The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

http://petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

Yes, I read that. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

They are gonna have to deal with it no matter how much they want to ignore it. This is a global issue, being reported globally. It would be a mistake for the President to not acknowledge this when he goes to Copenhagen.

I don't think anyone has been saying that this should be "ignored"; the question is how much deference should be paid. The conspiracy theorists in this thread have been taking the tack that Bonzai posted a few posts up: "The whole thing is a hoax and this proves it!!!!" Indeed, the whole sub-title of this thread triumphs the fact.The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud

Think about that for a second. The e-mails from a few scientists "settles" this global debate that has been carried on for decades throughout the global scientific community. It's now "settled." Done. Finished. Don't need to talk about it no mo'.

The only "ignoring" that is being counseled by the conspiracy theorists who wish to only pay attention to these e-mails and ignore the rest of science. And then complain that this isn't getting enough press. Because it's a MSM cabal to keep the news away from the people.

I took the "Science is settled" as a dig the the GW activists who insist that the science is settled and that there's no room for continuing debate.

 

[katarr]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

Thank you for your interest in signing this petition, which has now been signed by more than 30,000 American scientists. Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines.

Please print the petition, fill out the credential section, and sign as indicated.

Signed.

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

I didn't forge my signature.

Good, then your name will be easy to be thrown out when your credentials as a scientist are checked.

 

[DrJ]

From Nature:

Climatologists under pressure

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).

Mail trail

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

The theft highlights the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers.

The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions. This is best done via open online archives, such as the ones maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).

Tricky business

But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers' compliance with Britain's freedom of information requirements (see http://go.nature.com/zRBXRP).

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.

link

You really want to be posting articles like this when you are suggesting the other side is biased?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I appreciate the sentiment, but you're just full of talking points here. Forget Al Gore, the IPCC, politics: all that. You're really underestimating just how much research is being done out there that backs up climate change. It really is overwhelming. The problem we have is how do we expose the average Joe to this evidence? It seems that any effort to anoint someone or some agency with the responsibility of bringing the research to light ends up in epic fail. Thus far, the process of selling science ends up muddying the very research folks are trying to illuminate. So, outside of the average Joe engaging the research directly (which will never happen), we get people relying on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, or politicians.

Do you deny that the world has NOT warmed in the last ten years? A simple yes/no will suffice.

So after saying ad nauseum about thousands of years of climate data, are you now saying that the only relevant starting point for analysis is 1999? A simple yes/no will suffice.

What? The only relevant time frame is the past 70 years or so. You know, the time frame that man could have had an effect on the climate. The FACT that the "scientists" who are screaming like chicken little can't explain why their supposedly rock solid models didn't predict the last ten years should give us pause. Maybe they don't quite understand it as well as they THINK they do. The FACT that some of the most prominent in that group felt the need to hide and destroy evidence and try to silence the peer detractors is further evidence of this. It amazes me how many people are giving them a free pass on what was not only unethical but likely criminal behavior.

 

[jon_mx]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

What evidence? I am curious. There is evidence that man has contributed to the increase in CO2, but there is no evidence of a linkage. The linkage is simply assumed, but there are thousands of other variables which contribute. If they properly massage the data, we see correlation in recent years between CO2 and temps, but that has not been the case historically which somehow CO2 lags temp increases. Besides, correlation is not proof unless all other variables are eliminated or accounted for. For Pete's sake, the global warmers don't even have a good grip on how variations in solar activity impacts the environment or if more water vapor will increase or decrease temperature. At this point the quantity that CO2 drives temperatures is being pulled out of their anuses. It is all assumed worst case analysis.

 

[DrJ]

I appreciate the sentiment, but you're just full of talking points here. Forget Al Gore, the IPCC, politics: all that. You're really underestimating just how much research is being done out there that backs up climate change. It really is overwhelming. The problem we have is how do we expose the average Joe to this evidence? It seems that any effort to anoint someone or some agency with the responsibility of bringing the research to light ends up in epic fail. Thus far, the process of selling science ends up muddying the very research folks are trying to illuminate. So, outside of the average Joe engaging the research directly (which will never happen), we get people relying on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, or politicians.

Do you deny that the world has NOT warmed in the last ten years? A simple yes/no will suffice.

So after saying ad nauseum about thousands of years of climate data, are you now saying that the only relevant starting point for analysis is 1999? A simple yes/no will suffice.

For analyzing the anomaly in what was described as a strong and direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature? I'd say yes, because this is where the anomaly began to happen.

 

[pantagrapher]

You really want to be posting articles like this when you are suggesting the other side is biased?

I didn't call anyone biased; that's a pointless accusation because it's self-evident. I just have a personal affinity for science and I think it's unfortunate that some people are so adamantly distrustful toward climate scientists—insistent that whatever scholarship they produce is hiding something or meant to mislead everyone. They've established impossible burdens of proof, ones that I suspect would not apply to any other scientific endeavor.

 

[Bonzai]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

Kind of like how any global weather change is now proof that AGW is in fact, a fact. Warmer weather...sign of AGW. Unusually cold year? Must be AGW. Global Warming has been presented over the last 10 years to be a scientific certainty on par with gravity and evolution. Skeptics of AGW have been compared to those who believe the world is just 6,000 years old and ridiculed for their skepticism.

And now, when there are a few holes in the AGW bubble, you expect the skeptics to not rub it in a bit. That's like expecting the fat nerd from high school to not mention his chet-like fortunes at the 20 year reunion.

Yeah, like the FACT that the world HAS NOT warmed in at least 10 years, and the "scientists" don't know why.

What we need some kind of worldwide climate science conspiracy to suppress information like this.

I think all the skeptics are looking for is some kind of acknowledgment that the science isn't as settled as it has been presented to us in the past.No one is foolhardy enough to believe that humans have zero impact on the global environment...but the question of how much, to what end and what are the appropriate measures are still very much the subject of conjecture and debate. That debate has been squashed in the past by those AGWists who marched on with their dogma and talking points. Setting economic policy based upon unsettled science is not a good path to go down. The fact that we've made it THIS far down this path and the fact that now, it appears that some of the data was manipulated and/or withheld, DOES leave one to wonder why. It is a natural progression.

It's never good to refer to science as "settled". You're always an experiment away from things being blown open. That goes for gravity, evolution, whatever. That said, there is plenty of evidence out there that supports climate change. It's happening. The question of how urgent these concerns are, or what policy should be enacted to deal with these results, is where the real debate lies.

 

[pantagrapher]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

What evidence? I am curious. There is evidence that man has contributed to the increase in CO2, but there is no evidence of a linkage. The linkage is simply assumed, but there are thousands of other variables which contribute. If they properly massage the data, we see correlation in recent years between CO2 and temps, but that has not been the case historically which somehow CO2 lags temp increases. Besides, correlation is not proof unless all other variables are eliminated or accounted for. For Pete's sake, the global warmers don't even have a good grip on how variations in solar activity impacts the environment or if more water vapor will increase or decrease temperature. At this point the quantity that CO2 drives temperatures is being pulled out of their anuses. It is all assumed worst case analysis.

Here's a good starting resource, if you are genuinely interested.

 

[DrJ]

You really want to be posting articles like this when you are suggesting the other side is biased?

I didn't call anyone biased; that's a pointless accusation because it's self-evident. I just have a personal affinity for science and I think it's unfortunate that some people are so adamantly distrustful toward climate scientists—insistent that whatever scholarship they produce is hiding something or meant to mislead everyone. They've established impossible burdens of proof, ones that I suspect would not apply to any other scientific endeavor.

Alright, but that article is ridiculous. Suggesting that having to provide the data for your experiments to satisfy the review of skeptics is a burden they shouldn't have to tolerate is just pitiful. I'm sorry, not skeptics - "denialists". It's a pretty lopsided and illogical article, and those people should stop being "scientists" if that's how they feel.

 

[katarr]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

http://petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

Yes, I read that. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070820102903/...ect/s33p357.htm

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's never good to refer to science as "settled". You're always an experiment away from things being blown open. That goes for gravity, evolution, whatever. That said, there is plenty of evidence out there that supports climate change. It's happening. The question of how urgent these concerns are, or what policy should be enacted to deal with these results, is where the real debate lies.

Except for the last ten years apparently.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

2,500 scientists say it's human caused. 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhD's) say it's not.

http://petitionproject.org/

How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

http://petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

Yes, I read that. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070820102903/...ect/s33p357.htm

OK, I read that, too. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

 

[pantagrapher]

You really want to be posting articles like this when you are suggesting the other side is biased?

I didn't call anyone biased; that's a pointless accusation because it's self-evident. I just have a personal affinity for science and I think it's unfortunate that some people are so adamantly distrustful toward climate scientists—insistent that whatever scholarship they produce is hiding something or meant to mislead everyone. They've established impossible burdens of proof, ones that I suspect would not apply to any other scientific endeavor.

Alright, but that article is ridiculous. Suggesting that having to provide the data for your experiments to satisfy the review of skeptics is a burden is just pitiful. I'm sorry, not skeptics - "denialists". It's a pretty lopsided and illogical article, and those people should stop being "scientists" if that's how they feel.

Nature is just a science journal that's been around since 1869. The writers and editors are just a bunch of shameless scientists, so it should come as no surprise that they're concerned with the plight of other scientists.

 

[jon_mx]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

What evidence? I am curious. There is evidence that man has contributed to the increase in CO2, but there is no evidence of a linkage. The linkage is simply assumed, but there are thousands of other variables which contribute. If they properly massage the data, we see correlation in recent years between CO2 and temps, but that has not been the case historically which somehow CO2 lags temp increases. Besides, correlation is not proof unless all other variables are eliminated or accounted for. For Pete's sake, the global warmers don't even have a good grip on how variations in solar activity impacts the environment or if more water vapor will increase or decrease temperature. At this point the quantity that CO2 drives temperatures is being pulled out of their anuses. It is all assumed worst case analysis.

Here's a good starting resource, if you are genuinely interested.

No evidence provided there. Just some steps to make some calculations if we assume all their assumptions are correct. If you really believe their assumption that there is still 0.5 degrees of warming 'in the pipeline', it is kind of unrealistic that we are in a 10 year cooling trend now.

 

[Phurfur]

You really want to be posting articles like this when you are suggesting the other side is biased? :(

I didn't call anyone biased; that's a pointless accusation because it's self-evident. I just have a personal affinity for science and I think it's unfortunate that some people are so adamantly distrustful toward climate scientists—insistent that whatever scholarship they produce is hiding something or meant to mislead everyone. They've established impossible burdens of proof, ones that I suspect would not apply to any other scientific endeavor.

Alright, but that article is ridiculous. Suggesting that having to provide the data for your experiments to satisfy the review of skeptics is a burden they shouldn't have to tolerate is just pitiful. I'm sorry, not skeptics - "denialists". It's a pretty lopsided and illogical article, and those people should stop being "scientists" if that's how they feel.

Huh!I guess it is like not showing your work on a math test. Oh, I forgot all math tests are multiple choice today. I guess this logic does make sense.

 

[katarr]

OK, I read that, too. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

http://petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

Yes, I read that. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070820102903/...ect/s33p357.htm

OK, I read that, too. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

I'm not saying anything. I just asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered.

 

[pantagrapher]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

What evidence? I am curious. There is evidence that man has contributed to the increase in CO2, but there is no evidence of a linkage. The linkage is simply assumed, but there are thousands of other variables which contribute. If they properly massage the data, we see correlation in recent years between CO2 and temps, but that has not been the case historically which somehow CO2 lags temp increases. Besides, correlation is not proof unless all other variables are eliminated or accounted for. For Pete's sake, the global warmers don't even have a good grip on how variations in solar activity impacts the environment or if more water vapor will increase or decrease temperature. At this point the quantity that CO2 drives temperatures is being pulled out of their anuses. It is all assumed worst case analysis.

Here's a good starting resource, if you are genuinely interested.

No evidence provided there.

This is exactly why I usually don't bother responding to your posts.

 

[StrikeS2k]

What? The only relevant time frame is the past 70 years or so. You know, the time frame that man could have had an effect on the climate. The FACT that the "scientists" who are screaming like chicken little can't explain why their supposedly rock solid models didn't predict the last ten years should give us pause. Maybe they don't quite understand it as well as they THINK they do. The FACT that some of the most prominent in that group felt the need to hide and destroy evidence and try to silence the peer detractors is further evidence of this. It amazes me how many people are giving them a free pass on what was not only unethical but likely criminal behavior.

The Industrial Revolution started way before 1939, bub. But if you want to talk about 70 years of data, then why do you keep pushing the last 10 years?I don't think that any scientist worth their salt will tell you that climate models are "rock solid." As I've said over and over and over again, the dynamics of the earth's eco-system is complex, has many variables, and still not completely understood. There is an error factor of, "we don't know" in the system. This is not the same as dropping a weight down a frictionless plane and predicting the acceleration due to gravity. That said, the people who actually have studied this, have their PhDs, and have expertise in the area are pretty uniformly of the opinion that the Earth's climate is changing due to man-made factors. And your intellectual spitballs does not in any way diminish that, only yourself.

I think we need a buffer period while all this fraud is investigated. I asked you once before. Do you think the same percent of scientists who have indicated in the past that AGW is real will be the same the next time a poll is taken? If so, put your money where your mouth is. My guess is you'll slink away like you did last time.

 

[tommyboy]

I appreciate the sentiment, but you're just full of talking points here. Forget Al Gore, the IPCC, politics: all that. You're really underestimating just how much research is being done out there that backs up climate change. It really is overwhelming. The problem we have is how do we expose the average Joe to this evidence? It seems that any effort to anoint someone or some agency with the responsibility of bringing the research to light ends up in epic fail. Thus far, the process of selling science ends up muddying the very research folks are trying to illuminate. So, outside of the average Joe engaging the research directly (which will never happen), we get people relying on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, or politicians.

Do you deny that the world has NOT warmed in the last ten years? A simple yes/no will suffice.

So after saying ad nauseum about thousands of years of climate data, are you now saying that the only relevant starting point for analysis is 1999? A simple yes/no will suffice.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

 

[katarr]

OK, I read that, too. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

I'm not saying anything. I just asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered.

I'm sorry, but the signature science is settled.

 

[StrikeS2k]

What? The only relevant time frame is the past 70 years or so. You know, the time frame that man could have had an effect on the climate. The FACT that the "scientists" who are screaming like chicken little can't explain why their supposedly rock solid models didn't predict the last ten years should give us pause. Maybe they don't quite understand it as well as they THINK they do. The FACT that some of the most prominent in that group felt the need to hide and destroy evidence and try to silence the peer detractors is further evidence of this. It amazes me how many people are giving them a free pass on what was not only unethical but likely criminal behavior.

The Industrial Revolution started way before 1939, bub. But if you want to talk about 70 years of data, then why do you keep pushing the last 10 years?I don't think that any scientist worth their salt will tell you that climate models are "rock solid." As I've said over and over and over again, the dynamics of the earth's eco-system is complex, has many variables, and still not completely understood. There is an error factor of, "we don't know" in the system. This is not the same as dropping a weight down a frictionless plane and predicting the acceleration due to gravity. That said, the people who actually have studied this, have their PhDs, and have expertise in the area are pretty uniformly of the opinion that the Earth's climate is changing due to man-made factors. And your intellectual spitballs does not in any way diminish that, only yourself.

I think we need a buffer period while all this fraud is investigated. I asked you once before. Do you think the same percent of scientists who have indicated in the past that AGW is real will be the same the next time a poll is taken? If so, put your money where your mouth is. My guess is you'll slink away like you did last time.

Of course I will.I'll put my money where my mouth is. At the next nationwide, systematic poll (not someone's blog) I'll be you $1,000 that a majority of the scientists still think that climate change is due to man-made factors. But if you want to make the bet that any support under 81.9% you win... I'm sorry, that's just a dumb, dumb bet.

ROFLMAO. So in order to make the bet you need a 30+% drop. Wow, you're really going out on a limb there sport.

 

[katarr]

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

I'm not saying anything. I just asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered.

I'm sorry, but the signature science is settled.

Oh, and we can't show you the old signatures because We do not hold the original raw signatures but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) signatures.

 

[tommyboy]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

What evidence? I am curious. There is evidence that man has contributed to the increase in CO2, but there is no evidence of a linkage. The linkage is simply assumed, but there are thousands of other variables which contribute. If they properly massage the data, we see correlation in recent years between CO2 and temps, but that has not been the case historically which somehow CO2 lags temp increases. Besides, correlation is not proof unless all other variables are eliminated or accounted for. For Pete's sake, the global warmers don't even have a good grip on how variations in solar activity impacts the environment or if more water vapor will increase or decrease temperature. At this point the quantity that CO2 drives temperatures is being pulled out of their anuses. It is all assumed worst case analysis.

Here's a good starting resource, if you are genuinely interested.

do you realize that Gavin and RealClimate were part of the fraud uncovered with the email hacks? I'm not sure i'd use them as a reference any more.

 

[jon_mx]

I like how one can dismiss all evidence that humans influence the climate simply by stating that the climate has always been in flux.

What evidence? I am curious. There is evidence that man has contributed to the increase in CO2, but there is no evidence of a linkage. The linkage is simply assumed, but there are thousands of other variables which contribute. If they properly massage the data, we see correlation in recent years between CO2 and temps, but that has not been the case historically which somehow CO2 lags temp increases. Besides, correlation is not proof unless all other variables are eliminated or accounted for. For Pete's sake, the global warmers don't even have a good grip on how variations in solar activity impacts the environment or if more water vapor will increase or decrease temperature. At this point the quantity that CO2 drives temperatures is being pulled out of their anuses. It is all assumed worst case analysis.

Here's a good starting resource, if you are genuinely interested.

No evidence provided there.

This is exactly why I usually don't bother responding to your posts.

You understand the difference between proof and assumptions? They just assume they understand all the relationships and provide some simplistic calculation.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I appreciate the sentiment, but you're just full of talking points here. Forget Al Gore, the IPCC, politics: all that. You're really underestimating just how much research is being done out there that backs up climate change. It really is overwhelming. The problem we have is how do we expose the average Joe to this evidence? It seems that any effort to anoint someone or some agency with the responsibility of bringing the research to light ends up in epic fail. Thus far, the process of selling science ends up muddying the very research folks are trying to illuminate. So, outside of the average Joe engaging the research directly (which will never happen), we get people relying on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, or politicians.

Do you deny that the world has NOT warmed in the last ten years? A simple yes/no will suffice.

So after saying ad nauseum about thousands of years of climate data, are you now saying that the only relevant starting point for analysis is 1999? A simple yes/no will suffice.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

Ok. So the last 10 years is like one-millionth of a millimeter on that graph.So answer me why you think comparing temperatures today to 1999 is so important?

Because the "scientists" told us the Earth was getting warmer during that time. But it didn't, and they can't explain why?

 

[Phurfur]

I appreciate the sentiment, but you're just full of talking points here. Forget Al Gore, the IPCC, politics: all that. You're really underestimating just how much research is being done out there that backs up climate change. It really is overwhelming. The problem we have is how do we expose the average Joe to this evidence? It seems that any effort to anoint someone or some agency with the responsibility of bringing the research to light ends up in epic fail. Thus far, the process of selling science ends up muddying the very research folks are trying to illuminate. So, outside of the average Joe engaging the research directly (which will never happen), we get people relying on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, or politicians.

Do you deny that the world has NOT warmed in the last ten years? A simple yes/no will suffice.

So after saying ad nauseum about thousands of years of climate data, are you now saying that the only relevant starting point for analysis is 1999? A simple yes/no will suffice.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

Ok. So the last 10 years is like one-millionth of a millimeter on that graph.So answer me why you think comparing temperatures today to 1999 is so important?

So why is comparing the last 100 years any more significant?

 

[pantagrapher]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

OK, I read that, too. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

I'm not saying anything. I just asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered.

I'm sorry, but the signature science is settled.

So your point is that you have no evidence of the validity of the petition, just like CRU has no evidence of the validity of their models? Um, ok. That might be the most self-defeating line of reasoning I've ever seen.Perhaps you have me confused with an AGW-supporter? I really have no idea why you've refused to answer the question, other than the obvious conclusion that you can't.

Note that I do not believe climate change is an imminent threat, and I agree that what the scientists at UEA did was terrible.

Why is it assumed that when someone presses you to verify your sources, they are doing so adversarially? I will go to greater lengths to verify the sources of information I agree with than I will to verify sources of information I don't. See my earlier exchange in this thread with P Boy. I tended to believe he was right but I wouldn't let him off the hook until he sourced the facts he was presenting.

Why? Because I want to make sure that the evidence supporting my beliefs is valid. If you post some baseless "facts" that I happen to agree with, you do us all a disservice. You potentially set me up to believe and repeat said "facts" without any evidence of their veracity, and you make it all too easy for others to come in and destroy our side of the argument. Everyone loves to check their opponents' sources, and if those sources don't exist your entire argument is quickly and rightfully rendered meaningless.

I would ask again, how do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards? But it's apparent now that you have no idea. So what was your purpose in posting the petition results in the first place? You have no idea how relevant those figures are; like most self-reported statistics and internet petitions, the results are likely entirely meaningless, so all you've really done is hurt your argument, not help.

ETA: ...which is not to imply that the number of signatures on a petition is a valid argument for anything, ever, anyway.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Ok. So the last 10 years is like one-millionth of a millimeter on that graph.So answer me why you think comparing temperatures today to 1999 is so important?

Because the "scientists" told us the Earth was getting warmer during that time. But it didn't, and they can't explain why?

As I said before, you can stop putting scientists in quotes. They have PhDs. They have research and/or teaching positions. They work in the field in an accredited capacity. They really are scientists.If you want to refer to you guys as taking random and cherry-picked data and refer to yourselves as "scientists", though, you should feel free.To answer the substantive point, though, you guys set an impossible standard and then laugh when it's not met. The best financial analyst on Wall Street might be able to tell you that on the 3-month horizon the market is going to go up or the market is going to go down and maybe even an approximation of the percentage increase/decline. But only a great fool would take that information and then on the 32nd day of the 3 months say, "Hah! The stock market went down 44 points today! You sir are wrong! WRONG I say!!!!"

An impossible standard? Like wanting the idea of Global Warming to actually mean Global Warming? Yeah, that's a pretty high standard.

 

[jon_mx]

As I said before, you can stop putting scientists in quotes. They have PhDs. They have research and/or teaching positions. They work in the field in an accredited capacity. They really are scientists.If you want to refer to you guys as taking random and cherry-picked data and refer to yourselves as "scientists", though, you should feel free.To answer the substantive point, though, you guys set an impossible standard and then laugh when it's not met. The best financial analyst on Wall Street might be able to tell you that on the 3-month horizon the market is going to go up or the market is going to go down and maybe even an approximation of the percentage increase/decline. But only a great fool would take that information and then on the 32nd day of the 3 months say, "Hah! The stock market went down 44 points today! You sir are wrong! WRONG I say!!!!"

A scientist is one who believes in and applies the scientific method to their theories.

 

[Statcruncher]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

A few more links to RealClimate websites and this discussion will be settled.

 

[pantagrapher]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

A few more links to RealClimate websites and this discussion will be settled.

Seriously. It's a great resource.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You would have to be pretty biased in your views to find nothing. Granted, they discredit themselves a bit with over the top rhetoric and a some questionable arguments, but there is still a lot of legitimate points ...

Maybe there are legitimate points there, maybe some of the ones I read and dismissed but there was just too much noise to find them. I think that you are somewhat agreeing to this point. These read like the attacks that the FairTax people use to rebuttal claims made against them. If you really have a point to make you shouldn't need to use "liars" and "conspirators" and "frauds" and whatever in every other sentence. You shouldn't need to commit the same sins on one page that you complain about on another.The thing is I don't have a "dog in this fight". I don't want to be an expert. What I do want is to be able to hear the case that the scientific community is wrong and why. What I do want is to be able to hear the case that supports the actual conspiracy claims. If I have to weed through "over the top rhetoric" and "questionable arguments" and have enough expertise to identify the "legitimate points" then I'm going to dismiss your arguments and move on. The "Watts" page contains so much noise that it is useless to me. I haven't had a chance (nor will I in the near future) to peruse the second link so may be it will be better, but if all you have are the at the "Watts" page then my preconceived biases based on my understanding of how science work depending on humanity's worst traits to reveal the winning arguments will win.

 

[moleculo]

so I just got done reading this whole thread up to this point. Not that anyone cares, but here's my take:

1. IMO greenhouse gas caused global warming is neither proven nor disproven at this point. This was my take before reading each of the above 460+ posts, and that's what I continue to believe.

2. Everyone who has an opinion on this likely formed their opinion before considering the data. I haven't see any one recant. I see a lot of "gotcha" and "no you haven't".

3. This recent scandal demonstrated some scientists behaving poorly - at the very least, their work cannot be unquestioned, and all of their conclusions should be scrutinized. I would like to see their work repeated, reviewed, and verified. At best, the CRU scientists were negligent in discarding raw data, minimizing dissenting views, and formulating poor code. At worst, they purposefully acted to manipulate the data to strengthen pre-conceived notions, and worked to cover up their transgressions. I suspect that reality is somewhere in between.

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

In the interest of full disclosure and expanding on (1), I believe that the Earth is warming. I'll even agree that man may play some role in that, although I'm not sure...regardless, I don't think we can do anything about it. I have very strong doubts that reducing CO2 emissions will have any effect, and I have doubts that global warming is actually a bad thing. I am certainly no expert, but the causality of our CO2 emissions on temperature seems to be missing.

 

[Hang 10]

Here's more information on the current Decade of Cooling.

A few more links to RealClimate websites and this discussion will be settled.

 

[katarr]

OK, I read that, too. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

I'm not saying anything. I just asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered.

I'm sorry, but the signature science is settled.

So your point is that you have no evidence of the validity of the petition, just like CRU has no evidence of the validity of their models? Um, ok. That might be the most self-defeating line of reasoning I've ever seen.Perhaps you have me confused with an AGW-supporter? I really have no idea why you've refused to answer the question, other than the obvious conclusion that you can't.

Note that I do not believe climate change is an imminent threat, and I agree that what the scientists at UEA did was terrible.

Why is it assumed that when someone presses you to verify your sources, they are doing so adversarially? I will go to greater lengths to verify the sources of information I agree with than I will to verify sources of information I don't. See my earlier exchange in this thread with P Boy. I tended to believe he was right but I wouldn't let him off the hook until he sourced the facts he was presenting.

Why? Because I want to make sure that the evidence supporting my beliefs is valid. If you post some baseless "facts" that I happen to agree with, you do us all a disservice. You potentially set me up to believe and repeat said "facts" without any evidence of their veracity, and you make it all too easy for others to come in and destroy our side of the argument. Everyone loves to check their opponents' sources, and if those sources don't exist your entire argument is quickly and rightfully rendered meaningless.

I would ask again, how do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards? But it's apparent now that you have no idea. So what was your purpose in posting the petition results in the first place? You have no idea how relevant those figures are; like most self-reported statistics and internet petitions, the results are likely entirely meaningless, so all you've really done is hurt your argument, not help.

ETA: ...which is not to imply that the number of signatures on a petition is a valid argument for anything, ever, anyway.

Yes.

 

[Colts Win]

Its almost impossible to believe anything from these guys anymore.

If Dems said Poop sandwichs were bad Repubs would try and get it added to the food pyramid.

 

[Phurfur]

so I just got done reading this whole thread up to this point. Not that anyone cares, but here's my take:1. IMO greenhouse gas caused global warming is neither proven nor disproven at this point. This was my take before reading each of the above 460+ posts, and that's what I continue to believe.2. Everyone who has an opinion on this likely formed their opinion before considering the data. I haven't see any one recant. I see a lot of "gotcha" and "no you haven't".3. This recent scandal demonstrated some scientists behaving poorly - at the very least, their work cannot be unquestioned, and all of their conclusions should be scrutinized. I would like to see their work repeated, reviewed, and verified. At best, the CRU scientists were negligent in discarding raw data, minimizing dissenting views, and formulating poor code. At worst, they purposefully acted to manipulate the data to strengthen pre-conceived notions, and worked to cover up their transgressions. I suspect that reality is somewhere in between.4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.In the interest of full disclosure and expanding on (1), I believe that the Earth is warming. I'll even agree that man may play some role in that, although I'm not sure...regardless, I don't think we can do anything about it. I have very strong doubts that reducing CO2 emissions will have any effect, and I have doubts that global warming is actually a bad thing. I am certainly no expert, but the causality of our CO2 emissions on temperature seems to be missing.

1. Some people question everything.2. Some people question nothing.3. Some people question only the things that are convenient for them to question.Anything but #1 is unacceptable.

 

[adamjw2]

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

I'm not saying anything. I just asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered.

I'm sorry, but the signature science is settled.

Oh, and we can't show you the old signatures because We do not hold the original raw signatures but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) signatures.

Irony. I like it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

so I just got done reading this whole thread up to this point. Not that anyone cares, but here's my take:1. IMO greenhouse gas caused global warming is neither proven nor disproven at this point. This was my take before reading each of the above 460+ posts, and that's what I continue to believe.2. Everyone who has an opinion on this likely formed their opinion before considering the data. I haven't see any one recant. I see a lot of "gotcha" and "no you haven't".3. This recent scandal demonstrated some scientists behaving poorly - at the very least, their work cannot be unquestioned, and all of their conclusions should be scrutinized. I would like to see their work repeated, reviewed, and verified. At best, the CRU scientists were negligent in discarding raw data, minimizing dissenting views, and formulating poor code. At worst, they purposefully acted to manipulate the data to strengthen pre-conceived notions, and worked to cover up their transgressions. I suspect that reality is somewhere in between.4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.In the interest of full disclosure and expanding on (1), I believe that the Earth is warming. I'll even agree that man may play some role in that, although I'm not sure...regardless, I don't think we can do anything about it. I have very strong doubts that reducing CO2 emissions will have any effect, and I have doubts that global warming is actually a bad thing. I am certainly no expert, but the causality of our CO2 emissions on temperature seems to be missing.

This is pretty much where I'm at but I'd emphasize the misconduct of these "scientists" a bit more. These aren't run of the mill climate change scientists. They are some of the more prominent scientists in this area, and have had a large impact on the IPCC reports and positions. They also likely have a large impact on the stance of their fellow GW research peers. We need to get to the bottom of how much misconduct occurred, how it impacted not just the CRU but the research done by others, and then reevaluate how we should approach our policies re: Global Warming.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... Setting economic policy based upon unsettled science is not a good path to go down. ...

How settled do you think the "science" of economics is? Did you complain when tax cuts were made because the theory was that "they would pay for themselves" was offered up?

 

[pantagrapher]

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

It's funny how the solution—On Both Sides™—should be to halt climate legislation.

 

[Phurfur]

... Setting economic policy based upon unsettled science is not a good path to go down. ...

How settled do you think the "science" of economics is? Did you complain when tax cuts were made because the theory was that "they would pay for themselves" was offered up?

Check the data, every tax cut was followed by an increase in revenue. That data is still available if that is important to you.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

It's funny how the solution—On Both Sides™—should be to halt climate legislation.

What's funny about it? Would you typically consider it a good policy to make a potentially costly decision when the facts relevant to that decision are unknown? No one is suggesting a permanent ban on climate legislation (at least I'm not, and it doesn't sound like moleculo is either). But until there is stronger evidence one way or the other it seems prudent to not enact legislation.

 

[adamjw2]

OK, I read that, too. How do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards?

Wait-- Are you saying that you're "skeptical" because of the lack of "transparency"?

I'm not saying anything. I just asked a simple question, which you still haven't answered.

I'm sorry, but the signature science is settled.

So your point is that you have no evidence of the validity of the petition, just like CRU has no evidence of the validity of their models? Um, ok. That might be the most self-defeating line of reasoning I've ever seen.Perhaps you have me confused with an AGW-supporter? I really have no idea why you've refused to answer the question, other than the obvious conclusion that you can't.

Note that I do not believe climate change is an imminent threat, and I agree that what the scientists at UEA did was terrible.

Why is it assumed that when someone presses you to verify your sources, they are doing so adversarially? I will go to greater lengths to verify the sources of information I agree with than I will to verify sources of information I don't. See my earlier exchange in this thread with P Boy. I tended to believe he was right but I wouldn't let him off the hook until he sourced the facts he was presenting.

Why? Because I want to make sure that the evidence supporting my beliefs is valid. If you post some baseless "facts" that I happen to agree with, you do us all a disservice. You potentially set me up to believe and repeat said "facts" without any evidence of their veracity, and you make it all too easy for others to come in and destroy our side of the argument. Everyone loves to check their opponents' sources, and if those sources don't exist your entire argument is quickly and rightfully rendered meaningless.

I would ask again, how do they verify the qualifications of the people who sign and return the petition cards? But it's apparent now that you have no idea. So what was your purpose in posting the petition results in the first place? You have no idea how relevant those figures are; like most self-reported statistics and internet petitions, the results are likely entirely meaningless, so all you've really done is hurt your argument, not help.

ETA: ...which is not to imply that the number of signatures on a petition is a valid argument for anything, ever, anyway.

Ignoratio has a point in checking your sources, but it looks like they have taken some steps to check the validity of the signatures, such as forcing you to actually mail in the form and by checking that they have a bachelor of science in appropriate fields for the topic.

 

[moleculo]

4. this scandal should create enough trouble that no costly policies are enacted until this all is thoroughly vetted.

no matter which side of the argument you fall on.

It's funny how the solution—On Both Sides™—should be to halt climate legislation.

What's funny about it? Would you typically consider it a good policy to make a potentially costly decision when the facts relevant to that decision are unknown? No one is suggesting a permanent ban on climate legislation (at least I'm not, and it doesn't sound like moleculo is either). But until there is stronger evidence one way or the other it seems prudent to not enact legislation.

apparently pantagrapher missed the "until this all is thoroughly vetted" bit. Frankly, after reading most of this, I'm not sure that any of the AGW platform has been properly vetted, certainly not to the tune of enacting policy that will impact the lives of billions of people world wide.