Hadley CRU files/emails hacked!

Interesting the way you ignore the subject of this thread ( talk about "scientists" putting out misinformation) and continually change the subject --- who's the denilest now -- hmmmmmmmmmm?

 

That's also known as the Fox News effect.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

So you have rising temperatures, which may or may not be attribute to CO2. If they aren't, it's just the normal cycle of things. Doesn't sound very rock solid. I am still up in the air about which side of the debate I'm on. I'm just failing to see any hard core evidence that supports AGW.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

You may not see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there!

I can't always see the moon, and I can't "see" the pull of gravity, but I trust the science that tells me that it is the moon that pulls the tides.

If you can't see it, but you are concerned, please do yourself a favour and do some reading beyond the blogs and the forums and most especially beyond right wing talk radio and understand what the VAST majority of trained, educated, learned climate scientists agree upon! Global warming is happening, is human caused, is going to get worse and the consequences are not fully know, but the trajectory is clear. What is ONLY subject to debate is the degree and the speed.

If you care about your children, you will commit to learning and working to change your personal behavior and that of others.

Icarus

 

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see any of this science. My undergrad degrees are in biology and organic chemistry, and then I went to medical school. I know science. But I'm failing to see any science that proves increased CO2 levels = climate change. All I see is a lot of correlation.

I used to "believe" in AGW. But my mind is changing. I've been a skeptic of everything my entire life (I'm an atheist and I hate all alternative medicine, etc.), and I feel like a fool that I've been tricked by all these AGW claims, if that is the case.

 

Who's to say your information is the fact and everything else is misinformation? I see this from you, and someone else here wrote "stay away from all the blogs if you wanna know the truth about AWG!", it just seems like some old world attitude trying to "shelter" you from the truth. You should be encouraging people to read every source of information we can, evaluate them, and then arrive at the truth ourselves.

Edit: Especially since the pro-AGW people just got exposed, etc.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Because you are not looking. I've already explained to you how greenhouse gases work. Please go research sun spot cycles, orbital cycles, energy balances, albedo effect, ocean variability, volcanism, photosynthetic capacity and the other factors that govern climate. From there you can start ruling out various factors depending on their current cycle position or concentrations. This is essentially what has to happen to try and determine if anthropogenic greenhouse gases are having an effect on climate. It's not an easy task to be certain but even after looking at all of this data most climatologists still agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are having an effect.

IMO start doing some Google Scholar searches for the topics that interest you and start learning how to read the scientific papers so that when you read some crazy idea on a blog you can refer to the source and see if any of the information was cherry-picked which happens VERY often.

I don't want AGW to be real. It would be easier if it wasn't so I don't go looking for information to try and prove it. I just look for information. Which is why I get along with Tim Bikes just fine. He makes me think.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Icarus - I like you. You gave me tons of info about solar panels and setting it up for houses. But I've just read your entire post and there's no data or anything in it. It's a threat about what pro-AGW people think may happen - that's it. And you said I should only listen to your scientsits - what about ones with opposing views? Why shouldn't I read their information? And where's the data that shows conclusively that human produced CO2 is causing climate change?

 

Being a TRUE skeptic is a good thing IMO. The problem here is that when most people refer to "skeptics" in the AWG world we are talking about people who are programmed to believe something because their political affiliations or favorite talk radio show host wants them to believe it. There is an agenda there. Those are not true skeptics, they are sheep.

I said avoid the blogs because they are often misleading and using cherry-picked data or quotes. That is not science. Learn the nuts and bolts of climatology and then go play around on blogs if you like. I avoid them until I feel I know enough about the science behind climatology (I still don't) that I won't be swayed one way or the other by false information. Does that make sense?

Obviously you don't have to take my advice but please take it as a warning. Extremists on both sides of this issue will just repeat lies and false information because they don't know any better and it fits their agenda.

 

I was refering to ecological issues beyond climate change in this instance. The misinformation which I speak of are the cherry-picked quotes and the blaknet statements like "Like it or not, CO2 is a harmless gas that is indeed necessary for life on this planet." which implies CO2 at any level is perfectly ok for life on this planet.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Since at the moment it appears that you are asking questions in good faith, let me ask one of my own to help refine this: what would you consider "hard core evidence?" The physics is well enough defined and there is no doubt about CO2 being a greenhouse gas. There is no doubt as to the source of the rising CO2 concentration in the air and oceans. Temperatures have risen considerably despite various confounding variables and cycles.

Modeling and measuring climate as a whole is of course incredibly complex. There are many factors considered: aerosols, particulates, orbital mechanics, solar weather cycles, albedo altering activities by man, various geologic factors/terran cycles, etc. There are many resultant dependent variables like cloud cover, water content/relative humidity.

It would be wrong for anyone claim that only human produced CO2 is at play here. That's why the models attempt to incorporate other factors, not pretend as if CO2 is the only show in town. All of that is pretty imprecise, especially since it requires extrapolation as CO2 levels continue to rise. I won't be at all surprised to find that one or many of the factors require massive revision--in fact I expect that.

Let's take an example: Say someone proposed that the solar variability would have no impact on global temps. (Solar forcing is one of the things I suspect is undercounted.) That would be nuts, right? We all know that all else being equal if there is less light reaching the planet that it is going to get cooler. More light will make it warmer. Now, consider CO2 in the atmosphere in the same light (forgive the pun). We know that CO2 content in the atmosphere prevents the escape of a portion of the infrared emissions from the earth. Less CO2 more escapes, more CO2 less escapes. That's why I keep saying it is all a matter of degree(s).

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

You should read their papers, if they were published by respectable journals. The problem arises when someone with an opposing paper is harshly criticized by his/her peers AND receives funding from special interest groups that stand to lose a great deal of money if AGW pans out to be true or by political-driven think tanks with an agenda. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Consumer Institute, American Enterprise Institute and The Heartland Institute just to name a few... Can you see a conflict of interest here?

 

You claim to know science, yet you say that? Based on what? The stuff being quoted as having exposed some conspiracy is so flimsy that it actually works best as proof that there is no conspiracy.

The excerpts I've seen touted are the sort of thing that is common when folks are ticked about being misrepresented by hacks. (Loved the Cato reference as they put out some of the most egregious trash I've seen on many subjects: they are an advocacy group for conservative causes.)

You can go read folks explanations for the things that are being paraded about, and see if they appear truthful or not. You will have to make your own call. Then consider whether or not the explanation is correct, will that explain away the vast amount of data...only part of which is theirs.

Science, engineering, troubleshooting etc. require weighing the evidence, picking and testing the explanations which appear to best describe what is observed.

 

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

I am not providing data, I AM providing opinion. I am not suggesting that you not read opposing journals, what I am suggesting however is that you limit your reading of opinion published by those that may have an axe to grind, in this case, the right wing deniest media such as Fox.

I suggest that if you believe in science, then trust the scientists, and not the media, in all it's forms,,, including this one. Try the source, the peer reviewed journals would be a good source.

Icarus

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Gee, maybe your right, maybe global warming is a crock of poo, but maybe you are wrong?

What should we do? Cut our consumption of diminishing fossil fuels and with that carbon emissions or carry on how we are going?

AGW denialists, if you are right and we cut global carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption we will still have a livable planet to live on, and our fossil fuels will last longer, but if we go on like we are and you are wrong, then what?

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

This is an interesting point. My fiance and I talked about this last night too.

I still don't know if I believe in AGW. But I'm not sure the implications of me making up my mind. Even if AGW is not true, I still (of course) realize that there is a limited amount of oil in the earth. There are limited numbers of forests, and limited space out there for us to settle.

I am completely absorbed in green technology. I'm on this website - I drive a hybrid. I will never drive a pure ICE vehicle again. I am looking at purchasing an EV for my around-town trips and use my Prius for interstate trips. I've been researching (thanks to a starter with Icarus) decreasing the energy consumption of my house and getting a solar panel system. We compost some of our trash and have a little garden. We are looking at moving into a house we would have to completely remodel and I've talked to plumbers about having it setup to reuse our gray water.

I do my share to minimize my consumption of non-renewable resources. And if I find that I believe AGW to be a hoax, it wont change anything. I hope we all do our parts to minimize resource usage, but I don't think we're on this high-speed catastrophic path to the end of the world. I need to read more data.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Finally, a glimmer of common sense I'm all for reducing our consumption of fossil fuel ASAP, but not for the reasons promoted by man caused GW proponents. Lets stop sending billions of dollars over to the bad guys that want us dead, just to pay for their oil.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Then you're not far from where I stand on the subject.