No more global warming?

[Furunculus]

agreed, it is important to recognise that scientists are just human beings after all, with all the attendant prejudices and failings that the rest of us suffer from.

[edit]
The mighty moon-bat makes his apology:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...ented-apology/

"It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely."
[/edit]

[Vuk]

No, the environmental disasters of former eastern europe show what happens when there is no representative government that is forced to acquiesce to the demands of the demos.

His treatment of Frag was down-right rude.

Agreed, backroom does have a little less zest without Tribeman.

Less zest and more civility. :P I say it is a worthwhile trade-off.

[Fragony]

The scope of the greatest scientific hoax in human history is becoming greater with each revelation, apparently not only was the data falsified, serious scientists who work with scientific date were intimidated, peer reviews were manipulated, reputations were destroyed, inquisitive journalists who take their jobs seriously fired.

toldyouso, glad I am so very very cynical can't fool me

[Papewaio]

You see though AP, what we can observe, test, and/or replicate is science. I do not argue the way that things work on earth, because I can see them myself and verify them. Anything else though goes beyond science and has to be taken on faith. We have to look at the physical world around us, and use what we know to think up a likely explanation, based on what we know for how it could have began. Unfortunately though, there is no way to prove it, or to test it, so it must be take on faith, even if there is supporting evidence from stuff we can observe.
As such, I do not claim to be 100% sure that I know the answer, or that I can prove it. I do know though that based on science (and I mean real science, not speculation about life's beginnings passed off as science) and my understanding thereof, the theory of life's beginnings that you put forth and that is commonly taught in schools does not, and cannot make sense or be true. Yeah, I cannot prove it, but from what I know (or think I know), God creating the universe and the life on it is the most reasonable explanation. Sure, you may think it is hocus pocus, but I have yet to see a 'scientific' (ei. atheistic) theory that real science does not contradict. I think that historical, literary, and scientific evidence supports the creation story from the Bible. That does not mean that I am denying science (heck, Christians invented science for heaven's sakes. They took the base work of Greek Natural Philosophy, and carried it forth into modern science), as science has nothing to do with the creation of life 1000s-1,000,000s of years ago which cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Science has to do with what we can observe now, and I think that that supports the creation story more than the evolution story.

Science can easily observe things from millions of years ago. It takes 100,000 years for light to travel from one side of our galaxy to the other. We can see stars that are milllons of years away. We can see galaxies billions of years away. The Big Bang Theory neatly explains why we have so much hydrogen and the ratio of first generation elements in the universe, the ratio of neutrons to protons, and background radiation.

Stellar evolution (based on the easily observed main sequence of stars which are billions of years old). Explains neatly second & third generation of elements, essentially why we have uranium on this planet as it is beyond the iron valley.

We can observe, measure and test rocks that are millions of years old on our planet. Some of these even have fossils in them.

We can observe, measure and test DNA. DNA is like a library of past changes. We can make estimates of time base on rate of mutation.

So we have multiple branches of science that can easily deal with dates that go back billions of years. And a few of these deal with life.

Astrophysics for the Big Bang, astronomy for main sequence stars, astrophysics for stellar evolution, geology for rocks and fossils, geophysics for radiometric dating of rocks in the billions of years, biology for evolution, microbiology for DNA. All these are competing spheres with scientists within and without these areas who love to debunk each other. Yet they all have science that goes beyond thousands and millions of years based on observable data that can be used to measure and test ideas.

I say this because you have in past threads (and I think alluded to it in this thread) accused creationists of denying science. That is not through. It is why I said that the round earth and evolution example could not work. The earth being round can be observed and measured, and is science, musing over how we may have got here is not. (which doesn't make it bad, just means that it does not belong to that field)
Please don't use not believing in evolution against me, as if it makes me stupid or blind. I simply disagree with you. (and keep in mind AP, that just I do not know just what scientific evidence and discussion you have seen and heard that has led you to your belief, you do not know what has led me to mine, and if you did, you just may be convinced) I am not going to explain why I believe what I do, as this thread is not for it, I just wanted you to know that I (and others) have reasons that are logical, and are not ignorance, blind faith, escapism, laziness, etc. You cut people down for not believing in evolution, why? No one is cutting you down for believing in it. I don't think any the less of you to believe in it, I think it is a very swaying argument that smart people can easily be made to believe. Why do you have to assume that anyone who does not believe in it is stupid or primitive?

I for one would like to see your sources. My understanding of evolution is that it is a meta-principle. And that unlike chemisty, gravity and the other fundamental forces , evolution would be applicable in other parallel universes.

[Furunculus]

Is the bi-choice situation causing more problems than it is worth? Is there space at all for a Middle-Ground/Third/Alternative options?

Priorities on Issues. Many people have never actually said their priority, as part of their line with their view. For instance "Follower - Value of Human Life" "Skeptic - My Bank Account", are there room for options like "Follower - I can make a profit" "Skeptic - Money could be better spent on Universal Health Care*"

there already is a middle ground; skeptic.

i am skeptical* of the IPCC 'consensus', i neither affirm or deny it, thus i am a skeptic.







* skep·ti·cal also scep·ti·cal Pronunciation (skpt-kl)
adj.
1. Marked by or given to doubt; questioning: a skeptical attitude; skeptical of political promises.
2. Relating to or characteristic of skeptics or skepticism.

[Furunculus]

what is wrong with the underlined part? Surely they know better than us. Your sentiment is a strikingly human one (I know, it is 'duh', but still, read on) as it is only natural to feel antagonistic towards persons of higher rank, especially when they meddle so much. But you think a liberal does not have to deal with that? I know the scientists are exponentially smarter than me, yet I accept their actions.

because social science is not a science, it is a faith that you can express the breadth of human emotion and frailty with a simplified model of collective behavior.

it is an arrogance that leads to ideology which is invariably a universal failure for the reason mentioned above, and it is usually grossly intrusive to the individuals it is practiced upon.

worse, the damage that is done by these social engineers is blithely disregarded as a necessary and temporary evil, to achieve the glorious emancipation of humanity......... as they see it.

there is a world of difference between a social engineer/scientist and an real engineer or scientist, and I will always have contempt for those that think they can engineer away the less perfect parts of the human condition via some pseudo-scientific ideology.

Re my comment about the misplaced trust in social science theory, and its implemented methodology known as social engineering:
http://order-order.com/2009/11/25/ti...oling-deniers/

The left likes to think their prejudices are based on science rather than mere opinions derived from political goals. The power of Marxist ideas from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries within the intelligensia was because of the internal logic that claimed it was “scientific socialism” based on immutable laws of society. Twenty-first century anti-capitalism is trying the same trick, claiming an anti-capitalist mandate from climate science that just does not exist. It is no coincidence that the collapse of the worldwide communist project and ideals in the early 1990s coincided with the rise of the global green movement. Many of the enemies of capitalism have merely changed their flag from red to green.

nb: Guido does not claim AGW is a giant left wing conspiracy, and nor do i, he merely notes that it was a convenient vehicle for those who found themselves suddenly bereft of the ideological struggle necessary to define their lives by.

Every extreme of the human spectrum, be it politics religion or something else, has those who mitigate their lack of self-worth by close association with a 'cause' bigger than themselves, and for the more hardcore left'ies the year of 1989 threatened to invalidate that which gave meaning to their lives*.

The Green movement gave them a framework by which they could pick up the tattered shreds of their guiding principles, reform it into a new and publicly acceptable ideology, and thus pretend to themselves that nothing fundamental had gone wrong; the previous ideology had merely been a flawed expression of the pure principles as expressed by intellectuals such as Marx.

Thus have we been subjected to an almost religious fervor in support of AGW, these guys have a lot riding on this so they NEED it to work, they are flawed individuals already and might not survive a second crisis of meaning.
Thus have we been subjected to an almost fawning respect to scientists who comply to the desired image of intellectual splendor, otherwise known as the IPCC, because pure political ideologies are discredited and a new more palatable 'church' is needed.

It's become a bandwagon that has pushed policy far in advance of the science.





* I just happen to believe the idealism inherent in lefty-liberal politics attracts a much greater proprotion of the inadequate rebels-in-need-of-a-cause.

[InsaneApache]

It's a brave man who links to Guidos blog. Whatever you do, don't read the comments. I said, don't read them!

[Furunculus]

apparently Congress has taken an interest in Climategate:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...e-end-for-agw/

[edit]

is australia going wobbly now too?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...rading-scheme/




plus: it's not just the emails, take a gander at the code comments too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...line-codified/
yes i know, we don't know the context of the comments, but it should be more than enough to persuade you that these peerless individuals are not disinterested transcendent beings.

[/edit]

[Fragony]

apparently Congress has taken an interest in Climategate:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...e-end-for-agw/

good, here they are still waiting for the dust to settle but this isn't going to go away, former activist and current minister of enviroment is furious, 'this is criminal' she screamed. Of course she didn't mean the hoax but the fact that it came out, she refuses to answer any questions regarding the e-mails she just waved it of. What an inconvenient inconvenience.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm I just wonder is there an actual link to the emails all of them I mean not just the ones posted to show climate change is bunk.

I mean if these were hacked from a computer then a crime has been committed and last time I checked a criminals word for anything was pretty much zero plus I am sure if he/she can hack Uni computers then they can also falsify the emails too.

I would say no comment yay or nay till the cops are finished.

[Furunculus]

Hmm I just wonder is there an actual link to the emails all of them I mean not just the ones posted to show climate change is bunk.

I mean if these were hacked from a computer then a crime has been committed and last time I checked a criminals word for anything was pretty much zero plus I am sure if he/she can hack Uni computers then they can also falsify the emails too.

I would say no comment yay or nay till the cops are finished.

that reminds of JAG's slightly hysterical denial of why labour voters are now drifting to the BNP; "its got nothing to do with immigration policy, and it's not working class labour voters doing this, it's all a reaction to societal breakdown caused by Thatcher!"

so i'll reply to you as I replied to him; if you are so deluded as to believe what you state above then you are going to get a hell of a shock when you catch up with the rest of the world in realising that these guys really are only human beings, with all the same failings and petty agendas that the rest of us harbour, they are not gods, and do not deserve your uncritical faith.

[gaelic cowboy]

that reminds of JAG's slightly hysterical denial of why labour voters are now drifting to the BNP; "its got nothing to do with immigration policy, and it's not working class labour voters doing this, it's all a reaction to societal breakdown caused by Thatcher!"

so i'll reply to you as I replied to him; if you are so deluded as to believe what you state above then you are going to get a hell of a shock when you catch up with the rest of the world in realising that these guys really are only human beings, with all the same failings and petty agendas that the rest of us harbour, they are not gods, and do not deserve your uncritical faith.

Whoa there man deluded I think you will find I never said it was anything in my post I only said I won't comment on this till I know more unlike yourself of course who has already assigned a position and everything on me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Everyones world is going to end one day anyway, global warming or not. Nothing to worry about. Roll with the punches; longer summers, more pool parties, less snow to shovel - or not.

[gaelic cowboy]

Everyones world is going to end one day anyway, global warming or not. Nothing to worry about. Roll with the punches; longer summers, more pool parties, less snow to shovel - or not.

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks line about how non smokers die everyday

[Furunculus]

Whoa there man deluded I think you will find I never said it was anything in my post I only said I won't comment on this till I know more unlike yourself of course who has already assigned a position and everything on me.

my views on global warming are plainly stated:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=144

but if i read more into your post than you intended should be there, then you have my apology. :)

[Idaho]

Meanwhile out in the Arctic Oceans commercial ships are busy plying the North East Passage for the first time as there is less ice:

German Ships Sailing Through North East Passage

Nothing to see, move along now. All a hoax.

[drone]

Meanwhile out in the Arctic Oceans commercial ships are busy plying the North East Passage for the first time as there is less ice:

German Ships Sailing Through North East Passage

Nothing to see, move along now. All a hoax.

Well, that's a good thing. Shorter trip, less fuel used, less carbon emitted.

[Furunculus]

Meanwhile out in the Arctic Oceans commercial ships are busy plying the North East Passage for the first time as there is less ice:

German Ships Sailing Through North East Passage

Nothing to see, move along now. All a hoax.

NE passage, open since 1934:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/0...ssage-transit/

Ice was pretty thin in the fifties too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/2...-not-so-thick/

[Fragony]

Ah even moarrrrrrr political scientists manipulating results to scare money out of your wallets.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_...re-faking.html

[Fragony]

Oh could it be any more obvious, who is the EU sending to Copenhagen as the sceptic? That's right Nick Griffin (BNP). End he goes the idiot. Way to link doubt to the extreme right but the lemmings will probably fall for it.

[Furunculus]

Hannan has finally come out on record with his views of Climate Change:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...for-scepticism

Climate change: the case for scepticism

James Delingpole keeps needling me about climate change. Can’t I see that it’s the biggest swindle of our era? Aren’t I bothered about being ruled by a global eco-technocracy? Haven’t the leaked emails put the issue beyond all doubt?

James has certainly had a spectacular couple of weeks. I’ve argued many times before that the Internet pulverises media monopolies, and James’s blog neatly proves the thesis. A story that was ignored by most environment correspondents blew up online until, grudgingly, the MSM were forced to limp along behind.

Oddly enough, though, I don’t believe that “warmergate” has altered things very much. I always assumed that some of the research on both sides was likely to be results-driven. It could hardly be otherwise, human nature being what it is. We all tend, unconsciously, to press new data into our existing Weltanschauung. There’s a fancy phrase for it (fancier even than Weltanschauung): “cognitive dissonance”. Scientists don’t stop being human beings when they enter their research centres. You would expect those whose grants depend on the Kyoto apparatus to have a different take on climate change from those who are funded by energy companies. Not always; but sometimes.

It isn’t a conspiracy. Reading the leaked emails, it seems pretty clear that their authors genuinely believe that the world is getting hotter as a result of human activity. Having formed this view, they instinctively dismiss evidence that doesn’t fit it. We are genetically programmed to behave this way.

The case for anthropogenic global warming was, as far as I can understand, slightly more convincing a decade ago than it is today, with global temperatures having recently dropped. Having reached sincere and considered opinions in the 1990s, and having built careers on that basis, some of the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen crowd understandably find it awkward to re-examine their assumptions.

Does this happen among on the other side, too? Yes, undoubtedly. Just as those who already believed in more regulation, more government, supra-nationalism and higher taxes honestly think that carbon emissions are overheating the planet, so libertarians and small government types honestly think that the whole thing is a crock. Each faction, convinced of its own sincerity, distrusts the motives of the other.

All of which makes it almost impossible for the layman to reach a confident view. It’s not just the interpretation of the facts that is disputed, but the facts themselves. Leave aside the argument over CO2: there isn’t even any agreement over how much the world is heating.

So where do I stand? With Peter Lilley, I suppose. I think the world is warming (I especially dislike the phase “climate change denial”: no one, as far as I’m aware, is positing climate stasis). And it may well be that human activity is playing some part in the process, although probably not to the degree claimed by some climate change professionals.

I also tend to agree with Nigel Lawson that adaptation would be more effective and cheaper than a programme of greenhouse gas reductions which, even according to its proponents, would slow global warming by only around 0.2 degrees. In other words, it ought to be possible to accept the case for global warming – and, indeed, for an anthropogenic component therein – while still believing that the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen agenda represents a misallocation of resources.

If this makes me a “sceptic”, in the literal sense of wanting to question things, fine. But I resent the notion that it somehow makes me anti-environment. I take the train to Brussels and Strasbourg, and don’t fly if I can avoid it. I drive only when absolutely necessary: no more than a dozen times a year. Mrs H is meticulous about reusing and recycling and sourcing our food locally and all the rest. Our children were brought up with washable nappies. I’m as keen as the next fellow on clean air and water, on whales and rainforests, and I have always thought it a pity that free market solutions are not more widely applied to environmental problems (see here). The natural world is too important to be left to the Left.

Not surprisingly, I believe it to be a very sensible view to take, given that is mirrors my own quite substantially.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oddly enough, though, I don’t believe that “warmergate” has altered things very much. I always assumed that some of the research on both sides was likely to be results-driven. It could hardly be otherwise, human nature being what it is. We all tend, unconsciously, to press new data into our existing Weltanschauung. There’s a fancy phrase for it (fancier even than Weltanschauung): “cognitive dissonance”. Scientists don’t stop being human beings when they enter their research centres. You would expect those whose grants depend on the Kyoto apparatus to have a different take on climate change from those who are funded by energy companies. Not always; but sometimes.

It isn’t a conspiracy. Reading the leaked emails, it seems pretty clear that their authors genuinely believe that the world is getting hotter as a result of human activity. Having formed this view, they instinctively dismiss evidence that doesn’t fit it. We are genetically programmed to behave this way.

Yes, this is what I thought as well. Peoples desires always influence things, and it isn't a dispassionate issue.

All of which makes it almost impossible for the layman to reach a confident view.

Which is my main frustration. The science itself is hugely complicated, but there is no expert I would be willing to trust completely.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hannan has finally come out on record with his views of Climate Change:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...for-scepticism

I...I...I agree with Hannan. What's more, I think that is a very well thought out article, a beacon of reason in a controversial and highly politicised subject.


Hannan for president of Europe!!

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL, now Al Gore, the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming (ChuGWarm) has cancelled his appearance at the meeting at Copenhagen. Me thinks there will be a lot of Gore's former carbon credit company's stock selling cheap in a week or two or perhaps a drowning polar bear ate his private jet?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ce-copenhagen/

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pajamas Media founder Roger L. Simon and independent filmmaker Lionel Chetwynd -- both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscar nominees -- have called on the academy to rescind Mr. Gore's Oscars in light of the Climategate revelations.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I...I...I agree with Hannan. What's more, I think that is a very well thought out article, a beacon of reason in a controversial and highly politicised subject.


Hannan for president of Europe!!

Agreed, he essentially echoed my own views in a very eloquent manner.

[Fragony]

LOL, now Al Gore, the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming (ChuGWarm) has cancelled his appearance at the meeting at Copenhagen. Me thinks there will be a lot of Gore's former carbon credit company's stock selling cheap in a week or two or perhaps a drowning polar bear ate his private jet?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ce-copenhagen/

owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, isn't going to stop any flaggalant from praying for salvation sadly the fear sits to deeply, they are absolutely terrified can't argue with terrified people

[Strike For The South]

Well, this changes the game a bit.

[Fisherking]

Well, this changes the game a bit.

Why would that be?

Just because we are now left with no reliable climate data for the last three decades or so?

It is most unfortunate. Now many will use it as an excuse for excess and it may make it difficult to stop wanton pollution.

It was also unfortunate that so many who saw the truth were shouted down...

I don’t think there are any winners in this fiasco.

[Strike For The South]

Why would that be?

Just because we are now left with no reliable climate data for the last three decades or so?

It is most unfortunate. Now many will use it as an excuse for excess and it may make it difficult to stop wanton pollution.

It was also unfortunate that so many who saw the truth were shouted down...

I don’t think there are any winners in this fiasco.

Well yes and the fact that scientists are supposed to be detachted from this sort of tom foolery.

This is an utterly disgusting mark on the science community as whole.