Climategate II: The Sequel

[Meoton]

Btw, watch this and the others in the series. This guy doesn't have a political axe to grind: he's just concerned about the science. - by Whole Conviction

I agree, but those who don't tend to think anyone concerned with science is plying an agenda.
An agenda against god, capitalism, freedom, America, etc...

[Whole Conviction]

Yup and if it is a natural cycle then aren't those trying to stop Global Warming the same type of people who are "causing" it to happen?

You can see this as a logic chart. There are two conditions, two actions, four outcomes.

Global warming is human-caused, global warming is not human-caused.
We do something about it, we do nothing about it.

Not human-caused, do nothing: temperature continues to rise, economy pretty badly impacted by that anyway.
Not human-caused, do something: temperature continues to rise. Environmental lobby loses some credibility. Economy impacted some by attempts to change, which end up improving air quality anyway.
Human-caused, do nothing: temperature continues to rise, economy pretty badly impacted by that anyway.
Human-caused, do something: temperature probably still rises, but not by as much. Economy impacted least.

Doing nothing ends up with a bad result either way. Doing something ends up with a SLIGHTLY worse result one way, a MUCH better result the other way. Doing something results in the greater utility.

And the vast majority of the scientific evidence says that it IS human-caused. Either you trust scientists or you don't. Individual scientists, yeah, I can doubt them. The community in general? This is a community made up of at least 2/3 misanthropes, loners and people who wants to prove everyone else wrong just so they can rub their faces in it. They're not going to fall in line just because the environmental lobby snaps their fingers.

This isn't something that just got dreamed up and everyone fell on board. It's been tested, re-tested, theorems have flown about crazily. This is a solid, well-researched, well-established science. Why so much doubt all of a sudden?

[Whole Conviction]

No, quick changes in temperature were usually temporary and for identifiable reasons.
The current temperature changes graph fairly well to human activities.
The cold winter weather we are currently experience in many places does not disprove the trend of the last 10, 20, 50, 100, or 150 years.
And if the temperature is averaged out over the year and the entire globe, it may not be as much of a cooling as you seem to think.
Simple analogy I tell (not scientific),
You know those polar ice caps that are thinning and breaking up? They just landed on you.
Ice melts, cools air, causes snow elsewhere.

Yep. This is why it's called GLOBAL warming, not LOCAL warming.

[North Suran]

The part where you implied that The Daily Mail could discredit anything but itself was where your argument collapsed.

[Free Soviets]

What a terrible graph. Not only does it fail to specify what the 'Temperature anormality' is (it can't be over the 1000 year period, because it barely ever gets above 0), but it also doesn't say where the data was taken from. Then, it takes the one piece of data that correlates to Global warming and make it as bold and standout as possible. As you can see from the other lines, it's barely above the anormality. Plus, this bold black line doesn't go back to the Medieval Warm Period so there's no way of comparing this temperature to the temperature in previous warm periods. This is another example of shocking cherry picking.

0 is the 20th century average, the different colored lines are different proxies/multi-proxy reconstructions (all labeled in the original), the black is the instrumental record (which means the one we are most sure about).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_ ... arison.png has the citations and key.

[Free Soviets]

Technically, scientists are yet to prove it's CO2 behind global warming, as data has shown increases in temperatue this rapid have happened numerous times in the past without human intervention. Plus, there's always the recent drop in temperatures to prove CO2 clearly isn't the only factor.

You have to remember that if Global Warming is disproven, then everyone in the IPCC and the thousands of scientists they employ will lose their jobs. Of course they're not going to come out and say "Oh, it's not our fault, keep your billions of dollars. We don't want it". When scientists have that much pressure to find proof of Global Warming it's a lot easier than if you're unbiased.

temperatures haven't dropped recently, other factors have already been accounted for and they don't work, the real money for any individual scientist is in the denialist camp, the fame for any individual scientist is in showing all the other scientists to be wrong, and anthropogenic CO₂ hasn't been proven to be responsible for the current climate change in the same sense that plate techtonics hasn't been proven to be responsible for earthquakes.

thanks for playing.

[Omnicracy]

Yet another flaw in the IPCC's "global warming" report has come to light, as a scientist has admitted using unverified data to support a "Himalaya glaciers are melting!" panic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ified.html

Not only was the data unverified, but it was used to advance a political agenda:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

“It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”

(Emphasis added)

So: how many more revelations like this will it take before “global warming” takes its place next to astrology, phrenology, vitalism, phlogiston and other discredited theories?

Climate change still exists, all these things have done is prove that there is not enough evidence to say whether or not it is caused by man. In fact, the most compelling argument is that it is a natural cycle that we may (I think we are, at least to some degree) accelerating. Just because it isn't the lie they were telling doesn't make it a lie in whole.

[Free Soviets]

In fact, the most compelling argument is that it is a natural cycle that we may (I think we are, at least to some degree) accelerating.

other than the fact that the non-anthropogenic factors show a net cooling sort of forcing, of course...

[Andaluciae]

This gun' be good.

Popcorn anyone?

I'm ok for now dude!

ohmygawdluvluv!

[Free Soviets]

In fact, the most compelling argument is that it is a natural cycle that we may (I think we are, at least to some degree) accelerating.

other than the fact that the non-anthropogenic factors show a net cooling sort of forcing, of course...

now with charts!

[Omnicracy]

In fact, the most compelling argument is that it is a natural cycle that we may (I think we are, at least to some degree) accelerating.

other than the fact that the non-anthropogenic factors show a net cooling sort of forcing, of course...

1) Technicaly not going against what I said, as it was limmited to climate change.
2) Sorce, because the last time I heard of something like that was the 1970s.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

CLIMATE CHANGE not GLOBAL WARMING.
WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN.

[Omnicracy]

In fact, the most compelling argument is that it is a natural cycle that we may (I think we are, at least to some degree) accelerating.

other than the fact that the non-anthropogenic factors show a net cooling sort of forcing, of course...

now with charts!

How do they know all of the natural factors? What if there are unknown factors (wich there likely are) that are contributing greatly to this?

[Exilia and Colonies]

In fact, the most compelling argument is that it is a natural cycle that we may (I think we are, at least to some degree) accelerating.

other than the fact that the non-anthropogenic factors show a net cooling sort of forcing, of course...

now with charts!

How do they know all of the natural factors? What if there are unknown factors (wich there likely are) that are contributing greatly to this?

Seeing as the antropogenic and natural model is correllating closely to the recording data I'd like to hear your justifications for there being significant missing factors in the model.

[Free Soviets]

How do they know all of the natural factors? What if there are unknown factors (wich there likely are) that are contributing greatly to this?

well, there are really only a couple ways to make the climate of the whole planet shift. change in incoming energy, change in energy retention, and change in energy transfers near the surface. do we know for sure that we've got all of the things that affect each of those covered? of course not. but we can be pretty sure we've found all the big ones, just based off of how well the models taking them into account follow the observed measurements.

what you are in effect proposing is that we not only have the impact of anthropogenic forcing wrong, but wrong in a way that almost precisely covers for some missing non-anthropogenic forcing nobody has noticed. this would be, well, amazing.

[Arkinesia]

well, you caught us, denialists. one poorly sourced, oddly written paragraph and our entire climate conspiracy is undone.

Well, if that was done in a research paper at my school, whoever did it would be expelled for plagiarism. Also, it's not like Joe Bob Writer wrote the report. It had to be reviewed, proofread, reviewed again, and proofread again.

To say that it's meaningless is quite ignorant.

[North Suran]

well, you caught us, denialists. one poorly sourced, oddly written paragraph and our entire climate conspiracy is undone.

Well, if that was done in a research paper at my school, whoever did it would be expelled for plagiarism. Also, it's not like Joe Bob Writer wrote the report. It had to be reviewed, proofread, reviewed again, and proofread again.

To say that it's meaningless is quite ignorant.

So because of this one story involving an Irish Catholic priest, we should just dissolve the entire Catholic Church?

[Ordo Mallus]

well, you caught us, denialists. one poorly sourced, oddly written paragraph and our entire climate conspiracy is undone.

Well, if that was done in a research paper at my school, whoever did it would be expelled for plagiarism. Also, it's not like Joe Bob Writer wrote the report. It had to be reviewed, proofread, reviewed again, and proofread again.

To say that it's meaningless is quite ignorant.

So because of this one story involving an Irish Catholic priest, we should just dissolve the entire Catholic Church?

your compairing a pedo-priest to a scientific theory?

[Malthusian Oligarchs]

And the vast majority of the scientific evidence says that it IS human-caused.

No, it doesn't. If you've been paying attention to 'Climategate' at all, you'd know that the data used to proliferate the global warming hoax was either tampered with or simply made up. The climate has been changing for billions of years, warming and cooling well before we ever started burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide only makes up .036% of the atmosphere by volume, an increase isn't going to cause any catastrophe, but would in fact be more beneficial to plants.

Either you trust scientists or you don't. Individual scientists, yeah, I can doubt them. The community in general? This is a community made up of at least 2/3 misanthropes, loners and people who wants to prove everyone else wrong just so they can rub their faces in it. They're not going to fall in line just because the environmental lobby snaps their fingers.

I do trust scientists, which is why over 30,000 of them have signed a petition stating man made global warming is a hoax, and want to sue Al Gore. Here's a nice video from the founder of the Weather Channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIZqHGi2EfE

Seeing as the antropogenic and natural model is correllating closely to the recording data I'd like to hear your justifications for there being significant missing factors in the model.

Those charts are from the IPCC, which, if you've been following 'Climategate', are using data that was either altered or manufactured. How can you trust it?

[North Suran]

well, you caught us, denialists. one poorly sourced, oddly written paragraph and our entire climate conspiracy is undone.

Well, if that was done in a research paper at my school, whoever did it would be expelled for plagiarism. Also, it's not like Joe Bob Writer wrote the report. It had to be reviewed, proofread, reviewed again, and proofread again.

To say that it's meaningless is quite ignorant.

So because of this one story involving an Irish Catholic priest, we should just dissolve the entire Catholic Church?

your compairing a pedo-priest to a scientific theory?

No, I'm pointing out that taking one isolated incident and stretching it out is dishonest.

[Malthusian Oligarchs]

IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers.

[North Suran]

And the vast majority of the scientific evidence says that it IS human-caused.

No, it doesn't. If you've been paying attention to 'Climategate' at all, you'd know that the data used to proliferate the global warming hoax was either tampered with or simply made up.

Yeah, see where I just said "taking an isolated incident and stretching it out"?

Right there.

The climate has been changing for billions of years, warming and cooling well before we ever started burning fossil fuels.

It sure is easy to beat up straw men.

What people are claiming is that human behaviour is accelerating and bolstering climate change - not that it is solely responsible.

Carbon dioxide only makes up .036% of the atmosphere by volume, an increase isn't going to cause any catastrophe, but would in fact be more beneficial to plants.

Either you trust scientists or you don't. Individual scientists, yeah, I can doubt them. The community in general? This is a community made up of at least 2/3 misanthropes, loners and people who wants to prove everyone else wrong just so they can rub their faces in it. They're not going to fall in line just because the environmental lobby snaps their fingers.

I do trust scientists, which is why over 30,000 of them have signed a petition stating man made global warming is a hoax, and want to sue Al Gore.

I'm pretty sure there are more than 30'000 scientists who say that global warmining is happening.

Furthermore, considering there are absolutely no citations on the list of these alleged scientists, I am rather sceptical of the veracity of this list.

[Avenio]

Either you trust scientists or you don't. Individual scientists, yeah, I can doubt them. The community in general? This is a community made up of at least 2/3 misanthropes, loners and people who wants to prove everyone else wrong just so they can rub their faces in it. They're not going to fall in line just because the environmental lobby snaps their fingers.

I do trust scientists, which is why over 30,000 of them have signed a petition stating man made global warming is a hoax, and want to sue Al Gore.

I'm pretty sure there are more than 30'000 scientists who say that global warmining is happening.

Furthermore, considering there are absolutely no citations on the list of these alleged scientists, I am rather sceptical of the veracity of this list.

Here's the link to it, since he/she didn't bother; http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Oddly enough, the website cites 30 000 American scientist-signatories, I wonder what happened to the rest of the world?

[Malthusian Oligarchs]

Yeah, see where I just said "taking an isolated incident and stretching it out"?

Right there.

Um.... this is a rather large and damning 'isolated incident'. How you can still believe reports that contain fraudulent evidence is beyond me.

It sure is easy to beat up straw men.

What people are claiming is that human behaviour is accelerating and bolstering climate change - not that it is solely responsible.

Our impact on the climate is minimal at best, and only a small percentage of the temperature changes can be attributed to man. Natural causes are 99% responsible, causes which we cannot change.

What don't you believe, that co2 is a trace gas, or that it's good for plants?

I'm pretty sure there are more than 30'000 scientists who say that global warmining is happening.

Furthermore, considering there are absolutely no citations on the list of these alleged scientists, I am rather sceptical of the veracity of this list.

If you can, provide me with a source. Here's a source for 30,000+ scientists who say man made global warming is a hoax. http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Avenio]

If you can, provide me with a source. Here's a source for 30,000+ scientists who say man made global warming is a hoax. http://www.petitionproject.org/

And here's one that states that there are significant issues with that petition;

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12