Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

AGW is dead, it will be interesting to see what the lefties come up with next to attack Capitalism and the western world.

good article:
Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release – Telegraph Blogs

 

That's quite an understatement! 8'C per decade is monumental compared to what we are seeing in a century. The point, of course, is that the warming we are experiencing is not unparalleled.

This is only due to the relatively short period of time that we have had civilization. We have to remember that the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. The existence of modern humans is but a drop in the bucket. The earth doesn't care that we are here. It will undergo natural processes, it will shift climates, new species will evolve and some species will go extinct, and eventually the earth will cease to exist. And not a single thing in the entire universe will even notice that we're gone.

Correct. We have to adapt. It's sad that as we continue this natural warming period that some islands may lose some of their lands, but that's nature. Literally. Think about what happened over those millions of years when we had Pangea and the subsequent separation of the continents. Ecological systems were ruined, new ones were formed, species came and went, and populations evolved. We live on a dynamic planet and part of that is enjoying an ever changing world.

 

Yeah..that's data..

 

This is the drop in the bucket I care about. Being defeatist is not the strategy here. We are causing the change and we can stop it.

 

what are you talking about data? As of this point most critically thinking people in the world do not trust any more of the compiled and 'adjusted' data. Maybe someday after it has been thouroughly reviewed, but now, no way.

I have said this before, but I am a member of several environmental orgs and the orgs that are really for reducing carbon to save the earth are incredibly frustrated becuase everything on the table in copenhagen would fall miserably short anyways. good article in mother earth news about this fact. coenhagen was about power and money, there may have been a time when AGW was really about protecting the earth but now it is about one world government and looting hard working people of their wealth.

 

lol

 

Malorn writes

"what are you talking about data? As of this point most critically thinking people in the world do not trust any more of the compiled and 'adjusted' data. Maybe someday after it has been thouroughly reviewed, but now, no way."


While that statement MAY be true (I have no way of knowing) it is meaningless. If "most people" think the earth is flat, it doesn't make it so.

On the other hand, as a group, no one can claim more critical thinking about the subject than scientists engaged in the field of climate science. ~97% of whom agree that global warming is real and it (at least in part) human caused!

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

STATS:

Are you meaning to imply that even if the "hacked e-mails) show a pattern within one small academic community, (which I don't!) that negates ALL the climate science? Does that mean that ALL climate scientists are engage in some vast conspiracy? I've got a bridge to sell you if you buy that.

 

ok, my morning amusement

A bit of propaganda parsing ..

• The fact is the vast majority of scientists have no idea ... A fact, because Malorn says so.
• Just had faith ... nothing to do with reading the scientific literature
• How corrupt both were ... emails describing their contempt for denialists is unconscionable !

 

Ah, so the "most people" argument only works one way?

You know that 97% number is actually only 74 or 75 scientists?

 

SageBrush, welcome to the discussion.

Have you read through the ClimateGate emails?

 

NevadaPrius,
I read a sampling of published emails in the popular press, by no means all of them !
I was interested to know whether any published literature would be redacted, and when it became clear the answer was no, I lost interest in the affair.

 

NP,

The difference is that "if most people believe the earth is flat" in spite of all evidence to the contrary I would posit that "most people" are ill informed, but I would cite a number of sources from Magellan to NASA, as "informed/educated on the subject) sources to refute their argument.

I would also suggest that if "most people believe that global warming is real/not real" the people who I would go to first to confirm or deny the premise is those that because of training/education/experience have the best, most comprehensive knowledge on the subject, ie Climate scientists.

I may think that my pastor is a very smart, very learned man, whose opinion I highly value, but that doesn't make him an authority on awg. Someone who has studied ice cores in Greenland, or CO2 concentrations in the Antarctic, or ocean acidity etc are way more likely to have answers that in part are closer to reality.

So while you suggest the number of climate scientists is small, I don't think it is as small as you suggest. But even that doesn't negate the fact that these folks know more than you or I will ever know about the basic science.

 

If the climate science is so indisputable then why has it been kept secret, why are graphs made splicing together data to fit the theory, why keep articles questioning AGW theory out of science publications. I can only think of one reason.

 

Hello, how is everybody! Sorry, I have been on a vacation of sorts and was away from my keyboard.

 

This seems to be a rather narrow view. Reading a sampling of the emails could not possibly give an answer to the question of whether published literature would be 'redacted'.

Those who read the emails and inderstand what occurred will not be so dismissive of their importance. What has been discovered is the tip of the iceberg, er, bad metaphor, is only the beginning of a process that should result in a complete reassessment of data that have been used in hundreds of papers. These papers used data with the understandong that they were robust and provided accurate information that could be relied upon.

This is no longer the case. The wish to sweep this under the rug, by many who would be embarrassed. is understandable. If the broader scientific community allows this to happen, the public's dimming confidence in science and scientists will erode even further.

The matter of serious misbehaviour by the CRU, IPCC and other scientists cannot be so blithely dismissed. If it is shown conclusively that the data are unreliable, then the conclusions of large swaths of the published literature of climate science are called into question.

This is no small matter. The suggestion to 'move along, nothing to see here' is one that will surely be adopted by those who have misled and obfuscated, but should not be allowed by those who seek truth.

 

Actually no. Besides Fox News and the denialist blogosphere 'cooler' heads are arriving at the same conclusions:

Sifting Through “ClimateGate,” Finding Very Little | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

"Nothing contained in the e-mails, however, suggests that global temperature records are particularly inaccurate or, worse, that they have been manipulated to show greater warming. The certainly troubling conduct exposed in some of the e-mails has little bearing on the fundamental science that strongly indicates that the world is warming and that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause."

PS: Note this is not a scientific point so I feel justified in citing a blogpost.

 

How about a first person account of a scientist who was abused by the biased process exposed by the E-mails?

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus - WSJ.com

I feel justified linking to an 'opinion piece' in a newspaper if it is germane.

Curious that you feel you can freely post a cartoon and then insist that others follow a more rigorous route.

By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).
But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."
The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science...

...Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that "If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."

Read it all if you have any interest in the truth.

 

Feel free to visit this blogspot, that details the contrary:

IPCC and the “Trick” Climate Audit

They detail exactly what your article claims they did not detail. They give the filenames of the emails so you are free to look them up here: East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

I mean, if you just read through the post there is no way you can possibly believe the contrary. This is as hard as evidence gets. The only way you could get better evidence of data manipulation is if Michael Mann walked up to you and handed you his laptop himself.

 

All I see is when you read those emails is a group of scientists trying to explain one divergent series from the other series that do concur with the instrumental record. The whole argument is ridiculous because the data that supposedly was not used in the report is already covered by the instrumental record.

Are people actually arguing that the instrumental record is wrong because one set of data using tree rings does not confirm the instrumental record?

 

Yawn. It's amusing how many people resort to this ad hominem in the end.

We live in a representative democracy. By definition, that means a few people are making decisions for everyone. But somehow you've equated this to communism. Odd.