fraud. And to understand why it's a fraud, you have to look at what actually happened.

If you honestly believe that public opinion does not sway politics, which then create laws and taxes that set out the way that the problems are addressed, then your have serious problems.

BTW. What is fraud and why? Climategate? Are you suggesting that these emails are fakes?

This public debate merely shows that lots of people are mis-informed. Which is clearly important, of course.

But it's a mistake to claim that the public misinformation can somehow cast any real doubt on what's actually happening to the planet.

See above
Ah, perhaps you are beginning to see that there is a fly in the ointment when you finally acknowledge that peoples opinions are important.

The mistake you make is to assume it means nothing - it means everything when it comes to tackling political and econimic issues.

The fervor comes from the truly horrible consequences we and our kids and grandkids will face if nothing is done about the warming.

Now, if you care to stop claiming that you're right because others say you're wrong, and get down to facts, be my guest.

The fervour, as you call it, seems to comes from some sort of religious fanatacism. And it excuses nothing.

I am not saying I am right about anything, that's your stance in this.
What I am saying is what the masses are saying: That there is debate, these emails are important (whether or not there is any truth or accuracy to the claims of anyone remains to be seen), and there will be fallout because of them.

Get it?

No. First, they are directed to the research.

The ones who refuse to deal with the research, and who trot out lies and irrelevancies, simply have their errors pointed out to them.

At which point they start crying that they're being smeared and ridiculed.

Ask Randfan if that is his experience.

 

[Thunder]

I am not a GW denier, I am an AGW skeptic.
The earth is warming. Man has only a very minor contribution to that warming. .

then please explain the very sudden and rapid increase of global CO2 levels, and the following increase in temperatures?

maybe the Martians did it? cow farts?

 

[elbe]

What I am saying is what the masses are saying: That there is debate, these emails are important (whether or not there is any truth or accuracy to the claims of anyone remains to be seen), and there will be fallout because of them.

The masses really aren't very good at science. I certainly wouldn't want reality ruled by popularity polls.

From what I've seen, the people who really think there is something nefarious in the emails are the ones who want there to be something nefarious in them. Not the most trustworthy of points of view, that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

then please explain the very sudden and rapid increase of global CO2 levels, and the following increase in temperatures?

maybe the Martians did it? cow farts?

I cant, others have that expertise. See some science threads for more info.
We are discussing politics and social issues here.

Perhaps the GW itself caused it, how would I know?

 

[Thunder]

I
Perhaps the GW itself caused it, how would I know?

figures.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The masses really aren't very good at science. I certainly wouldn't want reality ruled by popularity polls.

From what I've seen, the people who really think there is something nefarious in the emails are the ones who want there to be something nefarious in them. Not the most trustworthy of points of view, that.

You might be right.
But to deny that there will be no consequences is already proving to be incorrect.

 

[elbe]

You might be right.
But to deny that there will be no consequences is already proving to be incorrect.

Most everything has consequences, the question is whether those consequences are important. Does what the uninformed think about science matter to scientists?

 

[Wangler]

Arrhenius predicted that doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 4 degrees C which later physicists, aware of factors he was not, modified to 2 degrees C. In fact we see exactly this effect in the climate record and also on Venus and on Mars.

But I don't understand why the record shows the following:

(source=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg)

It seems as if the CO varies from approximately 100 ppm to 300 ppm. Going from 100 ppm to 300 ppm like shown in the peak at ~11,000 years ago should drive the temperature up by approximately 3.2 degrees if we assume a logarithmic relationship based upon doubling driving a 2 degree change.

But the temperature actually increases by much, much more, about 10 degrees as far as I can tell.