Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Demosthenes11]

I don't feel like reading through all the stupid bickering, but is Leif really trying to say that global climate change is not being accelerated by humans?

Any simple environmental education shows us that humans are causing the 6th great extinction & are clearly GREATLY increasing the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. The clear scientific data is the FACT that earth is being warmed due to human activity, which is very easily measured. It takes little research & intuition to foresee what will happen if we don't stop producing these amounts of CO2... right?

let the adults talk hun

and lol @ the myth of evolution. Saying that is a part of conservative ideology is hilarious, not to mention lumping anything to do with climate change, god, gays, etc

Fundamental Christians hijacked conservatism

[Shiroikage]

Zealot, you must be very bored all of the time to reply to Leaf so much.

[Howard Roark]

I don't post much in general but what seems to be the big deal here? I see a lot of inb4 Lief and Egon, I haven't seen Egon post in a while but Lief makes a lot of sense to me

not sure what Zealot and others are going so crazy over

[Leif]

Leif, if you wrote a column about a topic and Ann Coulter wrote a column about the same topic, I'd love to see if I could tell the difference.

Thank you. I wish I could reach her level of political aptitude.

I don't feel like reading through all the stupid bickering, but is Leif really trying to say that global climate change is not being accelerated by humans?

No, I'm saying prove it.

Any simple environmental education shows us that humans are causing the 6th great extinction & are clearly GREATLY increasing the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. The clear scientific data is the FACT that earth is being warmed due to human activity, which is very easily measured. It takes little research & intuition to foresee what will happen if we don't stop producing these amounts of CO2... right?

As I've already explained, everyone assumed there are all these "facts" and "evidence", but as this thread demonstrates, it seems a challenge for anyone to post any sources besides Newsweek opinion pieces and the BBC.

Zealot, you must be very bored all of the time to reply to Leaf so much.

Considering every post has zero actual content, I expect he does get bored. Well, I take that back. All he does is call names, so if I had to say anything, I'd say he's angry.

I don't post much in general but what seems to be the big deal here? I see a lot of inb4 Lief and Egon, I haven't seen Egon post in a while but Lief makes a lot of sense to me

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, you might not want to broadcast that. You might get called names.

not sure what Zealot and others are going so crazy over

The dilemma of having to cite actual facts instead of the latest person in the gossip chain can be pretty intimidating.

[Max™]

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a...3a6c970b-800wi

Unprecedented warming!

http://www.roanokeslant.org/GlobalWa...r-temp-co2.jpg

Co2 increases temperature without exception!

http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content...-temp-data.jpg

Holy crap, if you ignore the entire span of time prior to the 20th century, then obviously we're causing it! Fuck!

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c4...Gore/GWANT.jpg

Damn the facts, the sky is falling, Chicken Little was right, smoke em if ya got em!


Wait... no, don't smoke, fuck!

[Cadsuane]

Considering every post has zero actual content, I expect he does get bored. Well, I take that back. All he does is call names, so if I had to say anything, I'd say he's angry.

Anyone would be miffed if the person they're talking to continually dodges legitimate accusations of ideological bias and hypocrisy with ideological bias and hypocrisy and then claims to be winning the argument. Posturing about facts and proof and then gloating when none are produced wins plenty of arguments on fox news I'm sure, but it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who can figure out that you wouldn't recognize a conclusive proof if you saw one anyway. You're not qualified to evaluate meteorological data, ice core samples, global fluid models, etc., the matter can't proven or disproven to you and you're not entitled to a goddamn opinion in the first place. So before you start whinging about side issues and burden of proof again, why don't you shut the fuck up about that and just answer Zealot's question?

Edit: Max, seriously, if putting average temperatures on a longitudinal scale and bellowing BEHOLD was all there was to climatology, everyone would have a PhD in it, but we don't, so stop doing it.

[Leif]

I raise you:
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...12/decline.jpg

Anyone would be miffed if the person they're talking to continually dodges legitimate accusations of ideological bias and hypocrisy with ideological bias and hypocrisy and then claims to be winning the argument.

Like Zealot, you too need a lesson in research and facts. What you just said is a clear example of something that needs to be substantiated. In order to accuse me of being a "hypocrite" or accused of "ideological bias", you have to do three things:
1) Prove I'm a hypocrite on this issue
2) Prove I have an ideological bias on this issue
3) Prove how, if I am a hypocrite and if I have an ideological bias, how it changes the fact that nobody has posted any actual evidence in this thread.

Posturing about facts and proof and then gloating when none are produced wins plenty of arguments on fox news I'm sure,

Well, unlike on MSNBC and on the op-ed pages of the New York Times, I like to think I'm at least somewhat attached to reality. While living in reality, I have realized that insulting the intelligence of BG posters makes them angry and forces the true colors to come out.

but it's utterly unconvincing to anyone who can figure out that you wouldn't recognize a conclusive proof anyway.

This must be the part, "Well, even if we did have proof, you would probably oppose it!" Well, first, that's completely false. Second, you would have no way now way of knowing that unless you actually did post data. Three, I'm a lot smarter than you are. I think I

You're not qualified to evaluate meteorological data, ice core samples, global fluid models, etc.,

But if a scientist would kindly stand up side by side with his data, explain it, and then manage to successfully defend his conclusions to my unqualified questions as well as the questions of his peers and other people you might deem to be "qualified", we'd have a good start.

the matter can't proven or disproven to you

Sure it can. Again, you have no basis for such a claim.

and you're not entitled to a goddamn opinion anyway.

Another pathetic "Well, I mean, even if you were right, you don't matter".

So before you start whinging about side issues and burden of proof again, why don't you just shut the fuck up about it and answer Zealot's question?

Because there is nothing that will "disprove" the possibility of climate change. The argument is whether or not there is enough proof in the first place. The fact that there is a burden of proof on the people who want to reshape worldwide economies is more than a "side issue". It's the most important issue in this debate. They have to prove it to us. So far, I haven't seen anybody who has been able to do that. Maybe you or Zealot could actually post a small piece of this "mountain" of evidence. (If you haven't gotten the point already, evidence means the actual evidence, not what the BBC says is evidence.)

Edit: Max, seriously, if putting average temperatures on a longitudinal scale and bellowing BEHOLD was all there was to climatology, everyone would have a PhD in it, but we don't, so stop doing it.

Please list out who is and who is not qualified to interpret graphs. Apparently, if you reject the religion of climate change you aren't allowed.



Give me some facts. This is not hard. I've been asking forever now, but all you people do is call names and insist you shouldn't have to bring facts to the table. It's sad.

I've looked. I came up empty handed. So I would like all of you, who I'm sure formed your thought-out opinions about climate changed based on mountains of scientific research, to educate me. Make me as smart as you are.

[chazzyphizzle]

I just would like to point out that the vast majority of the people calling global warming an imaginary problem are generally conservative Christians. How can you debate against the existence of one entity because of the lack of scientific proof, while debating for the existence of another entity in spite of the lack of scientific proof?

[Max™]

Edit: Max, seriously, if putting average temperatures on a longitudinal scale and bellowing BEHOLD was all there was to climatology, everyone would have a PhD in it, but we don't, so stop doing it.

It doesn't take a PhD to see that the evidence supposedly in favor of AGW is not there.

Remember my position, I don't doubt that we're doing something which could have serious long term effects.

I simply can not support the manner in which the global warming argument was presented. It is claimed to be scientific, yet it does not abide by basic fucking scientific principles.


If you have a model, and you want to say it is the only explanation, you need to do a few things:

1. Collect data which applies in any way to the model, all data, every bit that you can find, and list where you could not fill holes in your dataset, and why.

2. Check that your model actually fits the data, if it does, continue on.

3. Check that no other model fits the data, if this is shown, publish your findings so others can review your results.

4. Upon peer review, list the potential flaws in your model, your data, any inconsistencies therein, and feel free to disseminate your conclusions as a sound theoretical construct.


Apparently the AGW crowd built a model, collected data which fit the model, ignored the need to falsify other models, and limited peer review in ways which are scientifically dishonest by definition. Then published their findings as sound enough to base worldwide political policy on.

I, and others, have been bitching about this rather ramshackle affair for years for some reason... surely it isn't because we are fond of science being done in an honest and rigorous manner, is it?

[orson]

That is the greatest irony chazzyphizzle. A huge chunk of the people that support human assisted global warming theory are very often of the opinion God does not exist given the lack of evidence. The fact that so many of these supposed logical, analytical thinkers just take the popular media's opinions completely just in faith is hilarious. No where do Christians say you don't need fact to prove scientific theory on the contrary. God is not part of science in the sense of being able to be proven to exist or not that's the fundamental belief. You can think it's hypocrisy all you want but that's water off our backs.

What most alarmists and a huge chunk of popular media really would like to avoid is the issue altogether. It's not because the e-mails "aren't a big deal" it's because they are a huge black eye to the image of climate research. They don't want people to know that these e-mails had the scientists admitting to manipulating, omitting, and losing scientific data. They don't want people to know that the head of the CRU has temporarily stepped down because of this scandal. They don't want the public to know that some of the major sources of the EPA's consensus on global warming and the dangers of greenhouse gases came directly from the CRU. They don't want people to know that the EPA is ignoring all requests to even re-examine the work offered to them by affiliates of the CRU.

Why is that? Through the EPA CO2 is now considered a hazardous material. The EPA will have the ability to force even small businesses to apply and pay for permits just to operate while producing C02. That's great let's not just nail big companies let's increase the costs of all business. I'm sure increasing businesses' costs will help create jobs.

Even if you want to believe in human assisted global warming or climate change there are very few unified theories on most of the big concerns and solutions for said issues. How much of the current warming has been caused by human influence? Is the damage done is even reversible at this point? What amount of green house gases and time frame would be needed to prevent serious impact? What will the actual negative effects be because of global warming or erratic climate change?

[Leif]

I just would like to point out that the vast majority of the people calling global warming an imaginary problem are generally conservative Christians.

Conservative? Yes, probably. Christians? That's like saying left-handed people don't believe in global warming.

How can you debate against the existence of one entity because of the lack of scientific proof, while debating for the existence of another entity in spite of the lack of scientific proof?

Except Christians don't force the rest of us to throw our tax dollars into a Jesus fund. Nor do they preach all that stuff about fidelity and morals and then refuse to let anyone read the bible.

[Max™]

When I'm forced to agree with Leif based on the data, and honesty, you know shit is crazy.

[Cadsuane]

It doesn't take a PhD to see that the evidence supposedly in favor of AGW is not there.

Remember my position, I don't doubt that we're doing something which could have serious long term effects.

I simply can not support the manner in which the global warming argument was presented. It is claimed to be scientific, yet it does not abide by basic fucking scientific principles.

If you have a model, and you want to say it is the only explanation, you need to do a few things:

1. Collect data which applies in any way to the model, all data, every bit that you can find, and list where you could not fill holes in your dataset, and why.

2. Check that your model actually fits the data, if it does, continue on.

3. Check that no other model fits the data, if this is shown, publish your findings so others can review your results.

4. Upon peer review, list the potential flaws in your model, your data, any inconsistencies therein, and feel free to disseminate your conclusions as a sound theoretical construct.


Apparently the AGW crowd built a model, collected data which fit the model, ignored the need to falsify other models, and limited peer review in ways which are scientifically dishonest by definition. Then published their findings as sound enough to base worldwide political policy on.

I, and others, have been bitching about this rather ramshackle affair for years for some reason... surely it isn't because we are fond of science being done in an honest and rigorous manner, is it?

I'm with you up to the point about questionable honesty on the part of the AGW crowd, especially after the post-normal science revelation, but in spite of that it's wearisome to see that every hack and layman takes it as licensure to solve the problem themselves with excel graphs and ideological ramblings. Not that I'm accusing you in particular of the latter, but maybe the former as I can't see how your previous post was supposed to show the untenability of AGW. Doubtlessly there's some alarmist out there who's deeply embarassed about having used the word "unprecedented" to describe current climate trends having momentarily forgotten that the earth is very, very old but that's about it.

What I'm trying to get at is, couldn't you be a bit more scientifically rigorous and feed me something more compelling? Even I know enough about climate science to want to see some ice core data showing the relation between greenhouse gas concentrations and average temperature on a geological time scale, or a fluid dynamic demonstration of higher greenhouse gas concentration on global weather patterns in addition to temperature, or a discussion about positive feedback that will occur due to rising temperatures, or some emissions data from human activities including but not limited to agriculture, industry and transportation over the past two thousand years, and so on and so forth.

All you're doing is presenting a pedestrian argument; "well climate scientists are a shady lot, and we know that the earth has been through climate oscillations in the past, some more severe than the current one, therefore human industry can't be the cause." I can grant you the first two statements but what, am I misunderstanding you or am I actually supposed to agree that they imply the third?

You also lost me around the bit about the need to falsify other models for yours to be accepted. First of all, if other models can't be shown to be contradictory then isn't that a pointless exercise? Secondly, what other models are there?

[Max™]

I'm with you up to the point about questionable honesty on the part of the AGW crowd, especially after the post-normal science revelation, but in spite of that it's wearisome to see that every hack and layman takes it as licensure to solve the problem themselves with excel graphs and ideological ramblings. Not that I'm accusing you in particular of the latter, but maybe the former as I can't see how your previous post was supposed to show the untenability of AGW. Doubtlessly there's some alarmist out there who's deeply embarassed about having used the word "unprecedented" to describe current climate trends having momentarily forgotten that the earth is very, very old but that's about it.

Well, given the idea that this is something totally caused by our effects, and specifically claimed to mimic the effects of our Co2 output... you would expect correlation to be shown in all data sets. It isn't.

Then you would ask if all data sets support that this warming is not something which would have happened if we were not affecting the climate at all.

You can't really do that currently, but you CAN go back and see if there have been any periods where natural factors produced similar variations in the climate.

That is what those charts are supposed to demonstrate, sorry I didn't explain better.

What I'm trying to get at is, couldn't you be a bit more scientifically rigorous and feed me something more compelling? Even I know enough about climate science to want to see some ice core data showing the relation between greenhouse gas concentrations and average temperature on a geological time scale, or a fluid dynamic demonstration of higher greenhouse gas concentration on global weather patterns in addition to temperature, or a discussion about positive feedback that will occur due to rising temperatures, or some emissions data from human activities including but not limited to agriculture, industry and transportation over the past two thousand years, and so on and so forth.

Part of this is that I kinda forget I haven't been arguing this shit on this board like I was on my other hangout (palladiumbooks forums). My bad, dawg.

All you're doing is presenting a pedestrian argument; "well climate scientists are a shady lot, and we know that the earth has been through climate oscillations in the past, some more severe than the current one, therefore human industry can't be the cause." I can grant you the first two statements but what, am I misunderstanding you or am I actually supposed to agree that they imply the third?

I actually didn't have evidence that they were being shady, I know that human effects haven't been major factors beyond a thousand years ago tops. The climate swings up and down prior to us even developing something resembling modern civilization suggest that there is something major going on besides our pollution and shit.

Now that it is known they are shady, I can confirm that I'm not imagining this mismatch between PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES and available data on the climate preceding the period where we began pumping out significant greenhouse gases. Which is comforting.

You also lost me around the bit about the need to falsify other models for yours to be accepted. First of all, if other models can't be shown to be contradictory then isn't that a pointless exercise? Secondly, what other models are there?

There are models regarding these climate fluctuations, various cyclical and epicycle based theories, there is an entire branch of science which has been superseded basically by the AGW model.

Anthropogenic: Attribution of recent climate change · Aviation · Biofuel · Carbon dioxide · Fossil fuel · Global dimming · Global warming potential · Greenhouse effect · Greenhouse gases · Land use and forestry · Radiative forcing · Urban heat island

Natural: Albedo · Bond events · Cloud forcing · Glaciation · Global cooling · Ocean variability (AMO · ENSO · IOD · PDO) · Orbital variations · Orbital forcing · Solar variation · Volcanism


Models: Global climate model

"Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."

He later writes:

"I’ve written a number of papers about the precision of our climate records. The impact of Kyoto-like proposals will be too small for we scientists to measure due to the natural variations of climate and the lack of precision in our observing system. In other words we will not be able to tell lawmakers with high confidence that specific regulations achieve anything in terms of climate in this country or the world. Additionally, the climate system is immensely complicated and really cannot be tweaked for a predictable outcome."

[Howard Roark]

When I'm forced to agree with Leif based on the data, and honesty, you know shit is crazy.

he was also correct before

[Cadsuane]

Like Zealot, you too need a lesson in research and facts. What you just said is a clear example of something that needs to be substantiated. In order to accuse me of being a "hypocrite" or accused of "ideological bias", you have to do three things:
1) Prove I'm a hypocrite on this issue
2) Prove I have an ideological bias on this issue
3) Prove how, if I am a hypocrite and if I have an ideological bias, how it changes the fact that nobody has posted any actual evidence in this thread.

I'll bite.

1) I'll point out that you're willing to be skeptical to the point of solipsism when evaluating your opposition but completely fail to live up to your own standards when enumerating your own position, as evidenced by your refusal to answer Zealot's challenge.
2) You read Ann Coulter, you think Evolution is a myth, you think fascism was a left-wing movement. Your ideological bias on every issue is about as subtle as a flying brick.
3.) It doesn't, but thankfully it's a red herring as far as my own position is concerned.

This must be the part, "Well, even if we did have proof, you would probably oppose it!" Well, first, that's completely false. Second, you would have no way now way of knowing that unless you actually did post data.

But if a scientist would kindly stand up side by side with his data, explain it, and then manage to successfully defend his conclusions to my unqualified questions as well as the questions of his peers and other people you might deem to be "qualified", we'd have a good start.

No, you're not exactly a shining example of intellectual honesty and no one expects you to revise an opinion. At any rate what I was actually getting at is that showing raw climate research papers here would be about as informative to either of us as if I showed you a proof of the discontinuity of the derichlet function. I can assure you that I'm qualified on the subject but that doesn't make you any more entitled to the opinion that the function is discontinuous unless you actually go and attend some math classes. When you realize this, we can maybe have a lovely discussion on something else like say, how public debate can distort scientific endeavours.

Because there is nothing that will "disprove" the possibility of climate change. The argument is whether or not there is enough proof in the first place. The fact that there is a burden of proof on the people who want to reshape worldwide economies is more than a "side issue". It's the most important issue in this debate. They have to prove it to us. So far, I haven't seen anybody who has been able to do that. Maybe you or Zealot could actually post a small piece of this "mountain" of evidence. (If you haven't gotten the point already, evidence means the actual evidence, not what the BBC says is evidence.)

Well yes, the burden of proof is on climate scientists to prove what they're saying, but there's two things you're missing. One is that the burden of proof I was asking you not to bring up but very predictably did anyway was for me to substantiate every trivial comment I made in response to your post without living up to your own standards (see first paragraph). The second is that no one is burderned to prove the tenability of some article of research to "us". Academics answer to other academics and not to the public, and for very good reason (see second paragraph).

Please list out who is and who is not qualified to interpret graphs. Apparently, if you reject the religion of climate change you aren't allowed.

For starters, anyone who doesn't know that correlation does not equal causation, which is almost anyone who doesn't have a solid understanding of statistics, which is a staggering majority of people.

[Tristam]

It doesn't take a PhD to see that the evidence supposedly in favor of AGW is not there.

Remember my position, I don't doubt that we're doing something which could have serious long term effects.

I simply can not support the manner in which the global warming argument was presented. It is claimed to be scientific, yet it does not abide by basic fucking scientific principles.


If you have a model, and you want to say it is the only explanation, you need to do a few things:

1. Collect data which applies in any way to the model, all data, every bit that you can find, and list where you could not fill holes in your dataset, and why.

2. Check that your model actually fits the data, if it does, continue on.

3. Check that no other model fits the data, if this is shown, publish your findings so others can review your results.

4. Upon peer review, list the potential flaws in your model, your data, any inconsistencies therein, and feel free to disseminate your conclusions as a sound theoretical construct.


Apparently the AGW crowd built a model, collected data which fit the model, ignored the need to falsify other models, and limited peer review in ways which are scientifically dishonest by definition. Then published their findings as sound enough to base worldwide political policy on.

I, and others, have been bitching about this rather ramshackle affair for years for some reason... surely it isn't because we are fond of science being done in an honest and rigorous manner, is it?

I cannot stress enough how much you're maligning an entire field, without realizing that the field has satisfied every condition you've asked of it.

1. The amount of data is huge, from temperature records on earth, to temperature records in the upper atmosphere, to sea level rise, to ice sheet mass, paleoclimate, and so on. This is not an isolated group of scientists secretly e-mailing each other in ivory towers responsible for everything we think we know about AGW. This is a multidisciplinary field incorporating data from many different teams. Some data arrived before the models, some arrived after, but the more data we have the more confidence we have in the models. We also know how much we're changing the gas content of the atmosphere via direct and indirect measurements. You posted a sample of the graphs from a small selection of papers that discuss all this. Arrhenius predicted AGW, then came data, and the data demanded an explanation. If AGW isn't satisfactory for you, how do you explain temperature changes over the past 100+ years? (hint: alternative explanations have all had their time, they've all failed the test, and based on *data* there is a less than 5% chance that the "fluctuation" over the past 100 years could be natural.) You sit here and say that the noise in climate records is statistically significant. I think you need to show that explicitly.

2. The model(s) fit the data *ONLY* if you include forcing from man-made CO2, if you artificially hold CO2 steady over the past 100 years in the model, it does NOT fit the data. Repeat: You must include changes in CO2 levels in your model to reproduce the observed temperature changes. It is impossible to precisely replicate the entire climate in a test tube, or in a computer. Models do the best they can with the data they are given, no more, no less. They are only part of the sum of evidence for AGW.

3. Other models DO fit the data, the Mann 2009 paper shows data from a number of models that all show the same thing.....AGW. There has been one published model which fit the data that did not include AGW, but it was shown to have simple mathematical errors.

4. Flaws in models are listed as uncertainties and so forth and they are discussed in the open air!!! Noone is presenting any model as perfect, but it is the best approximation of future trends given what we currently know about the earth, energy, and climate. You are also not required to falsify every existing model that contradicts your own, noone would publish anything if that were the case. You can discuss alternative explanations in things like theses, but that's part of the reason those things are up to 200 pages in length...or more... Sometimes models don't work out, I've seen models for certain things that look silly in retrospect once good data came out. But to date there is no good evidence that contradicts AGW. Good evidence would include a statistically significant decline in temperature (and not an artificial decline that fits two points, the first being the hottest year you can find on record). Good evidence would also include a natural process that significantly altered the energy budget of the earth over the past 150 years or so.

Finally, how on earth did they limit peer review dishonestly? That is a very serious charge and demands an explanation. Did you seriously not read that editorial I posted? There is skepticism and there is denialism, you are exhibiting the latter. Skepticism usually starts with a discussion of the uncertainties in models rather than a blanket denunciation of an entire field. Also, CO2 does not temporally correspond directly to temperature, the two are usually out of phase with each other, you cited graphs from papers that discuss this. Feedback loops, forcings, and etc. It's a fundamentally naturally chaotic system.

[Beckwin]

yeah again, it was a handful of guys who didn't want a couple of shoddy papers recognized... yet the papers were recognized in the damn IPCC report itself.

consequently, said papers came under a lot of scrutiny for being shoddy.

[Demosthenes11]

protip: if climate change scientists are right in what they say, there is nothing we can do now to stop it, unless china and india both magically decide to hop on. Environmental standards don't just go from horrible to immaculate overnight. In the last 10 years substantial steps have been taken by the US. It's not enough by end of the world standards, but it's as fast as possible in the slow process that is democracy.

The only real way to see who is right is to wait til 2020. Even if the US stopped emitting ANY CO2, the world would still be fucked by 2024. Either the end of the world has already begun and there is nothing we can do about it, or some scientists are wrong.

I honestly don't know which is more likely, but I'll run my heater less and drive a little less if it makes people happy

[Beckwin]

In the last 10 years substantial steps have been taken by the US.

yeah, substantial steps like not signing kyoto