Climategate

[DuncanONeil]

The advocates are the ones doing the research. I wonder how much research the deniers have done?

That is an interesting comment.
Only AGW advocates are doing research and the results prove AGW.
And the data presented by non-AGW advocates is not a result of research? What is all the data that counters AGW fabricated?

There are four kinds of people in this argument.

1. We are all going to die! Be it from heat, drowning, starvation from the warming.
2. Man is killing the planet by CO2. We can fix this. But we must act, drastically, right now.
3. This warming is a natural event. has happened many times before. Often worse than this.
4. And lastly. Warming!? What warming.

Now that I look this over I see I left somebody out.

• This warming may be a problem. we should put many good minds on this and see what we can find out. Just in case there may be a problem. Then we will know what can be done and how.

Personally I think three of the five are a tad overboard. Some even bordering on hysterical. Makes me wonder about motives.

[Thorne]

That is an interesting comment.
Only AGW advocates are doing research and the results prove AGW.

I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.

And the data presented by non-AGW advocates is not a result of research? What is all the data that counters AGW fabricated?

It's not that they fabricated data, although that has happened, too. It's the cherry-picking of the data in order to satisfy a pre-conceived conclusion which is causing the problems.

1. We are all going to die! Be it from heat, drowning, starvation from the warming.

Ah, yes. The disaster junkies. These are akin to the apocalyptic fundamentalists who are eager for the Rapture! Death and destruction around every corner!

Well, we're all going to die, sooner or later. But chances are humanity will adapt. We're tenacious creatures, after all.

2. Man is killing the planet by CO2. We can fix this. But we must act, drastically, right now.

No, we're not killing the planet. Barring an astronomical event which actually destroys the planet, Earth will be here long after humanity has become extinct. What we are doing is altering our environment, certainly on a local level and probably on a global level as well. This will have long term consequences on our survival as a civilization, and perhaps on our survival as a species. But on the brighter side, it's almost sure to kick evolution into overdrive.

3. This warming is a natural event. has happened many times before. Often worse than this.

It MAY be a natural event, at least in part, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are making it worse than it would naturally be. And yes, warming and cooling cycles have happened many times, and sometimes it's been worse than now. But if you look closely I think you'll find that those events brought about extinctions of large numbers of species. Thinking that we are exempt from these consequences just because we can air condition our homes would be stupid at best.

4. And lastly. Warming!? What warming.

See the pretty ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground?

5. This warming may be a problem. we should put many good minds on this and see what we can find out. Just in case there may be a problem. Then we will know what can be done and how.

This probably comes closer to my own opinion, except I feel that the warming, regardless of the causes, will definitely be a problem. If we are the cause, then there is a lot we can do. Most of us won't be willing to do those things, though. It would mean giving up too many of the luxuries we've become accustomed to. And yes, I do place myself in that crowd. I like my SUV!

But we should also be studying how to best take advantage of this problem. How can we engineer better crops to survive warmer climates? Can we take advantage of longer, hotter growing seasons to increase our food supply? Warmer winters will mean less heating oil consumption. Can we find better ways to cool our homes and business in the summer to reduce our dependence on coal? The list is seemingly endless, and ignoring the problem won't make things any better.

Personally I think three of the five are a tad overboard. Some even bordering on hysterical. Makes me wonder about motives.

We agree on this, at least. Although I wonder which ones you think are overboard. Personally, I think #'s 1,2 and 4 are the worst of them. #3 is better, but perhaps not completely thought out. The last one is closest to my own opinions, as I said.

[DuncanONeil]

This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.

I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.


It's not that they fabricated data, although that has happened, too. It's the cherry-picking of the data in order to satisfy a pre-conceived conclusion which is causing the problems.


Ah, yes. The disaster junkies. These are akin to the apocalyptic fundamentalists who are eager for the Rapture! Death and destruction around every corner!

Well, we're all going to die, sooner or later. But chances are humanity will adapt. We're tenacious creatures, after all.


No, we're not killing the planet. Barring an astronomical event which actually destroys the planet, Earth will be here long after humanity has become extinct. What we are doing is altering our environment, certainly on a local level and probably on a global level as well. This will have long term consequences on our survival as a civilization, and perhaps on our survival as a species. But on the brighter side, it's almost sure to kick evolution into overdrive.


It MAY be a natural event, at least in part, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are making it worse than it would naturally be. And yes, warming and cooling cycles have happened many times, and sometimes it's been worse than now. But if you look closely I think you'll find that those events brought about extinctions of large numbers of species. Thinking that we are exempt from these consequences just because we can air condition our homes would be stupid at best.


See the pretty ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground?


This probably comes closer to my own opinion, except I feel that the warming, regardless of the causes, will definitely be a problem. If we are the cause, then there is a lot we can do. Most of us won't be willing to do those things, though. It would mean giving up too many of the luxuries we've become accustomed to. And yes, I do place myself in that crowd. I like my SUV!

But we should also be studying how to best take advantage of this problem. How can we engineer better crops to survive warmer climates? Can we take advantage of longer, hotter growing seasons to increase our food supply? Warmer winters will mean less heating oil consumption. Can we find better ways to cool our homes and business in the summer to reduce our dependence on coal? The list is seemingly endless, and ignoring the problem won't make things any better.



We agree on this, at least. Although I wonder which ones you think are overboard. Personally, I think #'s 1,2 and 4 are the worst of them. #3 is better, but perhaps not completely thought out. The last one is closest to my own opinions, as I said.

[Thorne]

This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!

I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?

Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.

I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[DuncanONeil]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?

I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.


Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.


I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[Thorne]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?

If you watched the video I posted you would see that the "lack" of warming since 1995 is not quite accurate. There has been slight warming, but it's been at such a slow rate that it is outside the statistically significant values. If I'm correct in my interpretation, that means that they can't say for sure that there has been warming, but they can't say for sure that there hasn't been, either.

But one thing to remember is that the solar sunspot cycle was declining for about the last 8 years, which should have meant cooling temperatures. And for the last 2-3 years there has been virtually no sunspot activity at all, suggesting even more cooling of the atmosphere. Yet the global temps have remained stable, or possibly risen slightly. Now that the sunspot cycle has restarted we should start seeing higher temperatures over the next 5-7 years. Just how high is anybody's guess.

[leo9]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

[DuncanONeil]

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

What is the arbitrary data point 0.0?
Further these are not data sets but already massaged reports.

[steelish]

I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.

I've provided plenty of links to researchers and scientists who have studied the data and still don't believe in AGW.

[Thorne]

I've provided plenty of links to researchers and scientists who have studied the data and still don't believe in AGW.

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

[steelish]

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

And I've never denied that there is general global warming going on either. Nor will I deny it when the earth starts a cooling trend....

What I am against is all the political crap surrounding the issue - that, and the "theory" that man is the cause of it all.

[DuncanONeil]

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

Suggestion.
NAGW or NON-AGW