Quote: Original post by Eelco
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483

Quote: I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… [There are] some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. (Briffa, Sep 22, 1999, 0938031546.txt)

Gee; isnt that odd: climate scientists experience a 'pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years'. I would never have guessed.

How is their situation any different than a researcher working for the tobacco industry? Implicit or explicit, they both know what the conditions for continued funding are.

Never would have guessed? Really? I don't think your remark is serious. In 1999 where was that pressure coming from? Why did Briffa not think it wise to ignore the issue? Was the issue ignored? Doesn't the "climategate" conspiracy theory assert that it was? What evidence do climategate theorists have that it was? A researcher working for the tobacco industry would get pressure from his boss or from the company that paid for the research. Tobacco companies hid their research from the public for decades. The real question is how is this at all similar to that?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Not as if any relevant data is being kept from the public? They entire conversation is about the intentional filtering of data so that others will reach the same conclusion as them. Even if the data is public, not so in any meaningfull sense of the word. The goal of the IPCC is summarizing and communicating the findings of climate science. You know, so you dont have to go cut up trees yourself; or worse, trying to pry raw data from scientists and try to recreate their ill-documented procedures.

What relevant data was kept from the public? The snippet says they were getting pressured. It doesn't say by whom. You're making assumptions about the nature of the pressure they were under. Jumping from a handful of scientists to the entire IPCC suggests your claim is based on guilt by association.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I think it's disingenuous to claim that AGW skeptics are also against a clean environment or pro-pollution etc. It is the means they are against in the most general sense.

Actions speak louder than words. When they have it in their power to change and yet they don't or they only change enough to create the illusion that they've changed but they continue on business as usual, then they're against a clean environment and in favor of pollution. If they were not, the means wouldn't matter. They would do whatever it would take them to do it.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
The huge cost associated with it, government compulsion, the shift from public to private decision making. I stated at the beginning of this thread that I'd love to see renewable sources of energy developed and admit that desertification and deforestation are real problems that should be addressed. As well as pollution, industrial waste etc..

The costs of doing nothing will be far greater. Here's the reality that puts the lie to the lip service. U.S. Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Twice That of Renewables:

Quote:
Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Fossil fuels including oil, natural gas and coal received more than twice the level of subsidies that renewable energy sources got from the U.S. government in fiscal 2002 through 2008, the Environmental Law Institute said.

Government spending and tax breaks amounted to $72.5 billion for fossil fuels and $29 billion for renewable energy, according to a report by the institute today.
...

How many of these companies, upset with the cost of transitioning and opposed to the means and so on, have demanded that their fossil fuel subsidies be directed towards renewable energy sources? Why aren't they refunding their fossil fuel subsidies to the government and demanding that it be directed towards renewables?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
The issue is with the one size fits all solution people hold that government solves all ills. As if government can legislate the weather. No claim is too grand nor scope to broad to even raise an eyebrow among the devoted. It's a comedy of errors and a tad bit maddening when you don't share the common taboos of your time.

You're the only one talking about a one size fits all solution.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What new government powers? Governments already have the power to levy taxes and regulate pollution.

Shades of grey, dear less. But for a qualitative difference; I bet the international aspect of it has its appeals.

It appeals to the proponents of the WTO, GATT, the G8, G20 etc.

No doubt it does.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Eelco
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483

Quote: I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… [There are] some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. (Briffa, Sep 22, 1999, 0938031546.txt)

Gee; isnt that odd: climate scientists experience a 'pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years'. I would never have guessed.

How is their situation any different than a researcher working for the tobacco industry? Implicit or explicit, they both know what the conditions for continued funding are.

Never would have guessed? Really? I don't think your remark is serious. In 1999 where was that pressure coming from? Why did Briffa not think it wise to ignore the issue? Was the issue ignored? Doesn't the "climategate" conspiracy theory assert that it was? What evidence do climategate theorists have that it was? A researcher working for the tobacco industry would get pressure from his boss or from the company that paid for the research. Tobacco companies hid their research from the public for decades. The real question is how is this at all similar to that?

Where that pressure was coming from? Either their the evident zeal within their peer group of wannabe captain planets, or their superiors/sources of funding who are politically invested in global warming. Does it matter? That the pressure is there is appearently a matter of fact amongst climate scientists. The pressure from their bosses must be there; implicit or not. Non-existant problems do not get funding.

Brifta might not have thought it wise to ignore the issue, but as you can read in the article linked, he didnt get his way. What evidence do they have that it was? Uhm, again, read the article. Mcintyre explicitly asked them to note the issue in the IPCC years ago, and they told him to fuck off.


How ironic; hiding their research from the public is exactly what these guys are trying to do. Yes, they published in journals, but without access to the raw data and code you never really know what happened under the hood; as such reproducability is impossible, a cornerstone of science. You cant deny that the people involved here were making a directed effort to hide access to their raw data. Not only was it fucking obvious for anyone who has been following this for a while, its there in plain writing in their emails.

How it is at all similar? I guess because cigarettes release CO2 too..

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Not as if any relevant data is being kept from the public? They entire conversation is about the intentional filtering of data so that others will reach the same conclusion as them. Even if the data is public, not so in any meaningfull sense of the word. The goal of the IPCC is summarizing and communicating the findings of climate science. You know, so you dont have to go cut up trees yourself; or worse, trying to pry raw data from scientists and try to recreate their ill-documented procedures.

What relevant data was kept from the public? The snippet says they were getting pressured. It doesn't say by whom. You're making assumptions about the nature of the pressure they were under. Jumping from a handful of scientists to the entire IPCC suggests your claim is based on guilt by association.

It doesnt say by whom, but once again, what does it matter? These pressures seem to determine the course of events, only getting timidly questioned; questions which are subsequently ignored. Whomever is calling the tune, its not exactly in the spirit of the pursuit of truth.

These guys are part of the IPCC; a significant part of its active inner circle.

Note that none of their behavior comes as a surprise to me; ive worked in universities in the alternative energy field; a field of similar political machinations. I dont consider this kind of behavior anything out of the ordinary. This is the default as I know it.

Guilt by association? Sorry, but this isnt a court: bullshit until proven otherwise, a self-fallating careerist until proven otherwise; those are the standards science should operate under.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Actions speak louder than words. When they have it in their power to change and yet they don't or they only change enough to create the illusion that they've changed but they continue on business as usual, then they're against a clean environment and in favor of pollution. If they were not, the means wouldn't matter. They would do whatever it would take them to do it.

I love your "they" pronoun, it avoids the necessity of addressing the strata of ideas and lumps everyone that doesn't think as you in a nice little box.

Quote:
The costs of doing nothing will be far greater. Here's the reality that puts the lie to the lip service. U.S. Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Twice That of Renewables:

Government spending and tax breaks amounted to $72.5 billion for fossil fuels and $29 billion for renewable energy, according to a report by the institute today.
...

How many of these companies, upset with the cost of transitioning and opposed to the means and so on, have demanded that their fossil fuel subsidies be directed towards renewable energy sources? Why aren't they refunding their fossil fuel subsidies to the government and demanding that it be directed towards renewables?

Why should renewables be subvened? Why should fossil fuels be subvened? Let's remove all of the subventions on each and let the superior product win out.

Quote:
You're the only one talking about a one size fits all solution.

You can't describe my solution, nor have I claimed one. But I know yours. "Let's pass a law"

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan
How is this even relevant to the global warming?

Energy independence                Energy dependenceRainforest preservation            Rainforest exploitationEnvironmental sustainability       Environmental destructionGreen jobs                         Dirty jobsLivable cities                     Unlivable cities Renewable resources                Nonrenewable resources Clean water                        Dirty waterClean air                          Dirty air Healthy children                   Unhealthy children

Hmm. It looks like you didn't get the gist of that comic. Business as usual leads towards the items in the list on the right that I put together in a cursory effort to mirror the items in the list on the left that came from the comic.

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan
So if government officials decide all of the sudden that global warming is not happening then they will ignore all other issues in question and not do anything? Of course not. Pollution is causing problems like acid rain and importing oil is more expansive than producing it locally. If you ever studied economics you would know that these problems are already off-loaded to business and the like. If global warming related externalities are added to the list you're talking about an even larger economic loss, possibly unneeded if global warming is not even real.

Of course they will ignore those other issues and do nothing. They'll dismiss them and all ecological science as extensions of the global warming conspiracy. They'll dismiss contrary evidence as just more junk science. They'll act just the way guys like Inhofe want them to act. Economic studies show that doing nothing is more costly in the long run. Doing something leads towards the items on the left. Importing oil is more expensive than producing it locally? I don't think so. Not any more. The OPEC embargo should have dispelled that notion decades ago. Apparently that zombie still lurks.

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan
Still, assuming global warming *might* be happening, do these regulations even matter? What's the most important greenhouse gas out there? If you think it's CO2, you are wrong. Water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse effect on earth. CO2 is only about 3.6%. As a result, the actual contribution to the greenhouse effect from human activities is 0.28%. Since you can't shutdown all human activity, but only reduce it, you are talking about a few hundredths of percents difference here. I don't think that little change will make the kind of chaotic changes the climate activists claim will happen in 50 years.
source

I haven't heard the water vapor argument in a few years. Water Vapor is Almost All of the Greenhouse Effect, and for measure, Climate Scientists Hide Water Vapor

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The fact that this kind of site even exists implies to me that global warming is currently in a hot debate with no conclusive facts.
People keep mentioning that the oil industry has some kind of agenda, there are a lot more websites, news stations, books, tv shows, and organizations that support global warming so how is it that the oil industry has the agenda?

The fact that site exists implies to me that there is a manufactured debate seriously needing a good debunking. I think that site performs media pollution clean up. Zombie explosions leave quite a residue.

How does the oil industry have an agenda? Are they in business to make money or do they just like playing in the dirt with adult sized kids toys as they hunt for new things to burn? The companies that compose the oil industry are in business to make money. That gives them agendas.

Quote: Written by Paul Vaughan
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

source

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: Written by Paul Vaughan
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

source

Any chance you can provide a real source and not just a story you picked off a blog for once.
I tend to be sceptical of these sorts of claims since odds are they got caught playing solitaire one too many times, were fired and are trying to paint it as political correctness gone mad or something similar.