Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Piggy]

So what is the science based alternative that you propose?
I have seen nothing sciency, plenty of economic rationalisation that doesn't make sense, but nothing sciency.

Only because you have refused to look. And no one can make you.

The "sciency" economic forecasts are grim.

Rising sea levels, for instance, will require extremely expensive mitigation, probably coupled with a great deal of property loss anyway.

Displaced populations will create a worldwide refugee problem, and likely spark armed conflict.

Now here's something to think about.... If we do nothing, it's possible that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2050. That's the water supply for nearly half the world's population. And the most recent indicators have bumped that prediction up from "possible" to "likely".

What's the cost of that much famine, displacement, and war?

Yes, mitigation is going to cost something. But on balance, it's cheaper than failing to enact mitigation now.

That's the "sciency" economics of it.

 

[Piggy]

You deliberately miss the point, which is that funding could be severely and adversely impacted upon if the public decide that this science smells bad.

We have to trust that there are enough informed people in the right positions who understand reality, and grasp the simple concept that we either pay now or pay (much more) later.

An ignorant public, confused by lies, is certainly a thorn in their side, but let's hope it won't be enough of an influence to make them abandon efforts to curb warming and simply allow the tremendously larger costs to hit us down the road.

 

[Piggy]

But The Met are checking it out because they think it smells.

They are checking it out because people are calling for it to be checked, and under the circumstances it's better to do so than not. We shall see what we shall see.

Of course, you have no way of knowing if it actually does smell bad or not, since you're willfully shunning facts.

 

[Piggy]

Who is trying to damage the AGW field? Seems to me they are responsible themselves for that.

It only seems that way to you because you insist on remaining ignorant of the facts.

If you were to inform yourself, rather than simply soak up the denier spin, then things would seem otherwise.

But of course, for you, reality is over there somewhere. You can't be bothered with it.

 

[Piggy]

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.

It's simply not possible for someone to actually want to be informed about AGW and come up with nothing.

By all means, take my challenge to visit the Science Daily climate page and browse. You'll find that the fundamentals of AGW are accepted by everyone, and the questions being investigated now are how fast the warming will occur, what will be the fallout, and how can we slow or stop the warming and/or mitigate the consequences.

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.

It's strange indeed. It just happens not to be true.

If you had followed some of the links that have already been provided, you would have seen that the data were not destroyed. Copies of the data used for analysis were discarded b/c they were redundant, but the raw data still exists, it's still where it always was.

And anyway, the raw data won't help you understand what's going on.

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.

I hope that some of the folks here who are in the field will help you more specifically with this.

But from what I've seen, there are a few various kinds of adjustments.

Some of them involve putting different sorts of data formats into a common format -- e.g., a very simple hypothetical example of this is if you have measurements in inches and centimeters you have to "adjust" one or the other, or "adjust" them both into some third standard, before doing anything meaningful with those measurements.

Others are necessary to account for differences in physical apparatus and environments -- e.g., if you have a station in an urban area and you're going to include that data in an analysis together with data from a rural area, you have to "back out" the effect of the urban landscape, such as artificial heating from all the concrete.

Still others are necessary for changes to apparatus over time -- e.g., if a station is moved to a location at a higher or lower altitude, then if you do any longitudinal tracking you have to adjust the data or else you'll show a false jump or dip in the readings which is not due to climate but due to the move.

So there's more than one reason why adjustment may be necessary, depending on where the data comes from and what you're doing with it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Perhaps they want to prove a point about the criticism being specious.

I agree with you and said as much.

 

[GreyICE]

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.

Only if birthers pretended that figuring out where Kenya and Hawaii are was a really mysterious process, so they were going to base their entire opinions on the matter on the important things, like the creativity of the insults used to describe people.

Ooh, wait till he edits a post and pretend he's being misquoted, then gets all offended (it's the game here)

 

[daenku32]

This 'green' takes his orders from AAAS. I'll change my mind after they do.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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 not everyone agrees with you.
How sad.

Who pays it? A wealthy Jesus freak.

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.

Doing it.
I'm just not a lemming.

But really, what do you do for a living?

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.

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.

So there is debate amongst scientists. Good.
I am looking at the science, but it isn't what we are discussing here. Talk to me over there >>>>> as you have been.

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..

What facts?
Pot, meet kettle.

Willful ignorance is no basis for either argument or action.

I agree.
So why do you insist on joining the conversation?
All you do is be rude, appeal to emotion and spout alarmist rhetoric.

Only because you have refused to look. And no one can make you.

The "sciency" economic forecasts are grim.

Rising sea levels, for instance, will require extremely expensive mitigation, probably coupled with a great deal of property loss anyway.

Displaced populations will create a worldwide refugee problem, and likely spark armed conflict.

Now here's something to think about.... If we do nothing, it's possible that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2050. That's the water supply for nearly half the world's population. And the most recent indicators have bumped that prediction up from "possible" to "likely".

What's the cost of that much famine, displacement, and war?

Yes, mitigation is going to cost something. But on balance, it's cheaper than failing to enact mitigation now.

That's the "sciency" economics of it.

Alarmist claptrap

We have to trust that there are enough informed people in the right positions who understand reality,

Yes we do

An ignorant public, confused by lies, is certainly a thorn in their side, but let's hope it won't be enough of an influence to make them abandon efforts to curb warming and simply allow the tremendously larger costs to hit us down the road.

But, I thought it was already too late to curb the warming?

They are checking it out because people are calling for it to be checked, and under the circumstances it's better to do so than not. We shall see what we shall see.

Maybe you're right.
But, it may be that it does smell funny.
It may also be that they are not confident in the data either.
Hmm?

But you don't know any more than I do.

By all means, take my challenge to visit the Science Daily climate page and browse. You'll find that the fundamentals of AGW are accepted by everyone, and the questions being investigated now are how fast the warming will occur, what will be the fallout, and how can we slow or stop the warming and/or mitigate the consequences.
And anyway, the raw data won't help you understand what's going on.

So everyone accepts AGW now?
I wish you'd make up your mind.

 

[JihadJane]

Alarmist claptrap

Out of interest, is there anything else you'd label "alarmist claptrap"?

Peak Oil?

 

[Piggy]

So everyone accepts AGW now?
I wish you'd make up your mind.

It would help if you read with any attention at all.

Context ain't your strong suit, I see.

As for asking for the facts, since you openly refuse to look at them, there's no point.

I've suggested that you browse Science Daily's climate page, which is chock full o' research.

You could check out Real Climate for a quite detailed discussion of the "climategate" emails.

There are folks posting on this thread and others who work in the field who have posted and linked to very specific explanations of climate change research and the "climategate" issues.

But you won't look at it.

So forgive me if I find your request for facts less than genuine.

And your claim that we can even have a science-free discussion of this issue is also unfounded.

The reason that "climategate" won't stop the effort to combat human-induced global warming is because (a) the "climategate" claims are bunk, and (b) global warming is a real threat.

That's the answer right there.

And to understand and evaluate that answer, you have to deal with the science.

Your refusal to do so makes it impossible for you to have any sort of meaningful discussion on the topic at all.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Alarmist claptrap that the glaciers are melting? ..

..They are.

Okay.

 

[Piggy]

Maybe you're right.
But, it may be that it does smell funny.
It may also be that they are not confident in the data either.
Hmm?

But you don't know any more than I do.

Actually, I do know more than you do, because I've bothered to read up on it.

Which is a pretty simple process. I highly recommend it.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually, I do know more than you do, because I've bothered to read up on it.

Which is a pretty simple process. I highly recommend it.

"There is no wealth like knowledge; no poverty like ignorance." - Ali ibn Abi-Talib

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Actually, I do know more than you do, because I've bothered to read up on it.

Which is a pretty simple process. I highly recommend it.

Then you should have no difficulty in providing the evidence as to why?
You are all talk and no action Piggy. Please put something, anything up so we can talk about it.
You say I give nothing?
I've given you The Times report on The Met. Give me something that counters it.

 

[Piggy]

Then you should have no difficulty in providing the evidence as to why?
You are all talk and no action Piggy. Please put something, anything up so we can talk about it.
You say I give nothing?
I've given you The Times report on The Met. Give me something that counters it.

Ok, so if I do, then are you going to again refuse to look at it, just as you've refused to look at Science Daily's climate page, and the explanation of the "climategate" memos on Real Climate, and the summary of responses to denier memes on BBC, and everything else on this thread that's already been posted, as well as the technical explanations posted by people working in climate science that have been offered on the parallel thread in the science forum?

Because if you're going to pull that trick again, it's not worth anybody's time.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ok, so if I do, then are you going to again refuse to look at it, just as you've refused to look at Science Daily's climate page, and the explanation of the "climategate" memos on Real Climate, and the summary of responses to denier memes on BBC, and everything else on this thread that's already been posted, as well as the technical explanations posted by people working in climate science that have been offered on the parallel thread in the science forum?

Because if you're going to pull that trick again, it's not worth anybody's time.

Yep, sure I will look at them
I don't ever believe I said I hadn't or wouldn't, so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from.

 

[GreyICE]

It's working quite well actually. People finaly answered questions. It turns out that not all JREF posters are asshats.

I only had some questions. I only wanted someone to answer them. I said from the start that A.) I supported Cap and Trade B.) I accepted AGW. C.) I don't have an agenda.

Why would it go on?

You are so cynical you don't think that there are sincere people with questions and that there are sincere people who are willing to answer them.

...

Is Alfie on your ignore list too?

 

[Piggy]

Yep, sure I will look at them
I don't ever believe I said I hadn't or wouldn't, so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from.

Ok, good. Let me have some supper and I'll check back with linkage for you.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ok, good. Let me have some supper and I'll check back with linkage for you.

Great
And while your doing that get this info you promised too

Please show me exactly where I have said the established science is a fraud.
And whilst you're looking that up. Show us too why DogB is a crank and charletan.

We're still waiting