Slashdot Mirror
Engaging With Climate Skeptics
In the wake of the CRU "climategate" leak, reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog profile of Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "Curry — unlike many climate scientists — does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics,' but attempts to engage them in dialogue. She can, as well, be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues, as in a post on the skeptic site climateaudit where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations (mirrored here). In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here —- that when scientists 'circle the wagons' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair (and unscientific) attacks, the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended. Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue, or is there no possible common ground?"
Let's engage with evolution skeptics and round earth skeptics while we're at it.
Open-sourcing the Global Warming Debate:
In short, if computer models are the primary tool in making all sorts of climate predictions, then let's have transparency in building the models and getting conclusions from them.
Go somewhere random
Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
You already are. Err. evolution, not round earth.
"...tribalism in science is the main culprit here..."
Funny, the old word used to be 'fraud'.
-Styopa
Testimony of Richard C. Levin President, Yale University Committee on the Environment and Public Works April 3, 2008 "The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees." Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75); The human contribution to global warming: valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x) densall=densall+yearlyadj
Both sides are entrenched and doing what is probably irreparable damage to this debate with their quaint little antics. Unless they are replaced we'll continue to have to deal with a public that is either educated by CNN or Fox News.
There very much is a common ground. Truth. Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date. Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truth... in fact, there clearly are, in both camps. Those aren't scientists, though, and they aren't doing science. They're just people interfering with science. Best to publish all data, and keep discussion reasonable and non-accusatory. The amount of political and activist cruft attaching to the believers and deniers are harming the TRUE cause, which is to find out the truth.
Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.
This way when the debate finally is over, the statements about such can be true.
Of course, this does overshadow the real debate, which is whether or not Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues, which, if we look at similar historic pollution agreements, they have failed miserably.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
... require extraordinary evidence. The global-warmists, or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild, alarmist claims about doomsday they've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc. ice sleets falling off Antarctica, etc.
It is the job of scientists to observe impartially, test, and provide us with facts and data.
It is up to the politicians to use (or misuse) those facts and data.
But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.
umm, curry. AFK, food.
Is what ?
Being more efficient ?
Where is the downside of improving efficiency of devices and ourselves ?
Whatever happens to the climate, the resources we currently use are limited.
Man made Climate change is a political tool to further the agenda of the greens. That large flaming ball of gas at the center of our solar system has more impact on the Earths climate than man does.
Its been hotter than now, its been colder than now. Life goes on.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
No one is really against a better environment, however many people are against the lies on what the real problems are and lies about how some new taxes will magically make everything better.
I find the comments to the newest piece of gore's intellectual diarrhea (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b1067b2-dacd-11de-933d-00144feabdc0.html) indicative of the public opinion on him ang his AGW scam cronies following the climategate. Too bad, so many of you guys here are entrenched in the leftist agenda because of FSF ideology.
"Engaging with skeptics" is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.
First on the list of naivete is accepting their self-description as skeptics without any second-thought. They are anything but skeptics. They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective. Their self-description as skeptics and their talking points have been carefully laid out by PR firms working for powerful vested interests.
Theirs is a concerted strategy to influence public opinion and the last salvo with this "hacking" thing happens just before the Copenhagen summit. She does not even question the legitimacy of those emails.
Engaging with the public and with legitimate political representatives is what climate scientists must do. "Skeptics" doing disinformation should be exposed, not engaged with.
Let's have some light shone on the temperature data and how it is collected:
From Surfacestations.org[pdf], a project to survey all 1221 of the climate-monitoring stations in the U.S.:
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.
And let's not forget the international methods of survey.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
I have to go with the way Dawkins approaches this type of situation. Giving them a seat at the table gives them credibility.
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
Cherry picking data is like the blind men and the elephant, in a sense you see what you want to see. You have to step back to see the elephant. There was a debate for decades about climate cooling or getting warmer. There is supposed to be a cooling trend but the problem is instead it appears to be warming. Let's say the data is suspect due to cherry picking, how do we know which is right? It's hard to deny Arctic melting as much as some are trying to deny it. Also people used to judge weather by animal patterns. We forgot how to read them but it worked well. Look at the animal patterns. Explosions of giant jellyfish off Japan and other areas. Numerous red tides including northern areas where they used to be rare. Starfish invading the Bering Straits where they used to be rare. A number of tropical species have been appearing in the UK and the north east coast of the US. It's happened before but it used to be rare and now it's getting commonplace. In Alaska the permafrost is melting deeper than anyone has ever seen before and worldwide the glaciers are melting fast and there are hundreds of photos to prove it. Assuming all the data is suspect there's still a lot of evidence of a sudden drastic change because much of this observational data has happened in the last ten years and it's consistent worldwide. A natural cycle? Why are we assuming that a volcano that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can affect weather but us doing the same every year has no affect? You might as well say that pouring water into a rain barrel can't make it overflow only rain can make a rain barrel over flow we can't do it. It makes as much sense. A change is happening the only real questions are how much and how fast.
I'm not sure if it's possible for the two sides to have a logical, non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation.
When the hack became public and "climate-gate" was unfolding, people were asking on RealClimate.org (one of the sites involved somehow with climategate) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum. In the first 250 comments or so, no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not. People just wanted to know what the heck the numbers meant and what the various acronyms were.
Yet those folks were called deniers. That we didn't "get" it, and never would. These comments weren't from site admins or the scientists involved however.
With the predictable responses from the other side.
Maybe the scientists and researchers on both sides can have a reasoned debate, but for John Q. Public, I guess we've been fed so much "doom-and-gloom" or "it's-all-nonsense" that the yelling and finger-pointing are in full tilt before the cooler heads have even opened their mouths.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
This attitude that when it comes to climate science it is a "With us or against us," sort of thing. Either someone accepts that humans are causing climate change, that the results will be catastrophic and so on or they are the ENEMY. Skepticism, dissent, etc are not tolerated. If you don't tow the party line, you are clearly in the pocket of the industry or a moron or whatever, worthy only of being shouted down and silenced.
That sort of attitude is a large part of what leads to the polarization of the issue, and is precisely what it seems that this person is trying to work against. If you have the attitude that anyone who is skeptical of your theory at all is to be dismissed a priori, well then you aren't going to win many converts, are you?
Also I should note that attitudes like this make many people like me extremely skeptical. Whenever people act in a manner that demands unquestioning support, when they simply shout down those that disagree and attempt to silence them, when they are secretive about their methods and data, when they appeal to a consensus, when they say debate is over, well that raises my bullshit alarm. The reason is that is precisely how con artists operate. They present you with what they say as absolute truth and shout down those who would dare question it. They want to present you with only their reality, because they are indeed full of shit and they don't want that to come out. As such they attack those that question them and try to silence them, because they want to deflect from the questions.
Well, when you act like a con man, that really sets off warning bells for me. Why would you do that? Why would you simply try to shut down those that question you if you are so sure of your position? While it doesn't make you a con to do that, it sure as hell makes me suspicious you are one.
So really, shit like that doesn't help. If you are going to dismiss anyone who is skeptical of your viewpoint out of hand, you accomplish nothing. You won't convert any of them, obviously since you just dismiss them, and you'll make others wonder what it is you are so worried about.
All you have to do is read the replies to this article to understand why engaging in serious discussion isn't really feasible. Exaggerated claims of falsification and completely tangential theories about motives seem to be the order of the day.
... just personal attacks and outright lies.
Wikipedia...
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Interestingly, ESR has gotten in on the discussion and is a little more damning in his condemnation of the entire Climategate ordeal
http://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html
There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU's research: open-source it all. Publish the primary data sets, publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature "hockey stick", publish everything. Let the code and the data speak for itself; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.
We know, from experience with software, that secrecy is the enemy of quality -- that software bugs, like cockroaches, shun light and flourish in darkness. So, too. with mistakes in the interpretation of scientific data; neither deliberate fraud nor inadvertent error can long survive the skeptical scrutiny of millions. The same remedy we have found in the open-source community applies - unsurprisingly, since we learned it from science in the first place. Abolish the secrecy, let in the sunlight.
If this were any other scientific theory this wouldn't be happening. Politicians are in on this, politically deciding which evidence is valid and which is not, on both sides of the issue. The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't even strictly necessary most of the time. If this were string theory I wouldn't care. The problem is that this is being used to advocate drastic changes in public policy. Policies Al Gore supports would end factory farming and dramatically drive up energy prices. The only possible outcome of this is an immediate and severe increase in the price of food, and famine in much of the undeveloped world. It would lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths over the next several decades. If you're asking me to standby and let our politicians kill millions through famine, because the alternative is even more devastating destruction, you better have some evidence that: A) Your doomsday scenario is fairly certain B) the policy changes you suggest will definitely prevent it. While the evidence for A is getting slightly more convincing, all the evidence seems to be against B. When DDT was banned millions died of malaria, I don't want my generation being responsible for another such well meaning, naive, indirect mass murder.
Seems like the burden of proof should fall on the polluters and not the environmentalists. I find it hard to believe a bunch of people who are arguing for greater efficiency and less waste need to be put on the defensive. But that's politics as usual, I suppose.
How many people can the environment comfortably sustain? We all need resources as input, and have waste products as output... should we reward people for using less, or penalize people for using much more than others?
But really, the only way to find out for sure is to stress the system until it breaks.
It would be nice to preemptively address the problem before we destroy our livelihood, but politically the naysayers will always whine about not getting the resources they're entitled to - it's in their best interests. So just like every pollution problem we've had in the past, we won't really get legislative action until something bad happens and people die. We just have to hope it won't be as catastrophic. Maybe at best we could convince polluters to be responsible to pay into a fund to fix future damages... so they kinda get a short term reward for subjecting us to risk.
I feel like the current fixation on CO2 emissions is kind of silly... it's a good simplification to help focus our efforts on sustainable energy sources as opposed to burning fossil fuels, but the AGW crowd has attacked that simplification, instilling a fair dose of FUD.
Anyway, the optimist in me hopes the US / China / etc. can sort of get in line with some of the other cultures (Japanese, German) who just approach things like recycling and increased efficiency as a no-brainer... why even argue? But the pessimist in me is investing in real estate in Alaska :P
Unfortunately, while we'd all feel better if science was going to determine the policy outcome, I think we're all aware here that the truth about global warming is only a secondary factor in the success or failure of enacting policy to prevent it.
This is true for both sides, and *both* sides know it. Simply put, the issue is way too important to be left to mere science.
AGW is only a secondary issue to many of the non-scientists in the game. The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.
Likewise, many of the anti-AGW would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of poor people in geographically challenged areas if the only alternative was strict curbs on their lifestyle, but would prefer not to have to actually say it. So they'd deny the science rather than admit the underlying sentiment.
I strongly suspect that among the voters, there's only a small minority for whom the science is the principal factor in determining the preferred policy.
Proof? For all those who hold a strong opinion on AGW in one direction or the other, ask yourself this. What proof would it take for you to accept that the opposite position was actually the correct one? Exactly.
To look at the subject from a risk/reward point of view. If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are wrong, life goes on like normal. If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are right, millions of people die.
Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who've got Ph.Ds in the area under study aren't exactly the same as "software" in a general, loosey-goosey way. You wouldn't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work (or don't work) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know (or don't know) precisely how the business should work
you need to look at the science and I think many of you put on some blinders and consider yourself educated in the matter bucause you watched Gore's film.
Before you buy into this, consider the what you are really getting on board with. There are many issues that do not reconcile.
For instance, every farmer knows the level of c02 is barely sustainable. This is why greenhouses must augment with c02 injection. The higher the temp, the more c02 needed. This is a fact that can be proven and replicated. Low co2 harms plants.
AGW trys to tell you something different. They say, c02 is harmful. You can reduce heat by lowering c02 and plants will flourish. Try replicating this in a lab. Im telling you now, it will fail and the plants will suffer.
The science they promote is flawed. c02 has zero impact on heat. AGW cant be substantiated. Its made up. Try it for yourself.
Being a scientist but not of the climate variety, I've got to say 'No'.
In a lot of cases, if not most, dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.
I work with this stuff. Every day. 40 (well more like 50-60) hours a week. It took years of study for me (and everyone else)
just to get to the level where you can properly understand what it is, exactly, that I do. That's what being an expert at something entails.
Now when I get into a dispute with someone, they typically have the same level of expertise. They know more or less everything I do. I know what they're saying, and they usually know what I'm saying.
Now you bring into that situation some layperson with their religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality, who wants to dispute the results of my work. So they pore over it, and they simply don't understand it. (And ignorance breeds arrogance more often than humility, as Lincoln said) But they think they do. And then they formulate their criticism. Even if that criticism makes sense (often not), it's typically wrong at the most basic level. And that will practically always be the case - because there's virtually *nothing* in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert hadn't thought about already. You're just not going to find a professor of physics having made a mistake of forgetting the first law of thermodynamics.
Now I'm happy to defend my science against legitimate, good, criticism. But a scientific debate is *NOT* where anybody should be TEACHING anybody science. What kind of 'debate' is it if every answer amounts to "That's not what that word means, read a damn textbook." It's not the scientists who are being arrogant then. Hell, since when didn't scientists bend over backwards to educate the public? We write textbooks, and popular-scientific accounts. Research gets published in journals for everyone to see, etc. It's not like we're keeping it a big secret - The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to learn, yet arrogant enough to believe they should be entitled to 'debate' with me, and that I should be personally burdened with educating them in the name of 'open debate'!
(Just to pick one out of the climate bag. How often haven't you seen someone say "Yeah but climate change is cyclical!" - What? As if _climate scientists_ didn't know that?! Refuting someone's research with arguments from an introductory textbook)
The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate. And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.
The socalled sceptics should in truth be called believers, because they seem to believe there is a global conspiracy of nearly all climate scientists, that this conspiracy has been there for years, fiddling with data to make it fit their objective, with all of their data published, all of their models published without anyone being able to refute the science in these, for what evil goal? To make humans more responsible in how we treat our environment? What an evil and nefarious plan!
The IPCC reports are public, they are based upon peer reviewed articles. There may be some data which is protected by copyright, but in general it is all public, data, models and conclusions.
This is FUD of the worst kind, because the "sceptics" know that most "sceptics" will not bother to look into it for themselves.
Let me repeat, it is all publicly available, except for certain pieces of data which may be protected by copyright - after all there are institutions living of selling the data they collect.
If you disagree, then look into what has been published and show us the errors, don't try the old propaganda trick of trying to undermine the scientists, undermine their science if it is wrong
anu other scientific topic:
Most deniers don't stop denying even after all there points have been shot down, and the media gives them undue air time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Those that do not believe that global warming is real have very real and very sick motives for their denial. No amount of evidence or proof will ever change their minds. They simply are not concerned and all that they want is to feel safe and to have their positions in this world unchanged. In addition it is part and parcel with some other idiotic conservative doctrines. Some of these doctrines are somewhat occult in that they have never been seriously defined. For example the anti abortion loonies have a deep feeling that the general morality may change if abortion remains available. Their feeling is that any change in community morality somehow endangers them. The usual nonsense that it is a moral imperative for them to stop abortions is nonsense. There is no moral duty to stop other people from using an alternative such as abortion. Trying to equate it with stopping slavery or other such tripe are symptoms of primitive minds running wild with poorly formed abilities to reason.
Seriously. They're called experts for a reason.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
The real AGW arguments (and the motivation of all the parties involved) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate. The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives. Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.
They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data. They refuse to publish the code for their computer models. They refuse to rationally refute skepticism. They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics. They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder. They refuse to identify the "correct" temperature, let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature. They refuse to close the loop on their proposed remedies to objectively weigh the benefits against the cost.
If Global Warming was simply an academic question rather than a life-or-death political struggle for power (or against power and for freedom), then it could be discussed as such.
AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate. It was already reeling from the fact that it hasn't warmed in the last decade. And it faced an uphill battle due to the depression: rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality, poor people can't. If the political struggle ends, this can go back to being about whether carbon release causes warming, and how much, and what it really means.
Well then here: IPCC FAQ for your perusal. Not the whole report, mind you, seeing as I'm sure that you don't have the time or patience to sort through the information. I'm guessing that you're referring to CBS as being the "obviously politically motivated" party here? You don't actually say, so I have to assume this.
The downsides are poverty, death, government tyranny, despair, hunger, loss of cultural heritage, loss of the ability to technically advance, and a general sense of hopelessness about the future.
Every human action must be tested against thousands of pessimistic "what if" scenarios, often by people with selfish or political motives. And even if you slip past the tests, any gain you receive from your actions will be largely taken from you to pay the salaries of the bureaucrats that tried to stand in your way.
Why bother doing anything?
for pete's sake... most of the people in these (Global Warming/Climate Change and whether or not it's Anthropogenic (wtf? who dreamed that one up to hide the 'human-caused' part?) debates can't see the forest for the trees anymore.
Who gives a shit about whether the Earth is warming up or cooling down? Whether the weather is calming or getting more eccentric? Whether humans are the cause or whether this is all just part of a some sun/geological/alien cycle?
Okay, granted, we should all give a shit.
But there's *very real immediate benefits* to not fucking with CFCs so much anymore, to not sticking lead in all our gas anymore, to not using mercury willy-nilly in an assortment of products, and to switching to cleaner alternatives to burning oil and coal. Any asthma patient on a bike stuck behind a gas-guzzler vs a prius in city driving will tell you so.
Are there down sides? Sure. Do most of these downsides conclude in you having less money to spend or more government interference? You betcha.
If you don't want less money to spend just so some random dickwad can breathe a little easier, so fish aren't served with lead on somebody else's plate, and so Australians don't fry to a crisp in UV rays.. hey, by all means, join the 'anti-GW-movement' (whatever that is)... but don't bloody kid yourself that it's not about your fucking money.
If you don't want the government to interfere more - hey, here's a thought, make the changes on your own accord, then governments wouldn't have to legislate these things.
I'll start believing in man-made-climate-change.
"you're still evil for asking all of those questions (even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism, and you were pretty much right about the weak science)
Which questions had a good foundation?
My experience is that a good number of "those questions" -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change.
"How can it be global warming if some places are getting cooler?"
"Why is no one talking about urban heat island effect on measurement?"
"The 'consensus' in the 1970s was that we were in for a new ice age! Why should we believe climate scientists now?"
"Ice is getting *thicker* in some places in Greenland. Doesn't this disprove the whole thing?"
"Aren't concerns about global warming are based largely on unreliable computer models?"
"Scientist in is a skeptic for reasons not clearly discussed! Doesn't that mean there's not a consensus?"
Maybe I'm strawmaning the debate, but this is seriously the level of questioning I see. I'd be happy to engage tougher questions if they exist, but as it looks to me right now, either skeptics are either largely represented by people who are poorly articulating whatever substantial objections might exist, or they deserve the scorn they're met with.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
unless you have a PhD or M.Sc. in a relevant scientific field.
You are just making yourself look like an idiot.
You are free to argue about what should be done about it, as that is a values-based political judgement.
Keep the distinction straight, and we're all good.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This continual presentation of it being some "hippie" scientists fighting the good fight against a massive establishment doing everything they can do keep them down. Ok... Umm so can you please show me this happening? I fail to see it. I see plenty of grants going around for researching global warming, I see plenty of money flowing in to environmental groups, I see plenty of activism on that side. I also see attempts to silence critics, I see many things failing at good scientific rigor and so on.
I also see many corporations getting on board with this whole "carbon neutral" thing. Apparently being green is in style now, so they sell that. My web host takes time to crow on about how good they are environmentally (http://www.pair.com/environmental_policy/). Many corps seem to be willing to buy in to the green trend.
On the other side? Well I see corporations that just don't seem to care. They don't really have anything to do with the environmental debate, they just keep making their products and ignore it. There are also skeptics who put up websites that question the validity of global warming information, none of whom seem to have any sort of backing.
So if there's a massive counter effort going on, man I sure can't find it and it sure doesn't seem to have much effect.
Thus I am lead to call bullshit. I don't think there is this massive effort to try and suppress global warming research and information.
Well guess what? This is yet more con man tricks: Claiming that there is a vast conspiracy keeping your stuff down. Your amazing product would be sold in every store, except that there's a conspiracy that is keeping you out.
Again, none of this says that the people doing this are con men. However I'm sorry, but it sets off deep alarm bells with me. When I see people acting like con men I always have to ask why, I'm always skeptical. Reason is that in my experience, when that is happening it IS because they are con men, they are hiding something. Doesn't mean their whole deal is a con but at least something is being covered up, hidden. So I'm sorry, but actions like this make me skeptical. When you want to hide things from me and yell at me if I ask questions, I believe something is up.
Your version of results are wrong. If the current IPCC predictions are correct more people would still starve from sequestering resources for AGW prevention than AGW itself. There is also a trade off between lower emissions (traditional pollutants) and less CO2.
I think the whole 'climate change' debate is bizarre, and I am deeply sceptical about those who use climate change to push tenuously related political agendas.
If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I'm willing to believe that this influences climate, I've one key question: is the change for the worse? Really? How can you be so sure?
I dislike the doom-laden 'climate change will wreck our environment' crowd for one key reason: they can't provide any evidence that I wouldn't prefer the climate after it has changed. Lots of things have been affected by mankind - and, frankly, I prefer to live in the world in which these changes have been made.
While I applaud being economical - and dislike pollution as much as the next sane person... I also think mankind belongs on earth... and I'm not willing to blindly jump on the change implies disaster bandwagon. I'd like the scientific debate to be, erm, more scientific... science can't tell us what we should chose for our future - it only illuminates mechanisms... if we want to engage in a debate about what influence we should exert on our own futures, maybe we need to bring in philosophy and ethics. All I can assure you is that I expect no clear cut answers.
Please supply:
- The data used for this analysis
- Any computer code used for calculations
- Other computer analysis tools (spreadsheets, etc)
- Any notes taken or emails exchanged by the scientists on the subject during the analysis
- The raw data from the measurements
- A justification of the methodology for the measurement and analysis
- Any additional measurements required to indicate this isn't normal
- A list of every person involved in this project
- The source of funding for this project
And for good measure:
- Please tell us what the AGW computer models predicted for this melting. Preferably, this prediction would have occurred and been published before the melting was discovered.
Thanks. And consider not positing it as an AC.
Whoopdie-fucking-doo.
How about the fact that Greenland used to be warm enough for farming settlement?
Going beyond that, you're using the typical old "won't someone think of the icecaps?!" Do you wanna know how long the Earth's been warming up? Since the end of the last freakin' ice age; About 10,000 years ago. That's about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution (and autos) that are blamed for global warming.
But don't let those facts stop you from using selective data to falsify man-made global warming.
Especially in science. The burden is always on the claimant of the theory. You come up with a theory as to how something works, you then need to provide proof that is in fact the case. They way you do is by showing it is not false over and over. What I mean by that is you can't conduct a single test to show it is true, that isn't possible. What you can do is try to falsify it. You say "Well my theory predicts that Y will happen in X conditions, so if Y fails to happen it is wrong." You then try that, when Y happens, well you are a little more convinced it is true. You also test alternative explanations "My theory predicts Y happens because of X, but it could also be because of Z," so you then test Z and Y doesn't happen, but you test X and Y does. You are now a little more sure.
As you and others repeatedly fail to be able to falsify your theory, you have good evidence it is true. As you try every alternate explanation, as you redo tests over and over to make sure that no mistakes are made, you become certain of your theory.
However it is on you to prove your theory. You don't get to say "This is my theory, it is now accepted as right until someone can show it is wrong." That is the kind of crap the ID people pull. They say "God designed everything and you have to accept that until you can prove it false." No, sorry, in fact that's not how it works. YOU need to prove it true before we accept it, or rather repeatedly test it and show that it isn't false. Can't do that, of course, since god isn't testable (supposing god is real), but that's how it has to work.
So you don't get to say "The burden of proof should be on the other guys." No, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes the theory. Science is a position of disbelief by default. We don't believe things are true until they've been tested, and even then we always have to accept that they could be still possibly be wrong. All scientific theories MUST be falsifiable, otherwise they aren't scientific theories.
I am unfortunately forced to put most "believers" in Human-Caused Global Climate Change into the same group that believe in the "not a sparrow shall fall" form of biblical fundamentalism. Beliving that humans are fully in control of the Earth's climate and can change it at will is just as dangerous as those that believe in a personally involved God that oversees every event on Earth.
Right now, we have at our disposal enough information that we can see most of the inputs to the Earth's climate. We do not yet understand all of these inputs and their relative weightings. Nobody has any real knowledge of how much energy is stored in oceans or how much effect solar variance has on oceans.
Sure, we know there is a lot more CO2 than there was 100 years ago. And some fairly obvious conclusions can be drawn from there being more CO2, but we have real information for only an extremely short period for the Earth. We might know some things about the climate 1000 years ago, but the information is very incomplete.
Could the climate be changing? Sure it could. Can we materially change this, given what we know today? Almost certainly not, at least not without huge inputs of energy or removal of what energy we are putting into the climate system. Neither of which is proposed. The Earth's climate engine is something that is measured in gigajoules. So far, the proposals on the table are not even rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They are like dusting off the tower that held the Trinity device.
It is obvious that nobody in any position of power really believes there is some onrushing global catastrophe. Most of the rather weak carbon emissions reductions that have been proposed will have zero effect on emissions for a decade and even then it is a decrease in growth, not a real decrease in emissions. Of course, the costs for this decrease in growth will affect everyone in US and Europe in some pretty unpleasant ways. But still, regardless of the cost, the net effect is so close to zero as to be meaningless. And there is nobody saying that if these steps were taken immediately there would be any net change.
So what else could be done? Well, for starters we could eliminate passenger air travel. The reduction in emissions might only be 20% of the total but it would be a 20% decrease in emissions rather than a reduction in growth. We could require special permits to enter a large city by car. You can't outlaw cars in the US because of the way cities have been built for the last 70 years or so. By requiring such a permit it could eliminate much of the commutting by car that is happening. Might not cut emissions by more than 5%, but again it would be a 5% decrease rather than a decrease in growth. This might take years to be able to implement, but it could be done.
The problem is, if we did this what would happen? Nobody really knows. There is a theory that it might change the climate, or stop a change that we don't seem to like much. But the ugly truth is that we simply do not know what would happen. Clearly, the leaders of the world today do not believe (as some do) that it would save thousands if not millions of lives.
Instead, in the US we are looking at utterly pointless plans to implement some sort of point trading system that will enrich a few at the cost of all consumer goods going up in price. Oh the price for manufacturing them will stay the same, but transport will cost more. You can't bring manufacturing back to high-labor-cost US from cheap-labor-cost Mexico and China, but the traders can get rich. Net effect of this will be somewhat lower sales and the three or four manufacturers still in the US will be forced to move out. But little else will really change. Except the growth of emissions will slow just from economic changes.
If you believe that humans can change the climate in a few years with minor energy inputs you are almost certainly wrong. It is extremely arrogant to believe that the energies commanded by humans today could do any suc
Hypothetically, let's assume that the amount of greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere is enough to cause the average temperature to rise.
If this is the case, does it actually *matter* whether it's created by natural causes or by human activity?
If human sources of greenhouse gasses are significantly smaller than natural emissions, it means that we can cut human consumption significantly and it won't have much effect on the overall emissions. This might lead to the conclusion that carbon capture would make more sense. Alternately, it's conceivable that the human activity is just enough to push us over a tipping point so cutting the overall emissions slightly can have a big impact.
Also these particular proponents doing disinformation should be exposed (then fired and possibly prosecuted.)
That wasn't what you ment to say?
Double standard espousing asshole.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Trying to review data and analysis is a dirty trick???
Every headline on every news outlet and every newspaper should read:
GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD!
Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes should be immediately jailed without bail on suspicion of being the perpetrators and co-conspirators of the biggest fraud in the history of science. They, Al Gore and the other fraudsters are no better than that notorious crook, Madoff. Except that this is much worse than a mere ponzi scheme. This is a worldwide scam of trillion-dollar proportions. The IPCC assholes should all be rounded up without delay. They should be prosecuted by an international court and given a life sentence.
Last but not least, Slashdot editors and commenters are also part of the cover-up scam. Slashdot should tread carefully, in my opinion. Covering up the stench of this scandal by rationalizing the blatant fraud is not a good idea.
Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith?
And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.
Decide there's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.
It's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.
I've been advocating Linux for years and I'd bet there's no possible common ground.
A filtering process occurs and, given enough time, four kinds of oppositors remain:
a) the stubborn, which will not change their minds at any reason, however valid is might be;
b) the trolls, who derive orgasmic pleasure in being against or derailing any discussion -- even one that might save the world!
c) those with vested interests and
d) those gullible enough to be duped by type c.
Thus, being climate an urgent issue, it's like the proverbial fire: you grab the guy and throw him downstairs.
You'll certainly be sued for trying to save his life, but arguing in an emergency/dangerous situation would lead to death.
So, suit it is.
Or, in this case, serious international distress.
"Global warming is caused by CO2 and the CO2 comes from human sources. "
Most intelligent people who have researched the issue have come to this conclusion.
"Curtailing carbon emissions is the only way to prevent further global warming."
Intelligent people should immediately recognize the fallacy in this statement. Curtailing carbon emissions is but ONE possible response, it is not the only response and it is not necessarily the best response. The debate, at this point in time, should focus on the response. "Believing" in global warming does not need to translate into "believing" politicians can fix it with more power.
What is wrong with giving the government(s) power to curtail carbon emissions?
For one, it gives the government control of every faculty of human life. Almost everything we do, from eating, to breathing, breeding, and working has a carbon footprint. Giving the government control of carbon emissions gives the government control of everything. Students of history should recognize this pattern very well. An external force will harm us all unless the government is given enough power to protect us. Governments don't protect, they repress. What happens if the government decides large dogs have too much of a carbon footprint. Or horses? Or more than one child?
Secondly, cutting emissions in the US will do nothing about China and India. In fact, cutting oil consumption in the US will make oil cheaper for third world factories. It is supply and demand. Personally, I would rather see the fossil fuels burnt in the US, under EPA standards, creating American jobs than to have it sent to China or India where it will be used in a much less efficient manner.
Third, it is unclear that cutting carbon emissions drastically in the near future will save us from tragedy. Global warming proponents admit this, but still advocate cutting emissions for lack of a better alternative.
What is the alternative?
While it isn't my preferred approach, one alternative is to do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oceans will rise, the world will get hotter, and people will adapt. All of the carbon we are pumping out of the ground and burning once existed in the atmosphere anyways. Plants and animals consumed it, fell to the ocean floor, and were buried under ground. The world survived with extra carbon in the past and could again. The Earth is not going to turn into Venus, no matter how much oil we burn.
Of course there will be costs for doing nothing. For one, a lot of very wealthy people are going to lose their expensive beach front properties. Many bailed out bankers will see their mansions succumb to the tides. Tough shit.
A lot of poor people, mostly in third world countries will have to move. Even in the US we may have to move certain cities like New Orleans instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to wall them off from the seas. This will be expensive, but probably less expensive than curtailing global emissions enough to have an effect.
Arable farming land will lost. Some will be gained, but overall there will probably be a decrease in the amount of land available for agriculture. Farmers may have to stop selling their prime lots to housing developments. People may have to stop bitching about genetically modified food and learn to adapt. But most people will not starve to death, we will adapt.
Is there a better solution than doing nothing?
Like I said, I am not a proponent of doing nothing. I think we should do something that actually stands a chance of working. The best way (notice how I didn't use the word "only" here) to curtail carbon emissions is to give people cheaper options. I don't mean solar or wind, or osmosis generators or tide machines or biofuel or nuclear fission.
Perhaps I have read one to many sci-fi novels, but I think we should take the hundreds of billions being spent on cutting emissions and put it into nuclear fusion research. If nuclear fusion can be perfected in the next decade or two then there will be no reason to burn fossil fuels, conserve energy, or give the government a fascist grip on the economy.
Just a nitpick. You talk about AGW as though it's the main issue, but it's not. The primary question is whether the earth is warming for any reason, human or not.
It's possible that global warming is happening, but that humans had little to do with it. If this is the case we may want to do something about it even if we had nothing to do with causing it in the first place.
There are a variety of ways of dealing with this; reduction of human production of greenhouse gasses to is certainly one possibility, but if the bulk of emissions are not anthropogenic this may not make a big dent. Other options include capture and sequestration of greenhouse gasses, or alternately there have been proposals for various large-scale engineering projects to reduce the incoming radiation (mirrors in space, dust in the upper atmosphere, etc.).
Lets look in our history books for a guy named Martin Luther and the Protestant revolution. Before Luther, ONLY the priests could read the bible (It was in Latin and Greek), you were able to PAY off your sins with bribes to church officials, your only way of LEARNING was from the church and their story. Martin Luther "open sourced" the bible and printed it in English. No more paying for sins, no more taking priest's words on it, and you could learn what was in it.
Today. Only the AWG people have any of the evidence, they want us to PAY for our sins of polluting, and the only source of information on the subject that is "acceptable" is from them. AWGers are equivalent to corrupt church leaders in the Dark Ages, nothing more. Until they let others see their "evidence" they are nothing but criminals on a grand scale. The EXACT SAME church leaders that prevented human progress for over 1000 years. Is this the kind of people you all want to be following? You are fools and idiots if you do.
There is NO scientific debate on the topic. History is repeating, again.
"It's not about being right"? Really?
And you miss a couple of alternate scenarios and outcomes.
Scenario 2a. Climate change is not primarily man-made, but emissions are keeping the next ice age from happening.
Activist result: Depth and speed of problem is accelerated by human change.
Scenario 3a. Climate change is primarily man-made, but emissions are keeping the next ice age from happening.
Skeptic result: Nothing happens.
Activist result: Ice age. Humans deeply impacted. millions die of starvation, cities are relocated, numerous mass extinctions, possible irreversible climate trends.
and for that matter
Activist result 1a. Convinced by faulty data that there is no hope unless emissions are controlled, governments struggle to achieve futile targets, concentrate more power in fewer hands, focus more resources on the problem, blame other countries for cheating on targets and dooming us all, attack industrial targets in cheating countries, humans deeply impacted. millions die of starvation, cities are relocated, etc.
I don't know for sure how I can be expected to show you enough data if scientists with opposing views are keeping that data from journals with threats of withdrawing their own results from the journals, but the Vostok Ice Core data suggests to me, anyway, that the change in temperature is consistent with other increases in the past, and is likely to be followed by a steep drop...soon.
I'm no climate scientist, but I felt better about taking out AGW before I knew actual climate scientists were behaving this way.
TSG
I think we can fairly say that there is enough uncertainty (today) about the data & models to say that global warming may or may not happening. But to some extend this is beyond the point. We don't need to formally prove that global warming will happen to act. We have to take into account the scenarios and their consequences:
1. We do nothing about global warning until it is undeniably in full force (maybe in 25 years, 50 years, 100 years or 200 years), if it ever happen. The consequential scenarios are:
- Humanity faces an unprecedented crisis that leads to our extinction.
- Humanity faces an unprecedented crisis and with its ingenuity it mitigate the crisis, while a set back in history (maybe thousands, millions or billions dies), humanity continue to strive.
- Nothing happen and Humanity continue to do what it does now without suffering any consequences of our current behavior.
2. Global warming or not we decide to curb carbon emission by developing new technology now to replace fossil fuels. The consequential scenarios are:
- Curbing emission takes its toll and GDP growth is stifled if not reversed for decades, resulting into lower quality of life for most of Humanity (some could argue that mostly the rich would be affected).
- Curbing emission actually triggers invention of new methods (renewable, carbon free) to produce energy that are cheap, GDP growth may have been lowered, but after while it comes back to historic levels.
- Curbing emission actually triggers invention of new methods (renewable, carbon free) to produce energy that are cheap, this in turn trigger a new phase of growth, much like the 1990s information boom (and bust of course, because we learn nothing from history).
Now base on this what would you suggest policy makers? Whether I believe in global warming or not, the clear choice is 2, because it mitigates our risks of total extinction while only risking to kill economical growth for few decades.
If you would chose 2 because you are sure that global warming will happen or 1 because you know it will not happen, well you are a lunatic on a hunch.
Further more, unless you are a lunatic (I like this word), petrol, coal, uranium will all run out within 50-200 years (500 years maybe, who cares?). While promoting a change to renewable energy now may turn to be less efficient (future technology making it easier), it is unavoidable.
Is global warming real? I don't care. Act now!
The climate 'thing' is unbelievably complex. I doubt that any single human being actually understand all of it.
In this particular case, everyone looks like an idiot (no matter what qualifications they have). The simple fact is that the climate models can not predict the climate next year, let alone 100 years from now.
Who can get into the discussion? Lots of people. I have even seen an arborist make a useful contribution: re. trees as thermometers, "Trees don't behave like that".
In fact, I've seen lots of non-PhDs post intelligent comments on a variety of blogs. Democracy needs citizens who inform themselves. Saying that only PhDs have a place in the discussion is not the American way.
First off I don't think there is any serious debate, if you took the proportion of people who have some understanding of climatology and are climate change sceptics I would be surprised if it is as high as 1:1000. When you go over those published signatures on various websites, basically none of them are practising climatologists, and the ones that are are generally private consultants, which like it or not taints them. As has been said before, the debate is political not scientific. By some understanding above, I mean at the very least a PhD or equivalent experience, I'm afraid an undergrad course simply doesn't cut it.
Secondly, whilst the idea of "open-sourcing" the data/models is a nice one and I am not against it, look at the practicalities. How many of you have the capacity to deal with hundreds of terabytes of data and run models that take days on a supercomputer? Anyway, the models are actually out there, they are peer reviewed and published. Not the source code (what would you run it on?), but the maths. Although, the peer review process means you tend to be a year or two behind the latests updates I'll admit.
The Slashdot crowd like to be against "authority", but that doesn't mean we should simply be against anything we don't like. On this front page is a story about the LHC. How many people here would claim to understand all the maths and science behind that? Of those that don't (the vast majority of us) how many think it's a load of old hokum? It's far more ridiculous and unbelievable than climate change (CO2 and methane absorb infra-red radiation - it's an indisputable fact and can be proven in any high school), but we don't have a massive crowd here talking about what a waste of money the LHC is and denying that entire area of research do we?
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
What are some of the things you can learn about these climate scientists when you wade through their stolen content with no media filter?
1. These are political animals; whatever pretense of objective impartiality that had been plausibly allowed is gone. The muckity mucks among these scientists spend their time flying around the planet scoring political points as well-funded and credentialed lobbyists.
2. They directly influence the editorial decisions and content of the same peer reviewed scientific journals to which they demand the rest of the world limit its knowledge. When the MSM makes the mistake of publishing something they don't approve of these scientists intervene personally using their media contacts; typically the employers of specific journalists. Publicly they brook no argument with anyone or anything that counters their assertions and they barely tolerate it among themselves.
3. They have no explanation for why global temperature has not increased during the last ten years. They are just as astonished by the exceptionally cold, wet weather they see outside their window as everyone else. Their models do not predict this behavior and the causes are a mystery. The faction among them that is concerned about this and believe it is a problem have been bluntly told by their superiors that they are wrong.
4. They are actively and deliberately preventing access to the data and methods used for conclusions that contribute to the IPCC process. They flaunt the FOI laws of the UK with delays and bureaucracy.
Notice that I have not cited the few "smoking gun" phrases (i.e. "hide the decline") that so many have naturally fixated on. Those cases all have plausible deniability even when then most apparent explanation is simple fraud. I believe the above conclusions are beyond doubt to any rational reader that examines the material without a media filter.
This is a body blow to the AGW community and it will not blow over. These scientists will never again be taken at their word to the degree they had been and their work can no longer provide a basis for ruining the standard of living of the western world, if it ever did.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
But Al doesn't mind this scandal, he already got his Nobel prize and millions of dollars for making a doomsday film about a non-existent threat to humanity.
Similarly, though, if we do something, meaning additional government regulation that dampens economic development, especially in poor countries, and the global warming proponents are wrong, millions of people die from continuing grinding poverty that would otherwise have been avoidable.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
My peers have reviewed my original comment and determined that it's accurate. They also say I'm "Insightful".
The question is settled. I don't have to waste my time dealing with "deniers" like you.
over one half of the earth's surface.
night must be man-made.
algore said so.
That's not at all how I read that (IMHO interesting) comment. What I read is: lack of expertise on in a field robs you of both the ability to form an accurate opinion, and the ability to perceive the holes in your reasoning that led you that that inaccurate opinion. Ignorance begetting confidence, in all good faith. Which is nothing new at all (one of the most enlightening psychology paper I've ever read -- do check it out). It has nothing to do with being a 'moron', and that you read it as such possibly tells more about you than it does about the original poster.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method
and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
So, in what way is Anthropomorphic Climate Change testable? It is a hypothesis, yes. How can it be tested?
Basically. ACC is not science at all. It is philosophy or rather, politics, until it is made testable.
Deleted
In particular, what you are doing is a modern version of Pascal's Wager. You are saying "Here is a scenario that only has these simple outcomes, as such you must logically make this choice."
If you aren't familiar with the original it is about the question of to believe in god or not. Pascal said that you could plot the outcomes on a 2x2 matrix. If you do believe in god, and there is a god, you are infinitely rewarded. If you do believe in god and there isn't a god you get a small reward (that was his argument). If you don't believe and there is a god, you are infinitely punished. If you don't believe and there's isn't, nothing happens. His argument was thus that you should believe in god, since the risks just weren't worth it.
Of course a freshman philosophy student can point out the problems with that, it is way to simplistic to say that is how it works.
Well same shit here. You are constructing the situation such that yours is the only choice by simplifying it as you see fit. So let me give you just one of many other alternative scenarios:
Climate change is happening, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. We may accelerate it in either direction, but we can't stop it. If we drastically cut our energy usage, we will be unequipped to deal with the change, and will die off in the billions. However if we continue to use plenty of energy towards industrial development and scientific research, we will be able to adapt to the climate change and survive.
Any time you present your side as having no downsides, you are kidding yourself. All action has cost, everything has a downside. Also any time you are convinced a complex situation has a couple simple outcomes, you are also kidding yourself. As I said, one possibility is that we are headed for climate change no matter what. There is evidence to indicate this, it would seem the climate has been much warmer and colder in the past than it is now. As such maybe the real issue isn't what do we do to stop it, as that may not be possible, but how do we adapt to survive it.
Amen to this. Has there ever been a scientific discipline with less predictive power than climate modelling, or one with more misplaced zeal to influence politics? I am glad the cover has been ripped off of the sewer of this discipline. Copenhagen is going to be a fiasco.
an ill wind that blows no good
I totally believe in climate and so should you!
over half the earth's surface.
Must be man-made.
We don't need proof, because algore said so.
We believe whatever algore says because algore determines and only speaks the truth.
If you don't tow the party line
People are beginning to understand what it means to beg the question, but this one still irritates me
http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html
It took decades of measurement and decades of modeling to finally reach consensus that CO2 is causing unusual warming, just as it took decades of testing and modeling to figure out the mechanism of genetic inheritance or to verify the standard model in particle physics.
The vast majority of climate skeptics are working outside their field. That'd be fine if they were presenting testable theory, but they're not. They are opposing testable theory with non-falsifiable assertions-- the data strongly suggests warming. The proposed mechanism seems to explain the data very well. There are plenty of wrinkles still to work out, but unless the "skeptics" start proposing alternate models that fit the data (something 99% of them can't do, because they don't have the background), then they need to STFU and GTFO.
The majority of all the 'raw data' is available on line.
you can even go get your own if you like as it source is not begin hidden anywhere. It is right out in the open so to speak.
Now instead of using stolen 12 year old internal emails and docs which no longer have a clear chain of custody making their contents questionable to dispute man made global warming / climate change. Get a hold of the data and do your own analysis and present your findings along with your conclusions supported by that data.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The article is using a very short-view definition of "record", both in sense of "recorded data" and "record amounts". Every year mentioned for comparison is from less than a decade earlier.
Also, if they do have archaeological record of ice melt/freeze, how do the past 500 years compare, especially the year after Mt. Tabora exploded (1815)?
Gold bid raid leader DC'd on us we had a 70450g pot and its gone, its unlikely he will return tonight (name: presadin). He came on 40 minutes after I made this ticket and is not answering our whispers, this is officially a scam, the gold needs to be properly distributed as an even share among the members of raid ID 10981080 who were present at 9:30 PM server time. Thank you.
you mean the emdails which were supposedly extracted from stolen data which cannot be confirmed? At best it's cherry picking, more likely it's merely fabricated.
Where were these hackers before cap and trade hit congress? How much were they paid under the table by the most egregious polluters in the US?
If you want to offer different and valid interpretations of data, or point out the possibility of selection bias, it's one thing, but you can't cite "conveniently unconfirmed" exceperts from data breached at a suspiciously convenient time to back your position and expect not to be called on it.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
b) CRU emails - won't say much more, too much said about this already.
HAHA face is red.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The ozone hole is a separate problem from global warming (as far as we know).
Here are just a few reasons:
1) Further their own careers. Big (positive) claims about AGW are important if you want to get published in the high impact journals.
2) To get grant Money to stay publish and stay employed.
3) Face time with the media
4) Genuine-belief in AGW--even if not well supported by the actual evidence.
5) Insider politics -- why criticize a peer's research that largely agrees with your own? The incentives are reversed.
6) Other environmental motives, e.g., "even if AGW is wrong, reducing pollution, sprawl, cars, oil dependency, etc is good" (I have heard this argument a lot)
7) (Mistaken) belief in the precautionary principle, i.e., AGW is a risk and refusal to see it in cost vs benefit terms.
Actually, the problem is that the entire process replicates a circular argument. A study is done, and peer reviewed by scientists who already agree with the premise, making it pretty likely that they won't have major problems with the conclusion or the methods used to achieve it, since they use the same ones. The study is blessed as long as it agrees with the accepted conclusion.
So rather than a rigorous winnowing process, we end up with a mutual admiration society, or a secret scientists club to which only those in one camp are allowed full membership.
This interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, illustrates other problems with the IPCC's "scientific method". They wouldn't know objectivity if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Couple that with the U.N.'s statements that AGW is really just a means to a global governance end, and it's difficult to see an unadulterated, pure, trustable process here.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32
Said the priest to his followers, "follow my lead and you shall arrive in heaven."
Not sure what the AGW agenda has to do with lead-free gas, mercury, or CFCs. CO2 seems to be the new "pollutant" and the only one the proponents care about anymore.
And I think that asthma sufferer might have a problem with your agenda, as you have taken away the only effective treatment they had for asthma attacks by banning the insignificant amount of CFCs used by their inhalers.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I've been quite depressed about the state of the climate change debate. Given the CRU incident and the fresh impetus found by AGW-sceptics I've gotten tired of the same arguments that go nowhere. Now the sceptics want all the data and all the code to check. To me, that implies that climate science is effectively dead, since no science can be done unless and until it has been verified by sceptics, and if it happens that AGW is real, we will have no time to deal with it during the process of verifying AGW science itself, if we accept that 'risk management' is another canard of AGW alarmists.
But let's take AGW sceptics arguments at face value and see what that implies. I am going to make some basic statements about what I think AGW sceptics see as the core issues and the remedies they demand. Please remember that as a AGW supporter, you must view any statement I make with great caution as nothing I propose can likely be trusted due to my bias. Feel free to correct me and to suggest more correct statements; as I will explain, this is a most necessary part of the process by which we can heal this divide. I hope the foregoing will be taken in the spirit of reconciliation, but accept that my thesis must be viewed with wary suspicion. For this reason, I am putting this olive branch in the most general forum for all to take part, the better to protect against any alarmism of mine.
fact 1. AGW science is effectively a religion, therefore:
fact 2. AGW scientists and their supporters can not be trusted with any statement about climate science.
fact 3. AGW science cannot be trusted until it is verified by non-AGW scientists therefore:
fact 4. ALL AGW science data and code must be turned over to non-AGW scientists to verify.
Now I am not going to go into much more detail than that. I hope such a basic coverage of the state of AGW scepticism is sufficient and non-offensive. Given the logic of these 4 points, I can (from my admittedly biased standpoint) only make these implications/assumptions:
implication 1. All AGW scientists must immediately be stood down and their projects be locked down pending a full and detailed re-examination of their work.
implication 2. No policy can be made until the full evaluation of all climate science can be done.
I would add, if I may, two teeny tiny conditions of such a revolution, should it come to pass. You will see they are obviously implications of the previous points, if my logic is not flawed by my obvious bias.
condition 1: since, from facts 1 and 2, no AGW scientist or supporter can ever be trusted with any statement regarding climate science, all scientific methods and data collection will have to be done in clean-room conditions lest faulty assumptions distort the science. Therefore non-AGW scientists will have to work out the science themselves as per facts 3 and 4 without any help or guidance by their biased colleagues. It is no good hoping that AGW alarmists will do as they're told, by their very nature they will bias and distort the science.
condition 2: following from implications 1 and 2, we must totally rely on non-AGW scientists and their supporters for determining whether we act at all, and such decisions must be completely their responsibility, since we have so obviously abrogated ours by shameless bias. Business must be reassured that silly ideas like 'risk management' are tools of alarmism and are economically harmful. The sceptics will and should take their time with this rebuilding of climate change science regardless of the dithering masses who have been led astray by myself and my fellow conspirators.
If this program meets with your carefully sceptical approval, I will openly allow it to be promulgated far and wide: by this perhaps we can finally progress towards a happier, less alarmist future. To reiterate, corrections gladly accepted, but please, make them public to allow us all to reach consensus.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
for the 'population bomb'...
[i]They have no explanation for why global temperature has not increased during the last ten years. They are just as astonished by the exceptionally cold, wet weather they see outside their window as everyone else.[/i]
No, actual scientists are not astonished because the magnitude of natural variability per year is significant, and the rest of the physics of the planet doesn't take a nap.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
Do the above show something particularly odd or incompatible with mainstream climatological opinion in the last 10 years?
No.
The problem with pushing AGW is that the public isn't buying it. What is the purpose of the discussion? To get popular buy-in so as to push neighbors into positive action to make changes to energy policies and other things that relate to our ecology. What they have done is not only hurt their own argument, but other environmental arguments.
I have not been on the AGW bandwagon, I believe there are other things driving the changes. I have said in the past that if we hitch our horses to this argument, it would bite us in the ass. Instead, the argument should be over-all climate awareness, general environmental involvement, and third world poverty. The drum-beat-hysteria drummed up by people who the public perceive as having a monetary interest, and now the perception of scientific malpractice will hurt the larger issues.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
1. An act of prostitution ?
2. An athletic combo with a skateboard?
3. A cunning and unusual way to accomplish something?
4. An act of deception?
5. A misdirection for the purpose of entertainment, usually with playing cards or coins?
After all, we know that there were people farming in Greenland many centuries ago.
I don't really care much about global warming. I am a skeptic. However, I do love the idea of going on with it. Why? It offers tremendous opportunities for us in the West. I believe we should impose a sort of green protectionism. We should force any country that is not a democracy and that is a heavy polluter out of our markets. We should create a green block and only trade amongst ourselves. How are we going to compete with China when companies there can populate as much as they want? Do they want to trade with us? They must buy our technology so that they can become green. Also they must become a democraticy. I believe this would work very well and it could save our economies here in the West.
The human contribution to global warming:
---
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
---
That code is from the IDL program:
FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris/tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro
Those numbers where typed in by a human to adjust the results of the data.
They are not from the data.
Those number may be the cause of human induced global warming.
What possible motivation? You're kidding, right?
Grants, prestige, professional advancement, MONEY...
Why does anybody ever do anything crooked?
You people amaze me. Proof positive the AGW movement is pure made up bullshit, and here you are slagging "skeptics".
Enjoy the koolaid.
Every third post on this difficult and complex subject is about eight vertical text inches of solid and earnest thinking. The brain cells are firing nicely and people are really considering this issue. It's nice to see so many varied ideas.
I have my own opinions, which in a nutshell are these. . .
Man-Bear-Pig was unfair, thanks Parker & Stone. You try hard, your contributions to rational debate are appreciated, but you take rather too many over-the-counter no-doze drugs to be entirely reliable and effective researchers. You also have accumulated rather too many barnacles on the ship of your public opinion to back down from opinions you might later realize are incomplete or outright misinformed. Basically, you are human.
Even at the end of, "An Inconvenient Truth" the notion was laid out that too much glacial melt stops the ocean convection currents and turns on the planetary big freeze. So Global Warming isn't global warming at all. It's Global Cooling. I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary and so I don't really understand why everybody is pissed off with whatshisname. . , Gore and his video. Despite imperfect data, he's basically right to be concerned about climate change. The weather is totally messed up. Anybody with a balcony window and a memory which goes back more than twenty years can (and will) tell you as much.)
It's the governments and political maneuvering which are annoying. Everybody with a stick in the fire is trying to take advantage of the situation. Fuck that. I don't think anything can actually be done. The cattle will be eaten. It's not in our hands anymore. We're too stupid and ignorant and easily manipulated as a race. Too bad. The blood will flow. But thankfully, that's just one step in a much larger program of existence.
-FL
Yep, one can read Spencer Weart's discovery of Global Warming, available online.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
It's a very old idea that has gotten a stronger and stronger case from gathered evidence.
What goes for "science" in Climate Science is mearly exercises in Theology.
The Prediction of an Arctic Ocean without sea ice in year 2012 is a tenent of Theology, Devined Knowledge ordained by God, and not subject to any principal of science.
The adherients of this Prediction, a.k.a. Outlook, are Theologists, and their "science" a form of astrology.
Pitty that the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration find exercises of Theology more palitable than science, let alone unbiased investigation.
I'm really sick of this arguing.
What annoys me is that the science behind climate change is so simple ( well, relatively simple. *cough*LHC*cough* xD ) : the greenhouse effect being 'enhanced' by tonnes upon tonnes of greenhouse gases (being methane, carbon dioxide etc.) being released by us, along with the depletion of the ozone layer around the poles caused by chloroflourocarbons, which are byproducts of aerosols among other things.
If you're in a grumpy mood and feel like denying that the greenhouse effect even exists then please note one thing: Venus - Venus' temperature is higher than Mercury's despite the fact that it's much further from the sun than Mercury, Mercury has virtually no atmosphere whereas Venus has a very thick atmosphere somewhat like our's made up of ~96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% Nitrogen and traces of other gases I don't care to name, Venus' much higher temperature than Mercury is attributed to this.
By the way, I have noticed a temperature increase; I live in NSW Australia, close enough to the South Pole to be able to blame the highest rate of skin cancer in the world on the big fat lack of an ozone layer above Antarctica, anyway: where I live around 20 years ago in the middle of Winter frost in the morning was a regular site, over the past 11 or so years I have never seen frost in Winter on any day.
Feel free to yell at me for whatever reason but if you really want to deny anything that I've said at least provide evidence, this isn't a religious debate based on dogma afterall unless you really want to drag in that $%%!'d political debate based on money.
Recently heard someone describe Gore as a industrialist. This struck me odd, but come to think about it, he is little different then the robber baron industrialists of the 19th century. He is positioned to make tens of millions off the backs of the poor and middle class.
Besides, AGW is everywhere. My kid's elementary text books, the Disney Channel, the movies... everywhere. It will take a decade to remove all this stuff and a generation to de-learn it.
That is because the program managers of the National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics and Space Administation are Theologins, not scientists. Their training and expertice is in Theology and they have had nothing to do whatever with any aspect of science, in any way, shape or form.
This simple truth is obvious.
I say no.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
The science IS settled.
Where is the unsettled "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" in the science?
Where is the unsettled "Combustion of fossil fuel hydrocarbons produce CO2" in the science?
Where is the unsettled "Temperature rises are underway and nothing else changes enough to explain the pattern of change except greenhouse gasses" in the science?
Now, when the denialist STILL says "Volcanoes produce more CO2 in one year than humans have over their history", what do YOU think they think of as "unsettled science"? Where do you think they get their observational proof of that from?
For example, I once contacted a author of a paper basically saying "I read the paper you wrote on a utility to improve security. It seems to me that your utility could also be used to improve performance as well. Could I play with the utility?". Their response was "I wrote that a few years back. I think I lost the code." Other researchers have similar difficulties when trying to perform meta-studies based on other researchers data. This could have been avoided if submitting raw data and code was the norm. These days there would be almost zero-cost in submitting raw-data in electronic form along with almost every manuscript submitted for peer-review and publication.
EOM
The questions we should be asking, but aren't, go much further.
First, of course, is the question of whether or not it is actually happening. The answer is far from clear. And if we can't answer that, then it is ridiculously stupid to be paniced by a bunch of hysterical politicians spend billions or trillions of dollars to fix something that may not even be broken. And the term "politicians" includes those so-called climate scientists who have ceased being scientists in their quest to become advocates of their own global warming religion. Furthermore, if we can't even determine whether or not it is happening, than we have plenty of time to try to do something later if needed.
After that is the question of what, if anything, we can effectively do to slow it down or stop it. If we don't understand the problem, then anything we do is likely to be far from ineffective and may accomplish nothing at all. Why should we destroy our economy for little more than a hysterical nightmare?
Third is the question that hardly anyone is asking or even thinking about. The global warming advocates all take the answer for granted without even thinking about it. That is the question of whether or not we should do anything if global warming is happening and if there are some effective things we can do to combat it. Global warming is likely to be overwhelmingly beneficial for most life on Earth including mankind. Sure, if global warming occurs, there will be some people who come out behind. But global warming means longer growing seasons, especially toward the poles. Large expanses of land would become available for growing crops.
The real disaster would be global cooling. If that occurs, expect billions of people to starve to death. Remember that in the fossil record, periods of cooling, not warming, are the climatological causes of mass extinctions. If global warming helps postpone the next ice age or lessen its effects, the benefits to mankind and other animal life are clear.
There is no reason to panic. Far from it. There is plenty of reason to welcome global warming.
It's time for scientists to go back to doing science. Those who can't should go find some other work and get out of the way of the real scientists.
That they will not be on the Shiva B-vaccine list. That should make all "skeptics" fall in line. :)
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Climate on earth has been changing for billions of years. And will continue to do so for billions more. (at least until the Sun goes supernova and the earth is vaporized)
Nothing humans have done, or will do, has, or will have, any significant impact on this.
Some species will adapt/evolve, some will not. Some will survive, some may not. Some humans will adapt (and survive), some may not. Some may have to relocate, same may not.
It is certainly desirable to find sustainable sources of energy that pollute less - but it is utter foolishness to tax existing sources energy, or make treaties restricting it. It is also utter bullshit that so-called "rich" countries should take away money their citizens work hard to earn, and give it to so-called "poor" countries so they can waste 3/4 of it on corruption and graft, and some tiny portion builds windmills and solar panels.
See, someone attempts to "sound reasonable" and provides not a shred or nugget of evidence. You are not reasonable, you are a Gore shrill, admit it.
See, someone attempts to "sound reasonable" and provides not a shred or nugget of evidence. You are not reasonable, you are a Gore shrill, admit it.
Ha ha! It's shill, Gumby, not "shrill". And I thought I was pretty clear about saying it was my opinion. If you want evidence, sorry; you're on your own. I've spent several years trying to figure my own way out of the box and the best I've got so far is an opinion. What you believe is your own problem.
Good luck with that.
-FL
It's not about Science, except to a tiny handful of very specialized climate scientists. To the rest of us ill-educated masses (and that means YOU, Gentle Reader), it's nothing but Rhetoric, Public Relations, and Politics now. The silly actions of a few have obscured the real issues, and neither clarity nor consensus will emerge in public discourse for many years to come.
If the anthropogenic climate change "side" is correct, by that time it will be too late to do anything meaningful about the situation, and our descendants will just have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a 100,000 year storm that will probably make current worst-case scenarios look naively optimistic.
If it's all just part of a long-term period of global warming, the consequences are still the same, and our descendants will still have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a "X" year storm that will merely destroy civilization as we have built it.
Better hope that nothing is happening at all.
On peer review. Once upon a time someone decided to look for the papers referrred to by a scientist and found that one by an employee of the former Ulster Polytechnic did not exist just like its supposed author.
How often does this happen?
If AGW was proven wrong tomorrow
Well, when it stops warming thats not evidence that the AGW theory is wrong. In fact, when it cools for a decade it still isnt taken as evidence that the theory of AGW is wrong. When there are more hurricanes, thats taken as evidence of AGW. When there are less hurricanes, that is also taken as evidence of AGW. When it rains less in a region, thats taken as evidence of AGW. When it rains more in a region, that too is taken as evidence of AGW.
It is quite clear to me that the theory of AGW is unfalsifiable by design.
"His name was James Damore."
No. The can be no common ground because one side is arguing from a political point of view when the other side is arguing from a scientific point of view.
laughs
There's lots of climate-model source-code available on the web. Much of it has been publicly available for years.
Examples:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/
http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/Projekte.209.0.html?&L=3
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5846/1866d/DC1
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html
Now for all the skeptics out there -- those of you who have downloaded and tested any climate code, submitted patches, constructive suggestions, etc. to the code developers, please stand up and give us a shout-out!
Don't be shy or modest -- even if you've done nothing more than submit a one-line change to a makefile, let's hear about it!
Thank you for your answer.
To be clear, I have no problem with all models building on the same assumptions around well established physics.
What I mean was that if you have one data set, with one assumption about how to interpret it, and the rest of the model around it is built completely on physics (that should indeed work the same in all models) then it is no surprise to see consistent results when you vary other modules between being more exact calculations vs rougher estimates of, say, cloud formations.
If, on the other hand, different data sets from different sources and with their own assumptions about how to interpret each keep giving similar results, then that certainly is something to inspire confidence that the models are not overly sensitive to the accuracy of individual assumptions.
So my question is of course not if you have tried reversing gravity ;-) but how wide a set of sources with different assumptions about how to interpret them provide data yielding the same conclusions.
Btw, I changed name of this subthread since I don't question your good faith/intentions/whatever, I just thought you had some good insights into the subject and became curious.
Straw-man #1: That the glacier melting data is fabricated
Straw-man #2: That my concern over the validity of one data set means I'm incapable of considering any of the datasets valid
Straw-man #3: That increased hurricane strength an Al Queda have anything to do with each other.
I'm not saying that all the data is suspect, but the dataset that is frequently indicated to be the best is IMO suspect. Not necessarily completely invalid, but compromised. I'm not ignoring any other data, In earlier posts I indicate that I believe the climate is changing I'm just not convinced that their conclusions as to the causes and magnitude of the changes are accurate. Even valid data does not by itself indicate valid conclusions. I've reviewed papers where their work was good, but their discussion was completely off base and their conclusions were in direct contradiction with their own results.
As to your irrelevant screed at the end. Talk about facts not in evidence.
The problem with knee-jerk reactionary types like yourself are that you jump to the emotional name calling instead of rational discussion involving actual data. I recognize that a lot of other skeptics may be less interested in actual discourse, but until you know more about a persons reasons you should give them the benefit of the doubt. By that I mean you should assume they are willing to look at evidence previously unseen and change their mind. I started out believing in the anthropogenic explanation for global warming, but the more I've looked at the data manipulations performed on the raw data, the less convinced I am.
My political affiliation has nothing to do with my judgements as a scientist. If anything my political affiliation is based on my scientific nature. I changed party affiliations based on the philosophical inconsistencies of those leading the party with which I was previously affiliated.
Also, I am by no means and ideologue. I only bothered to join a party at all so that I can participate in primaries. On election day I vote for the best candidate, regardless of party, and have probably voted for an equal number of Democrats and Republicans over the years.
So in summary, you built up several straw-men and then did an admirable job of knocking them down. However, none of those straw-men even remotely resembled me. You then proceeded to attach the character of a fictional "Climate Change Denier" as though he and I were the same without any evidence to support that assumption. In short, you provided nothing of any value by posting. Better luck next time!
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
There are famous cases in science of certain scientists writing under a pseudonym. For example, William Sealy Gosset wrote under the pseudonym Student (as in the famous Student's t-distribution in Statistics), because he was employed by Guinness, who prohibited employees from pubhishing any papers.
Valid Data do not by themselves equate to valid conclusions. You can have two researchers look at the exact same dataset and come up with differing conclusions. I've even reviewed a journal article in which the authors conclusions were CONTRADICTED by the results in their own study.
You are correct in that under ideal situations I should have a better theory with better data. However, that is not necessary. Especially since the world leaders are trying to completely re-engineer the global economy (which is a bit of a misnomer since it was never engineered in the first place)!
In my own field there is serious debate as to the relative bioefficacy of 2 sources of the amino acid (needed for protein) Methionine. DL-methionine is a purified source of the active amino acid, whereas 2-hydroxy-4-methylthiobutanoic acid (HMTBA) is an analog that can be converted to Methionine in the body. Over 80 years of research resulted in 2 contradictory conclusions
A. they are equally good sources of methionine activity on a molar basis
B. DL-methionine is a superior source of methionine activity (only 60 to 80% as efficacious depending on the specie)
However, recent work has actually shown that we've been running studies based on a false assumption (That is valid in most comparisons of this sort), namely that HMTBA will perform as a titration of DL-methionine when using regression and dose response curves.
It turns out that the efficacy is not a constant, but depends upon how close the dietary methionine concentration is to the animals requirement. This new evidence (rerunning the statistical analysis on older studies with a model that does not include the titration assumption) also explains not only the previous data better, but it also explains the handful of isolated studies in which HMTBA showed superior efficacy to DL-methionine.
No one was fudging the data. It was all valid based on the statistical methods applied. It just turns out that the methods used were not the best available.
Now look at some of the adjustments used on environmental data sets, including the programmers notes indicating the arbitrary nature of the adjustments. Then you might be able to understand, if not necessarily agree with, my reservations with regards to their conclusions.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
For nearly 20 years the climate astrologers have had their way, Mickey Mike Mann et al., extolling the evils of humanity and the need for "cleansing", i.e. racial cleansing to purify the species homo sapians to return it a more "purer" i.e. Arian "White" form.
In ordr to stop anthropogenic global warming, say the astroligers -- i.e. climate scientists, about 40 percent of the Earth's populas well be "cleansed", i.e. killed.
The negotiations to be held in Copenhagen will decide the body count per country (Obama is salivating at killing "Whitie" without impunity ... hay, he da boss in dis town) and put a price tag for global markets all under the watchfull UN Overseers on the plantations.
Clearly, you aren't an expert in policy/politics. Climate skeptics aren't trying to further scientific debate, they are trying to further their political agenda. Calling into doubt climate science -- legitimate criticism or not -- is an effective way to achieve their political objectives.
Telling them to STFU or GTFO is clearly going to work. LMAO. Perhaps you should STFU until you read a basic political science textbook.
"farming industry pollution" brought 5,210,000 hits in Google.
Just a couple of weeks ago all the UK national media reported in how we may need to all go vegetarian if we are really serious about the environment.
So I think it is more you not reading about it, you lazy bum.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Maybe you can, but I will assume you are just a general bum on the street that has never played the instrument.
Now, could you tell me who is a good piano player? Murray Perahia? Eugeny Kissin? Angela Hewitt?
Could you?
Well, let me tell you something, I could.
But I spend 15 years of my life studying 4 hours a day learning music and to play the piano.
This applies to any other human endeavour.
If you would come to say to a piano player of the stature of the ones mentioned that they don't know what they are doing, most likely they will not engage with you at all, if some other accomplished piano player would criticize them, they will take notice, if an unknown person like me would, I would have to make very precise arguments but I am absolutely certain that I would grab their attention as somebody with a clue after a couple of minutes.
I am always surprised how Slashdot harbours so many people that reject expertise in such a facile manner.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So if you don't do it in 5 seconds or less I declare you officially a liar.
I hope you understand my allegory.
Rate of change matters, because we poor humans (and living things in general) can't react to global sudden changes very well.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I just need to look to the available data.
As long as people like you can't get this very simple fact through the obviously atypical thickness of your skull there is frankly little we can talk about.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We are destroying forests pretty much everywhere. This means less CO2 is taken away from the atmosphere all around the world.
We are pumping fossil CO2 into the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow.
Even a lay person should grant that our industrial and social activities in the last 300 years have contributed (I would add massively) to an in crease in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now, it is a well know fact that CO2 causes green house effect. Go on, find it, you may even find a video in Youtube to probe it. And we even have anecdotal proof of how a planet with lots of CO2 in the atmosphere looks. Google "Venus atmosphere" and have fun. Check the temperatures. Compare with Mars, or Earth for that matter.
This is only scratching the surface ot the most basic analysis. Add to this the mountains of evidence and frankly one can't understand how any reasonably person can continue with the idiotic opposition to the most basic findings about the current state of the climate in our planet.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm coming late to this discussion, but I have to comment on this. It is simply not true that climate scientists in general don't want to reveal their models. In fact, many of them are publicly available, as is much of the actual data. Here have a look at this collection of climate model code and data.
Incidentally, you are also incorrect about climate science not being esoteric. You think global average temperature is a simple quantity to calculate? Yeah, the result is just a number, but a vast amount of data and calculation goes into getting that number. I think a lot of critics of climate science don't appreciate the degree to which climate scientists have bent over backward to try to make their results accessible to laypeople, although the details are actually quite complicated.
My site: Free Nature Pictures