Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Hallo Alfie]

It's interesting that you've passed over a very important bit in your quote.



It won't change the actual science, but all the denier movement can do is hurt scientific research. If they aren't providing counter research that stands up to legitimate scrutiny it's just another anti-science crusade, like the creationists. That's what's being pushed, a new brand of creationism. Attach the legitimate science with politics and hope it goes away. Just ignore the consequences of that.

No great mystery there..
I only used the bit that was germaine to our discussion on the denial of the warmers regarding the emails and their impact.

The science is another issue again and there are threads for them which I commend to you if you wish to discuss that aspect of the controversy.

 

[elbe]

No great mystery there..
I only used the bit that was germaine to our discussion on the denial of the warmers regarding the emails and their impact.

The science is another issue again and there are threads for them which I commend to you if you wish to discuss that aspect of the controversy.

No, that's hand waiving. The impact the politics and pressure being spurred by these emails has on the scientific research is relevant. I'm not even mentioning the content of the science, just its importance in the topic at hand.

Your own quote says the emails can't disprove AGW, that's hardly a supporting claim for it damaging the entire AGW field, is it?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, that's hand waiving. The impact the politics and pressure being spurred by these emails has on the scientific research is relevant. I'm not even mentioning the content of the science, just its importance in the topic at hand.

Your own quote says the emails can't disprove AGW, that's hardly a supporting claim for it damaging the entire AGW field, is it?

This is a tragic derail but I'll answer it anyway.

The man makes more than one point.
Not every point is relevant to our discussion.
I didn't bring in the other points, nor did you as they are not pertinent to our thread.

Who is trying to damage the AGW field? Seems to me they are responsible themselves for that.
I am pointing out (as are others) that climategate will have an impact socially and politically (you can discuss the science elsewhere).

There are those in and out of science who can see that there will be fallout. In what form that comes in remains to be seen. That said, things are changing almost daily.

The science itself will be investigated and double-checked no doubt, and that is as it should be. In the meantime there are other ramifications, and it is they that we are addressing here.

 

[a_unique_person]

Check the science threads, there is heaps of evidence for why some people are skeptical about AGW. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=335&pictureid=1990
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=333&pictureid=1988

No, why are you sceptical, what evidence do you rely on.

 

[GwydionMapDon]

Not necessarily, when we are discussing what the fallout from the climategate emails are, the science only forms a part of the debate. A lot has to do with politics, attitude etc

If the science is perceived to be 'on the nose', do you honestly think that politics and public opinion don't matter?

Is it your opinion that the emails signify a fundamental flaw in the way scientists are representing data to mislead the public? That's what it seems like on this end... That goes a bit beyond the idea that the public will react. Of course the public will react, especially those that are subjectively motivated to disbelieve what they fear. It is very difficult to alert people to things that they have a vested interest in not believing. People would much rather go on business as usual, but that is nothing new. Perhaps you'd be surprised the certainty many people are willing to deny any global warming is going on, on the strength of statements like, "it was cold last month!" Most of the public can't even tell you why the Earth's temerature is greater in the summer than the winter, much less understand global warming...

The opposition you've seen in this thread is not so much related to the idea that "climategate" is going to have an impact on public opinion, and probably politics as well; not many would deny that it is totally irrelevant in that respect. You are wrong, though, if you think this is a scandal within the scientific community regarding what is actually happening to the climate and why. You seem pretty confident that the science of AGW is just so much smoke, but can you really claim to know enough on the matter to defend that position from someone that's at least read the literature? I'll tell you why I think I have my answer: You will court the idea that the science is basically hype, calling everyone 'warmers,' ignorant of the lack of scientific agreement, but, when anyone presses you on that, you try to avoid them by saying this is about political and social issues; you want left alone on the science...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Is it your opinion that the emails signify a fundamental flaw in the way scientists are representing data to mislead the public? That's what it seems like on this end... That goes a bit beyond the idea that the public will react. Of course the public will react, especially those that are subjectively motivated to disbelieve what they fear. It is very difficult to alert people to things that they have a vested interest in not believing. People would much rather go on business as usual, but that is nothing new. Perhaps you'd be surprised the certainty many people are willing to deny any global warming is going on, on the strength of statements like, "it was cold last month!" Most of the public can't even tell you why the Earth's temerature is greater in the summer than the winter, much less understand global warming...

The opposition you've seen in this thread is not so much related to the idea that "climategate" is going to have an impact on public opinion, and probably politics as well; not many would deny that it is totally irrelevant in that respect. You are wrong, though, if you think this is a scandal within the scientific community regarding what is actually happening to the climate and why. You seem pretty confident that the science of AGW is just so much smoke, but can you really claim to know enough on the matter to defend that position from someone that's at least read the literature? I'll tell you why I think I have my answer: You will court the idea that the science is basically hype, calling everyone 'warmers,' ignorant of the lack of scientific agreement, but, when anyone presses you on that, you try to avoid them by saying this is about political and social issues; you want left alone on the science...

My position has been stated many times over.
I suggest you review some threads prior to trying to apply your mind reading woo to my thoughts.

You're new, so perhaps you don't understand how the threads work either. This is not a science thread. There are many other AGW threads about that we can discuss the science on.
There are also rules about being off topic, you probably know no better, the others sure should though.

btw, I call them warmers as they call me denier.
Neither is accurate, but they seem to like it that way and I got sick of arguing about it.

 

[GwydionMapDon]

My position has been stated many times over.
I suggest you review some threads prior to trying to apply your mind reading woo to my thoughts.

I've read this thread, but don't expect me to go and read your entire posting history when asking you is so much easier. You've said that you think warming is occuring, but you also seem to give credence to the idea that 'climategate' is swaying people that are actually in the know, which is as good as saying that it represents a challenge to the actual science, not just public opinion.

You're new, so perhaps you don't understand how the threads work either. This is not a science thread. There are many other AGW threads about that we can discuss the science on.
There are also rules about being off topic, you probably know no better, the others sure should though.

You haven't exactly kept on topic either, then. There's no great mystery as to how the topic forums are intended to work, but they can't avoid some overlap, especially on an issue like this. If you are going to insist that they be strictly enforced, I recommend you don't head down the path of bringing up the views of supposedly hundreds of dissenting scientists (presumably in the field) or insinuating that there is a flock-like orthodoxy regarding AGM backed up by fraud.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I've read this thread, but don't expect me to go and read your entire posting history when asking you is so much easier. You've said that you think warming is occuring, but you also seem to give credence to the idea that 'climategate' is swaying people that are actually in the know, which is as good as saying that it represents a challenge to the actual science, not just public opinion.

My position is simple enough.
I believe warming is occuring. I am sceptical about man's involvement in that warming.
I believe Climategate is swaying public opinion.
I have never said it challenges the science, but nor have I dismissed it.

You haven't exactly kept on topic either, then. There's no great mystery as to how the topic forums are intended to work, but they can't avoid some overlap, especially on an issue like this. If you are going to insist that they be strictly enforced, I recommend you don't head down the path of bringing up the views of supposedly hundreds of dissenting scientists (presumably in the field) or insinuating that there is a flock-like orthodoxy regarding AGM backed up by fraud.

I have never suggested fraud. You must have drawn your own conclusions there somehow. All I have said is that the emails cast many things in a bad light. It is impossible for you me or anyone else to determine what the final outcome of any investigations will be.

The science is not settled.
Public opinion does matter.
Climategate is having an impact.

This thread is about the latter two.

The warmers are screaming that Climategate makes no difference to anything. I am arguing otherwise.

Clear?

 

[technoextreme]

No great mystery there..
I only used the bit that was germaine to our discussion on the denial of the warmers regarding the emails and their impact.

The science is another issue again and there are threads for them which I commend to you if you wish to discuss that aspect of the controversy.

Nope. How idiots wreck the scientific process is entirely germane to this discussion. You can't escape from that discussion.

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.

No you are a denier. You engage in logical fallacies. You refuse to back up your slander. You run away from questions.

 

[lomiller]

Whatever the reason they see it as having suffient weight for them to review the data.

Perhaps they want to prove a point about the criticism being specious. You can't have it both ways and claim you don't know what reason they have for this review and still insist the fact that it's occurring somehow supports your conspiracy theory.

 

[lomiller]

I've read this thread, but don't expect me to go and read your entire posting history when asking you is so much easier. You've said that you think warming is occuring, but you also seem to give credence to the idea that 'climategate' is swaying people that are actually in the know, which is as good as saying that it represents a challenge to the actual science, not just public opinion.

his position, based on other threads is roughly that the science is beyond him so he won't looks at it, instead he bases his view on how many conflicting reports appear in the mass media.

 

[elbe]

This is a tragic derail but I'll answer it anyway.

The man makes more than one point.
Not every point is relevant to our discussion.
I didn't bring in the other points, nor did you as they are not pertinent to our thread.

Who is trying to damage the AGW field? Seems to me they are responsible themselves for that.
I am pointing out (as are others) that climategate will have an impact socially and politically (you can discuss the science elsewhere).

There are those in and out of science who can see that there will be fallout. In what form that comes in remains to be seen. That said, things are changing almost daily.

The science itself will be investigated and double-checked no doubt, and that is as it should be. In the meantime there are other ramifications, and it is they that we are addressing here.

It isn't a derail because I was discussing what, as far as I'm aware, is the topic of the thread: the impact the emails have on AGW. I never brought up any of the scientific content, as I'm not qualified to analyze that, I just acknowledged that the AGW is science and you can't just ignore that because you want to focus on the politics involved.

But fine, let's change directions here. What do you hope will happen because of these emails? What do you think will happen?

 

[elbe]

No you are a denier. You engage in logical fallacies. You refuse to back up your slander. You run away from questions.

I find it a lot like what I imagine arguing a Birther to be like: Sure, all the previous cases have failed, but that's only because they are all against us, but the next one is sure to blow the lid off the whole thing.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Welcome to JREF!

 

[bob_conklin]

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

My guess is that those %26 are all here. This board is loaded with acadamia, and therefore liberal politics.

Somehow, on this one issue, we throw out the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I've been asking for proof for 10 years now, and haven't seen it. I have not denied anything, I am ... skeptical.

I've been looking for raw data for years. It's just not out there. Now, I come to find out that someone has asked for it, and the scientist would rather destroy the data than provide it. Then it is hard to find a skeptic on a board such as this that finds that a bit strange.

Can anyone out there tell me how the data has been adjusted? Like I stated in my previous post, Tampa tempuratures have risen by 15 degrees in the last 100 years. Just how do they arrive at 0.5 to 0.8 of that to be AGW? I'll get my hands dirty and dig into it.

Show me the way --

 

[Piggy]

Is that supposed to be asn insult?

It was just an observation, since you seemed to want clarity there, but imho, it's not very complimentary. Accurate, yes, but it certainly doesn't say anything good about you.

 

[Piggy]

This is exactly the point. Public opinion should be based on fact. Not wild speculation, radically missed predictions or a video by Al Gore. Nor should it be influenced by the deniers shills
Until the scientific world can come up with undeniable and accurate truth that can be readily transferred to the masses without hyperbole they will believe what they will. It is a sad indictment indeed, if AGW is as real s threat as you say, but you have been unable to convince them and (once again) reflects poorly on the climate change community.

You disprove your own claim here, because in fact the science is accurate and the predictions, dire as they may be, are simply the result of the science.

And there are pretty darn good, easily understandable explanations out there.

Problem is, human psychology makes it difficult for people to accept the science and the predictions when most people go outside every day and don't see anything noticeably different.

But more to the point of the OP, it would be much easier to get the message out there if we didn't have a subset of deniers actively spreading lies.

So no, the "greens" won't be stopped by "climategate" b/c fortunately there are informed, sensible people in business and government who understand how large the threat really is.

Instead of heaping blame on the informed segment of the population for failing to convince everyone, I think it makes more sense to roundly denounce those who spread false propaganda.

 

[Piggy]

So tell me, who does pay your salary?
Could it be that your livelihood is in jeopardy and your rantings fear based?

Who pays it? A wealthy Jesus freak.

But if you care to know if my statements are "fear based" rather than reality-based, all you have to do is inform yourself of the science rather than tell people it's thataway >>>>>>>>.

Am I afraid of global warming? Damn straight! We all should be.

But the thing is, you're never going to be able to have any sort of informed answer to your own questions unless you bother to get off your backside and figure things out for yourself.

 

[Piggy]

The trouble is I do care about the facts. I care enough to stand up to the bullying and yelling of you and yours to try and find out why others contradict you.

No, you don't.

And besides, who's yelling? Who's bullying?

I don't see anyone typing posts in all caps here, or lacing their posts with strings of exclamation points. The "yelling" apparently is pure projection on your part.

And bullying? I reckon you consider it "bullying" to merely be told to go get the facts rather than pulling opinions from your hind end.

No no no, you don't want to bother.

You say you care enough to find out why others contradict the climate scientists and those who agree with them. Which seems to be just another way of saying that you "care enough" to listen exclusively to fellow deniers. If you really cared, you'd actually read the science.

 

[Piggy]

Good god!
You should hear yourself.
Fire and brimstone from the pulpit.

More fear based hyperbole

I hear myself perfectly well, thank you very much.

The fact that we're looking at some awful consequences... well, to you that seems sufficient evidence to say that it can't be right. Just can't be.

"What? You say the volcano over there is going to erupt and bury us in ash and lava? No way! Can't be! That's a bunch of fear-based hyperbole! You say that's what the evidence shows? Ha! I'll stand up to your yelling and bullying!"

Meanwhile, the volcano gets ready to erupt.

Just because the consequences are dire doesn't mean it's untrue.

Look, through all of this now tiresome discussion you've refused to look at a single fact. And yet you deride people who do look at the facts. And you claim they just can't be right b/c what they're talking about is too awful to contemplate. Must be baloney.

But in fact, what we're looking at right now in the physical world is an increase in climate change that's actually at the high end of the range which climate scientists had predicted.

The more dire warnings are the ones that are coming true.

Meanwhile you're content to leave the science somewhere over there while you ignore it.

Willful ignorance is no basis for either argument or action.