Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Hallo Alfie]

My general read on "climategate" is that it consists of smoke/stupidity versus fire/malfeasance, however that's an interim opinion based on incomplete knowledge of the facts.

More important in the grand scheme, it's clear to me that the incident has virtually no bearing on our overall understanding of GW science.

With regard to your second paragraph, that's what I have always said too.
But apparently I'm still a denier.

But you have not actually stated your position on AGW, only Climategate.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yes, please do!

I think 408 and 412 did that.
But to repeat.
It is their opinion only
It would be interesting - but perhaps not important - to know when it was written.
Do they have an official position on climategate?
It is just as wrong as JREFs opinion is wrong in your eyes.
It is unspecific in that it doesn't differntiate between AGW and climate change.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think 408 and 412 did that.
But to repeat.
It is their opinion only

What is their opinion? Why did they reach that opinion?

AGW is a subset of climate change in general, it is all the same area of science.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What is their opinion? Why did they reach that opinion?.

Question answered already
How many times do I have to repeat myself?

AGW is a subset of climate change in general, it is all the same area of science.

They make no such distinction.
I am not saying they do differentiate between Climate change and AGW but to assert otherwise (by either of us) would not be accurate without further evidence.

 

[a_unique_person]

Question answered already
How many times do I have to repeat myself?

You didn't answer it. All you did was wave your hands and not answer the question.

They make no such distinction.
I am not saying they do differentiate between Climate change and AGW but to assert otherwise (by either of us) would not be accurate without further evidence.

LOL. That is nonsense. Climate scientists study climate and it's changes, whether they are AGW or natural.

 

[Meed]

And therefore, not being scientists in the field, you blindly believe what they tell you.

But you still can't understand it (the science). Therefore, all there is left for you is to blindly believe what they tell you.

I believe there is AGW. I am skeptical of the 'A'.

Why just the 'A'? You "blindly believe scientists" on the GW part?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You didn't answer it. All you did was wave your hands and not answer the question.

Tell me the answer you want to hear then.
I have stated what their opinion is and why they have it. What more do you want?

Why just the 'A'? You "blindly believe scientists" on the GW part?

There seems little debate on the GW part (except for a few extremists I guess).

To think that on a planet that is a few billion years old, hurtling through the universe with thousands of variables, both known and unknown is going to have its climate remain constant, seems illogical even to a child. This is moreso when we also consider known historical changes in climate such as ice ages which any primary school student understands.

So, we have historical evidence not inaccurate projections and theory that supports the fact that the climate does change and is rarely (if ever) constant.

It is the "A" in AGW that I see debate on, and much of that debate make sense to me.

 

[Meed]

There seems little debate on the GW part (except for a few extremists I guess).

So you "blindly put faith in consensus", to paraphrase your characterization of a_unique_person. Wouldn't this make you "gullible" by your own standards?

To think that on a planet that is a few billion years old, hurtling through the universe with thousands of variables, both known and unknown is going to have its climate remain constant, seems illogical[...]

And this is evidence of a warming trend?

So, we have historical evidence[...]that the climate does change and is rarely (if ever) constant.

We have historical evidence that CO2 emissions have had a significant warming effect over the past century too.

It is the "A" in AGW that I see debate on[...]

There is plenty of debate on the GW part (like the A part it's not a debate in the scientific literature, but by politicians, media, thinktanks, laypersons). Wasn't it our own DogB who claimed there has been no warming since 1998? I've seen dozens of climate change contrarians make the exact same claim. What of all the claims that weather stations are not to be trusted? Doesn't that hurt the evidence against GW alone? I also recall mhaze claiming that there are global cooling predictions as evidence against GW (months back when I was just lurking).

I also note that you cited public opinion polls as evidence of the debate on AGW:

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."

Here's another set of polls: http://people-press.org/report/280/little-consensus-on-global-warming

Apparently 20% of Americans, including 32% of Republicans believe there is "no solid evidence" of GW, manmade or otherwise. The numbers are lower but still quite significant and the position "no solid evidence" is far stronger than "it's at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data[...]" (emphasis mine).

[...]and much of that debate make sense to me.

So you refrain from skepticism when there isn't a debate that makes sense (i.e. a spurious debate full of poor arguments wouldn't sway you)?

Would you mind sharing which aspects of the debate over AGW make sense to you? If you don't want to post science here then you can post in either of the "Is there a coherent narrative..." threads in the science forum.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So you "blindly put faith in consensus", to

Good try.
How long have you had that in the holster?

That is quite possibly the most dishonest post I have seen since I arrived.
You have either cherry picked my comments, taken them out of context, (deliberately) misconstrued statements and used others' comments as evidence of my position.

I will happily continue the discussion when you get things a bit straighter and more honest.

 

[Piggy]

Good try.
How long have you had that in the holster?

That is quite possibly the most dishonest post I have seen since I arrived.
You have either cherry picked my comments, taken them out of context, (deliberately) misconstrued statements and used others' comments as evidence of my position.

I will happily continue the discussion when you get things a bit straighter and more honest.

Hey, cornsail... Alfie absolutely hates it when people apply logic and reason to his posts. Almost as much as he hates it when he's asked for evidence.

I'm just warning you... you risk being ignored.

 

[Meed]

Alfie,

Nothing in my post was intentionally dishonest. However, after giving the posts of yours in question a second look, it appears did misunderstand your exchange with a_unique_person and BenBurch somewhat. My statement:

"So you "blindly put faith in consensus", to paraphrase your characterization of a_unique_person. Wouldn't this make you "gullible" by your own standards?

can be considered retracted.

Have I misunderstood anything else? My other points still appear fair to me, but let me know.

 

[Meed]

Hey, cornsail... Alfie absolutely hates it when people apply logic and reason to his posts. Almost as much as he hates it when he's asked for evidence.

I'm just warning you... you risk being ignored.

But he likes demanding evidence and then ignoring it apparently. Heh. Your warning is heeded, I shall tread with the caution of a hobbit into Mordor.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Alfie,

Nothing in my post was intentionally dishonest. However, after giving the posts of yours in question a second look, it appears did misunderstand your exchange with a_unique_person and BenBurch somewhat. My statement:

can be considered retracted.

Have I misunderstood anything else? My other points still appear fair to me, but let me know.

Thanks, I appreciate that much and in good faith will have a go at the others.

And this is evidence of a warming trend? .

I dont think I said it was evidence of a "warming trend"

We have historical evidence that CO2 emissions have had a significant warming effect over the past century too.

That is what is being debated.

There is plenty of debate on the GW part (like the A part it's not a debate in the scientific literature, but by politicians, media, thinktanks, laypersons). Wasn't it our own DogB who claimed there has been no warming since 1998? I've seen dozens of climate change contrarians make the exact same claim. What of all the claims that weather stations are not to be trusted? Doesn't that hurt the evidence against GW alone? I also recall mhaze claiming that there are global cooling predictions as evidence against GW (months back when I was just lurking).

But these are not statements that are attributable to me.

I also note that you cited public opinion polls as evidence of the debate on AGW:

I don't see your point.

Would you mind sharing which aspects of the debate over AGW make sense to you? If you don't want to post science here then you can post in either of the "Is there a coherent narrative..." threads in the science forum.

To what end? I have my doubts.
I read the science (I get some, and not other), I hear the debate in politics, at the watercooler and in the science.
My position has been stated many times over. I am skeptical of the 'A'. I am skeptical because of the debate and because of the politics and I am skeptical because imperfect human beings are involved in an inexact science.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But he likes demanding evidence and then ignoring it apparently. Heh. Your warning is heeded, I shall tread with the caution of a hobbit into Mordor.

I've found it good policy not to feed warm mongering trolls, Cornsail.

 

[BenBurch]

Alfie,

Nothing in my post was intentionally dishonest. However, after giving the posts of yours in question a second look, it appears did misunderstand your exchange with a_unique_person and BenBurch somewhat. My statement:

...

Well, as I don't read his posts, there was no "exchange." Just a nit pick.

 

[Meed]

I dont think I said it was evidence of a "warming trend"

You offered it as a reason why you believe in GW (i.e. a warming trend).

That is what is being debated.

But you don't think GW itself is being debated by anyone?

But these are not statements that are attributable to me.

You said you believed in GW, but were skeptical of AGW because the 'A' part was being debated. Those were examples of the 'GW' part being debated.

I don't see your point.

It appeared you were claiming that public opinion showing skepticism of AGW was evidence that the science is not "settled". This is a poll indicating a significant amount of public skepticism regarding GW.

My point is simply that it would seem the reasons you give for being skeptical of AGW should also apply to GW (and creationism for that matter). I was trying to understand why you accept one but not the other.

To what end? I have my doubts.
I read the science (I get some, and not other), I hear the debate in politics, at the watercooler and in the science.
My position has been stated many times over. I am skeptical of the 'A'. I am skeptical because of the debate and because of the politics and I am skeptical because imperfect human beings are involved in an inexact science.

You said much of the debate makes sense to you. I'd like to know which parts make sense.

No science is "exact". The science behind the greenhouse effect is pretty high up there, though. Being in cognitive science I can only dream of being able to explain things so well. And there's no reason to believe climate scientists more "imperfect" than other scientists.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You offered it as a reason why you believe in GW (i.e. a warming trend). .

No I offered it as a reason that climate is not constant. Not warming specifically.

But you don't think GW itself is being debated by anyone?.

Not by me, and I don't recall anyone in this forum taking that position (I may be wrong).

You said you believed in GW, but were skeptical of AGW because the 'A' part was being debated. Those were examples of the 'GW' part being debated.

Fine that makes sense now, but again it is not attributable to me nor anyone on this forum.

It appeared you were claiming that public opinion showing skepticism of AGW was evidence that the science is not "settled". This is a poll indicating a significant amount of public skepticism regarding GW.

That's great, I still don't see how that relates to me or this forum.

My point is simply that it would seem the reasons you give for being skeptical of AGW should also apply to GW (and creationism for that matter). I was trying to understand why you accept one but not the other.

So by the same logic should I assume you are a communist? My position is what it is, I have stated it honestly and I hope clearly. I think you are trying to find something that isn't there.

You said much of the debate makes sense to you. I'd like to know which parts make sense.

I think I said some parts of the science make sense, some doesn't.

No science is "exact". The science behind the greenhouse effect is pretty high up there, though. Being in cognitive science I can only dream of being able to explain things so well. And there's no reason to believe climate scientists more "imperfect" than other scientists.

Fair enough.

 

[Meed]

No I offered it as a reason that climate is not constant. Not warming specifically.

But this was in response to a question about why you believe in global warming.

Not by me, and I don't recall anyone in this forum taking that position (I may be wrong).

Why would it be by you? You said you believe in GW, but are skeptical of AGW, because there is debate over the 'A'. Since you are skeptical because there is debate, it is relevant for me to point out that there is also debate regarding other science that you claim to believe in. It doesn't explain your skepticism regarding AGW.

Fine that makes sense now, but again it is not attributable to me nor anyone on this forum.

Several of the examples I gave were from this forum... And "not attributable to me", that's a real baffler. As if you would claim to be skeptical of something due to the fact that you yourself were debating it?

That's great, I still don't see how that relates to me or this forum.

Seriously?

So by the same logic should I assume you are a communist?

Oh geez. I give up. You are not making any sense whatsoever.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But this was in response to a question about why you believe in global warming. .

Indeed. However I was simply pointing out that given the changes in climate over the life of the earth, why would I think climate is constant.
It simply goes to the heart of the issue as to why Climate Change would and could be happening.
I honestly don't see why this is a problem.

Why would it be by you? You said you believe in GW, but are skeptical of AGW, because there is debate over the 'A'. Since you are skeptical because there is debate, it is relevant for me to point out that there is also debate regarding other science that you claim to believe in. It doesn't explain your skepticism regarding AGW. .

I'd have thought the answer about the historically proven changes in climate would answer that.

Several of the examples I gave were from this forum... And "not attributable to me", that's a real baffler. As if you would claim to be skeptical of something due to the fact that you yourself were debating it?.

You've lost me now.

Oh geez. I give up. You are not making any sense whatsoever.

I'm trying to point out that your logic is falling down GW and AGW are not the same and they are not connected via all the same evidence.

Skepticism of GW is not the same as skepticism of AGW. As I have pointed out, GW makes sense based on the historical changes for which we have proof positive.

They are completely different elements of a similar discussion, much in the same way that one can believe in the historical existence of Jesus Christ and still be skeptical of his miracles.

In other words AGW is unproven theory - not factual history.

 

[Meed]

You are not following my logic at all. Apparently nothing I can say will change that. Maybe that's my fault--maybe yours. I really don't care. At least your position has shifted to a relatively more reasonable (though still very wrong imho) one in the process, somehow.

As I said, I give up--I'm retreating from Mordor. Happy posting to you.