Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Hallo Alfie]

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

It will matter to them if their government funding stops. I understand that 99% fo AGW funding is borne by the tax paying public.
You might not have noticed, but politicians are pretty easily swayed by what their constituents think. If their constituents think that AGW science and those involved are on the nose, they will be hard pressed to keep it funded, regardless of what that individual politician (or the scientists) think.

 

[elbe]

It will matter to them if their government funding stops. I understand that 99% fo AGW funding is borne by the tax paying public.
You might not have noticed, but politicians are pretty easily swayed by what their constituents think. If their constituents think that AGW science and those involved are on the nose, they will be hard pressed to keep it funded, regardless of what that individual politician (or the scientists) think.

While funding is certainly important, do you think the science will just go away if funding is cut?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

While funding is certainly important, do you think the science will just go away if funding is cut?

Not at all. But tell me, how many scientists like to work for no remuneration?

 

[BenBurch]

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?

UNICORN farts.

 

[BenBurch]

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

[qimg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg[/qimg]

(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.

Common lack of understanding. CO2 is not always the driver in the past, sometimes it responds to warming from other reasons (orbital mechanics) and accelerates the warming. And then it can bring on other effects (methane for example) that amplify the warming it causes.

Denialists want all this to be simple enough for them to understand.

Unfortunately almost nothing in modern science is that simple.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Hey, RF.

Yeah, I know you're sincere.

The trouble is, on threads like this, sometimes it can be like stepping into a dogfight.

Anyway, I liked this page for a gloss on the alleged discarding of data:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

In a nutshell, the data discarded was what we call "temp" data in my organization. We do this all the time. We make copies for use in producing reports and label the files with a "-tmp" suffix so that the person responsible for moving files to archive knows she should discard those files b/c they're just copies of originals which are already permanently archived elsewhere.

I thought I'd bookmarked a plain-English explanation of the "adjustment" issue, but obviously I neglected to do so.

ETA: Perhaps someone else on this thread has these links. If so, posting them (or re-posting them) would be appreciated.

Some here have insinuated that the adjustments weren't systematic, but rather ad-hoc and goal-oriented. That's simply not the case.

The kind of adjustments that were made were, for example, accounting for differences in altitudes or urban environment when stations were relocated (which, if not accounted for, would have resulted in illusory spikes or dips) and other such purposes which actually assure, rather than undermine, the usefulness of the data.

Anyway, here's a nice little article from Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

 

[Newtons Bit]

While funding is certainly important, do you think the science will just go away if funding is cut?

It will "go away" in direct proportion to the amount of funding cut.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Ok, then you're an AGW denier.

 

[Piggy]

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?

Of course public opinion sways politics.

Who says otherwise?

But that's the problem, isn't it?

Folks like you who are content to ignore the science are part of that public opinion.

And no, I'm not suggesting the emails are fakes. What I'm saying (not merely suggesting) is that the ignorant spin put in the emails has no basis in fact.

So tell me, do you really want public policy based on ignorance rather than fact?

 

[elbe]

Not at all. But tell me, how many scientists like to work for no remuneration?

I find it unlikely that funding will ever be completely cut, if the science is sound there will probably be grants available. Really, though, the only reason I see why it's even a risk is because some people are so against the very idea of it that they'd try to block the science from even being investigated. Now why would anyone do that?

Anyways, as, I think it was demonstrated in earlier in this thread, there are scientists who do valuable work who operate on shoestring budgets, the "problem" of scientists working on AGW is unlikely to go away because people might wish it to.

 

[Piggy]

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.

You obviously don't know what I do for a living. But then again, why would you?

The reason this matters... the reason it's worth talking about at all... is exactly because public opinion is crucial to getting things done.

As long as there are folks like you out there who don't care about the facts, we're in trouble.

If hell were real, there would be a special pit reserved for the doubtcasters who are impeding a rapid and reasoned response to AGW.

Because that's what's going on.

AGW is accepted science. But as long as there are those who are willing to lie about that fact, we will be forced to accommodate denier sentiment, while the glaciers melt, seas rise, species go extinct, deserts expand, oceans acidify, and the horror of climate-induced global warfare looms ever nearer.

 

[Piggy]

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?

Oh, believe me, I got it from the beginning. I know exactly where you're coming from. It's all too familiar.

"Just asking questions", I see.

Yes, there will be fallout from these emails, unfortunately, but only because the ignorant can be so easily misled.

It's the sad but necessary side-effect of our current situation.

Our science and industry have outstripped the ability of most folks to comprehend them.

Which means that a bunch of hacks can take a handful of emails and spin them in such a way that folks who don't (and can't be expected to) know the science can be misled into believing that there's some scandal here.

In reality, these emails aren't important at all.

What's important is the willingness of self-interested shills and genuinely misinformed pundits to launch into broadsides against a genuine threat, with the result that we, our kids, and generations hence will suffer greatly because of it.

 

[Piggy]

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?

Willful ignorance is not cute.

 

[Piggy]

I understand that 99% fo AGW funding is borne by the tax paying public.

And the physical and economic devastation of AGW... who bears that?

If we do nothing, the ecomonic fallout is unprecedented (quite literally). And the poor will have the worst of it.

Your science-free alternative reality is quite the luxury, isn't it?

 

[Wangler]

Common lack of understanding. CO2 is not always the driver in the past, sometimes it responds to warming from other reasons (orbital mechanics) and accelerates the warming. And then it can bring on other effects (methane for example) that amplify the warming it causes.

So, CO2 may not have always been a driver in the past, but now it is?

How can we be certain that increases in CO2 in the present era are the whole driver? Perhaps orbital mechanics are in play? Or something else?

This is the root of my doubt.

 

[Piggy]

So, CO2 may not have always been a driver in the past, but now it is?

How can we be certain that increases in CO2 in the present era are the whole driver? Perhaps orbital mechanics are in play? Or something else?

This is the root of my doubt.

No one says it's the only driver.

But we know it's the primary driver because of a web of data, including isotope studies showing that human-created CO2 in particular is the forcing mechanism for the present warming trend.

When you track the influence of the various possible forcers, the signal for the non-human-induced variables turns out to be relatively weak. Only human-created isotopes of CO2 are prominent enough to explain the observations.

 

[BenBurch]

So, CO2 may not have always been a driver in the past, but now it is?

How can we be certain that increases in CO2 in the present era are the whole driver? Perhaps orbital mechanics are in play? Or something else?

This is the root of my doubt.

Then you really don't have a grasp of the science.

 

[Jontg]

It's just kind of amazing how vast the right-wing propaganda apparatus really is--knowing the truth about the event from day one, understanding the nature of the distortion being performed here, has made watching the lie unfold in realtime something of an eye-opener. It's actually a little unnerving how much it resembles the PrisonPlanet spin machine. It's the same ankle-deep, lukewarm ********, and when you get right down to it the political agenda isn't even very different--but they control a much larger outlet, so they can produce it on a larger scale and spread it over a wider area.
And you blinkered idiots lap it the **** up. You don't think twice, you don't do any supplementary research or double-check the sources. You just blindly believe what they tell you because it makes you feel good--you know The Truth, everyone else is either part of the Ignorant Masses or In On It, and everything bad in the world is an illusion. You're jackals just like they are--diseased dogs who think they're wolves among sheep. Difference is, your blind ignorance is going to get us all killed.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ok, then you're an AGW denier.

Is that supposed to be asn insult?
Ouch!

Of course public opinion sways politics.

And no, I'm not suggesting the emails are fakes. What I'm saying (not merely suggesting) is that the ignorant spin put in the emails has no basis in fact.

So tell me, do you really want public policy based on ignorance rather than fact?

Pionts, in order..

Good you are starting to see.

It sounded like you were

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 obviously don't know what I do for a living. But then again, why would you?

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

As long as there are folks like you out there who don't care about the facts, we're in trouble.

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.

If hell were real, there would be a special pit reserved for the doubtcasters who are impeding a rapid and reasoned response to AGW.

Because that's what's going on.

AGW is accepted science. But as long as there are those who are willing to lie about that fact, we will be forced to accommodate denier sentiment, while the glaciers melt, seas rise, species go extinct, deserts expand, oceans acidify, and the horror of climate-induced global warfare looms ever nearer.

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

More fear based hyperbole

And the physical and economic devastation of AGW... who bears that?

If we do nothing, the ecomonic fallout is unprecedented (quite literally). And the poor will have the worst of it.

Your science-free alternative reality is quite the luxury, isn't it?

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.

 

[BenBurch]

Good news, Jontg, is that some humans are likely to survive.

Survive is vastly different from thrive, however.