Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Eelco
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.

Were you alive in 1999? Cognizant? The pressure was coming from the denial industry. It was manufactured. In the United States it was generated in large part to create memes that could be used against Al Gore in the 2000 election, but also as part of the long standing and ongoing corporate campaign against pollution regulation. Yes it matters. What those emails show is that these scientists were rattled by the media buzz-saw attacking their work.

Seems they made a little miscalculation there; if minimizing possible critique of their work was their objective, being honest would have been the preferable long term strategy.

Regardless, it is a ridiculous position. They are supposed to be summarizing findings, not spinning them. 'yes but others do it too'. Really strong defense there, especially for supposed scientists. A solid case should stand by itself, and should only be able to get stronger through criticism. Its not as if the combined spin budgets of environmental org's and eco-oriented governments dont dominate the public debate anyway. For every critical remark, a newspaper will print a hundered stories with no other source than greenpeace.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
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.

That article talks up the word decline a lot but it doesn't identify what there was a decline in - recorded temperatures or accuracy of tree ring proxy data.

Its pretty obvious to me the accuracy of the tree rings should be called into question; not the temperature measurements. It doesnt call into question recent temperature developments; it calls into question the honesty of scientists, who, instead of abandonning this useless tool, sought to spin this spurious data rather than dismiss it. 'Har Har tree rings dont show a medieval warm period' doesnt have the same impact when said treerings dont show the current high either.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
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..

You've slipped into the present tense. The conspiracy grows... Investigations into the matter are ongoing. Meanwhile: E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press. [1] Was the effort to hide the raw data successful or was it only talk? Was it an aspirational conspiracy?

Faked... I wouldnt quite use that phrase either. Not unfaked either. A false dichotomy.

The raw facts have always been rather unexciting. There are a lot of ways to report on those facts though; what you show and what you hide. It exposes these scientists as adding yet another layer of spin; as if the IPCC/UN and media didnt add enough already.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
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.

What events? What course? What are you talking about? Are you saying that email discussions from 1999 determined the course of the IPCC reports dating back to 1990? or just moving forward to 2001 and 2007?

Yes, im suggesting a violation of causuality... is derailment really all youve got?

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
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.

Are you going to come out as a whistleblower?

They paid well. Even if they were my tax dollars, and they were not; im no Don Quichotte. I have no illusions of such behaviors being incidents, or me changing the world.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
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.

You're the expert in self-fellation.

It takes one to know one.

Quote: Original post by Kaze

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Part of the probelm I have is it seems like anti global warming is adopting a lot of creationist tactics, namely:
a: claims to have scientific proof
b: if pressed for proof start mud slinging
c: if called out on mud slinging claim their dogmatic for dismissing your proof

I really would like to hear alternate scientific theorys for global temperature trends but of the the ones I've already heard they either have flaws I can spot or it seems like very little effort was put into followup's with research or experimentation.

Before you ask for an explanation, I would like to ask: what is there to explain? Actual temperature developments are entirely non-exciting, as anyone who didnt let himself get carried away by the few obviously slanted graphs compiled by mann et al.

I have no friggin clue why temperatures give risen during the latter half of the 20th century. And neither does anyone else. All people have is a 'pirates versus global temperature' type correlation, that is completely incapable of modelling past temperature trends, and they didnt see the 21th century lack of warming coming any more than wallstreet predicted the financial crash.

But a nice attempt at switching the burden of proof anyway.

Except that theirs tons of proof your dismissing on the grounds that tens of thousands of scientists and politicians are in on a globe spanning conspiracy to do something.

for example we basically know anthropomorphic CO2 is having some effect on the planet

There is no conspiracy; everyone is simply following their own local incentives.

Regardless of those incentives; im dismissing proof not on basis of who came up with it, but on it either existing or not. The case for AGW is simply rather weak. Measured temperature rates of change are nothing out of the historical ordinary, and models for the future are very speculative; the direct added forcing of saturating CO2 absorption spectrum is only minor; without conjuring up figures for indirect CO2 sensitivity, nothing exciting happens, and nobody has any idea how to do that, really. The most relevant data in that regard I know of is the CO2/temp graph (as featured by gore fi). There are in history no observable events of CO2 driving temperature. Doesnt mean its impossible, but its a fairly strong clue.

When did the topic change to oceanic pH?

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Part of the probelm I have is it seems like anti global warming is adopting a lot of creationist tactics, namely:
a: claims to have scientific proof
b: if pressed for proof start mud slinging
c: if called out on mud slinging claim their dogmatic for dismissing your proof

I really would like to hear alternate scientific theorys for global temperature trends but of the the ones I've already heard they either have flaws I can spot or it seems like very little effort was put into followup's with research or experimentation.

That's exactly the problem I have, too. At the moment, the only arguments I hear against climate change are a combination of:

1. The climatologists haven't considered *insert obvious thing here*, or
   
2. Those climatologists just can't be trusted (Climate Gate, conspiracies etc.)

It's all attack, attack, attack. And once I look into a few of these accusations and they appear to be either baseless or superficial, it all gets the appearance of a very dirty argumentative technique.

What would sway me is a plausible alternative theory that hasn't already been shot down by someone who knows what they're talking about and isn't peppered with claims about how all climate scientists are lying, cheating scumbags.

I agree. It looks like if there are some dubious claims and dodgy ulterior motives behind these calls for "rigorous scientific discussion" that is presented even more dodgily when it comes to scientific argumentation.

As a general note, adding to the e-mail decable: For what I know, the leading climatologists have been under constant barrage of e-mails and various opposing campaigns for nearly twenty years now. Then if all the sudden someone gets e-mails sent between close colleagues and friends that are full of implied meanings and not rigorous text, of course just about anyone can come up with all sorts of accusations.

Related to the picture and some other discussion here, it is well known not all temperature rises are explained by CO2 emissions. For instance:
New Study Turns Up the Heat on Soot's Role in Himalayan Warming

Quote: "Over areas of the Himalayas, the rate of warming is more than five times faster than warming globally," said William Lau, head of atmospheric sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Based on the differences it’s not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region. There’s a localized phenomenon at play."

I also don't think that soot is the only reason in every local temperature anomaly we know of. It's also plausibe to think some denialists and lobbies use data from these phenomenons either purposedly or unpurposedly embedded in their "proofs", graphs or such to further their claims. But these phenomenons don't discredit the climatologists' claims.

I also bet that not many ordinary people care that much about melting Siberia or Himalaya or warming oceans as these don't have direct, noticeable impact to daily lives.

Quote: Original post by Naurava kulkuri
I also bet that not many ordinary people care that much about melting Siberia or Himalaya or warming oceans as these don't have direct, noticeable impact to daily lives.

The Himalayan glaciers and snow regulate the river flow to most of South Asia. As they disappear, it means the rivers will be prone to running dry when it's not raining and occasionally flash flooding when it does. There's over a billion people living in the Indian subcontinent. The affect on the rivers in that region is actually one of the affects of climate change I'm most worried about.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
There is no conspiracy; everyone is simply following their own local incentives.

Regardless of those incentives....

Tossing out more vague rhetoric, as if it actually supported your arguments?
Contrary to your claims, there's actually plenty of incentive to scientifically debunk the case for global warming at this point.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
im dismissing proof not on basis of who came up with it, but on it either existing or not. The case for AGW is simply rather weak.

Actually, what's weak is the refutation you've provided us. If you have anything more than your word -- as well-respected as that may be -- then feel free to post it up for us. Criticism which uses that "science" thingy to debunk the prevailing research would be great. If you actually did have anything, you should easily be able to pick any of the papers supporting climate change, and show us where it fails.

Quote: The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who see solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. According to the survey, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

The survey also points to a decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

source

Quote: Original post by Eelco
There are in history no observable events of CO2 driving temperature. Doesnt mean its impossible, but its a fairly strong clue.

How do you define "observable"?

Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who see solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. According to the survey, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

The survey also points to a decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

source

lol. This survey is your attempt to provide evidence of something?? A survey on layman opinion means ... what exactly?



It's interesting that you want to post surveys as credible, but have no response to my earlier post about the consensus having grown such that there are now ZERO national scientific organizations left which takes sides with the denialists.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 16, 2009 1:43:10 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
There is no conspiracy; everyone is simply following their own local incentives.

Regardless of those incentives....

Tossing out more vague rhetoric, as if it actually supported your arguments?
Contrary to your claims, there's actually plenty of incentive to scientifically debunk the case for global warming at this point.

'Incentive' is not vague rethoric. Its in the dictionary; look it up.

The incentive towards debunking is grossly overstated. If I owned any oil, I wouldnt be too worried about people not buying it. Dreaming up fancy ways of how people are going to do without it and actually doing without it are very different things.

Incentives are funny things. The inventor of the lightbulb, Phillips, has been lobbying like crazy to ban the lightbulb. Lightbulbs dont have profit margins; their patented LED technology does.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
im dismissing proof not on basis of who came up with it, but on it either existing or not. The case for AGW is simply rather weak.

Actually, what's weak is the refutation you've provided us. If you have anything more than your word -- as well-respected as that may be -- then feel free to post it up for us. Criticism which uses that "science" thingy to debunk the prevailing research would be great. If you actually did have anything, you should easily be able to pick any of the papers supporting climate change, and show us where it fails.

Can you show me 'papers supporting climate change'? I wouldnt know where to find them.

There are lots of papers dealing with small pieces of the puzzle; they generally tend to seem genuine. Genuine, and unexciting.

Then there is a report like the IPCC, which tries to tie all this together. Since they dont seem to explain how they jump to their conclusion of 'were X% sure AGW is happening', im not really sure how to 'debunk' it.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
The incentive towards debunking is grossly overstated. If I owned any oil, I wouldnt be too worried about people not buying it. Dreaming up fancy ways of how people are going to do without it and actually doing without it are very different things.

Regardless of how you would manage the oil industry, the oil industry in the real world is spending tons of money to discredit AGW. All for their altruistic concern for the state of scientific knowledge, I'm sure.