Climategate 2.0

[cybrsage]

Arguing that the scientific climate (no pun intended) today in regard to peer reviewing/publishing dissenting papers, etc. is even remotely similar terms of speed or quality to what existed in the days of Newton is intellectually dishonest.

I was debunking the appeal to authority used in the post I quoted.

Not to mention, it was because Newton's theory was very practical for use at science's level at the time, technology had to catch up a bit to better dispute/display the inaccuracies.

Useful? Yes, and still is very useful. However, my point was that even though the entire scientific community supported it for centuries without any dissenting views, it was still wrong.

...the IPCC is a bunch of bunk even though it has been scientifically unopposed...

The IPCC actually used a layman's hiking magazine as if it was a peer reviewed scientific study. Some of the sections of the IPCC's report were based almost entirely on non-peer reviewed papers written by students.

It is a piece of junk and anyone who supports it should be ashamed at themselves for supporting bad science.

 

[cybrsage]

Can someone from the ACC-denial camp please explain why this "research is influenced by money" argument only works in one direction?

And if you can't provide credible evidence, then STFU with your baseless conspiracy theories.

It does work both ways. Sadly, the amount of money invovled in global warming is so high (when you include all the legislation which may be based on said warming) and the topic so political, it is impossible to seperate the science from the money any longer.

The entire AGW debacle has been a black eye on the integrity of science.

 

[monovillage]

Can someone from the ACC-denial camp please explain why this "research is influenced by money" argument only works in one direction? It should be abundantly clear that there's a huge industry - with tens of billions of dollars of profit a year at stake every year - with a vested interest in discrediting ACC, yet one NEVER hears the ACC-denial camp call into question research fully or partially funded by the fossil fuel industry. Yet they continually tell us that there's a huge pool of money available to climatologists who produce pro-ACC research.

Well, put up or shut up. Show us this huge pool of money. Show us credible evidence that the research funding process has been corrupted by a huge pro-ACC bias. And show us some examples where "reformed" ex-pro-ACC climatologist "confess" to biasing their research results because of the way the money is flowing.

And if you can't provide credible evidence, then STFU with your baseless conspiracy theories.

I can show you a huge pool of money. I can show you credible evidence that the research funding process has been corrupted. No surprise that I can't show you your unicorn of a "reformed" ex-pro-anthropogenic global warming climatologist that confesses being a vampire either.

How about you shut the fuck up until you can show credible evidence that ACC is only human caused.

 

[sMiLeYz]

How about you shut the fuck up until you can show credible evidence that ACC is only human caused.

Yeah you got nothing but insults...

 

[TheVrolok]

The IPCC actually used a layman's hiking magazine as if it was a peer reviewed scientific study. Some of the sections of the IPCC's report were based almost entirely on non-peer reviewed papers written by students.

It is a piece of junk and anyone who supports it should be ashamed at themselves for supporting bad science.

Finding fault with some parts, does not imply fault with the overall conclusion. So I assume you also think the NRC endorses bad science? Really, what you're saying is that there is a massive conspiracy where scientists who have years of successful scientific careers are now simply ignoring good science and agreeing with climate science for .. fun? Because it's the status quo?

 

[LunarRay]

Agreed, but with protections in place so political cronies do not make out like bandits...I am looking at you, Solyndra.

They did get a tidy bit of taxpayer money along with a billion and a bit from some pretty savvy investors... The drop in price of the panels which I think was about 72% in less than two years made their plans unworkable.

Other entities are doing ok, though.

China and European companies are pushing ahead with grants from their governments far greater than what the US is giving... but, oh well..

I do agree, however, we need to keep many eyes on the goings on now-a-days...

I am very much against other kinds of incentives. I want a transition and job creation... let the carbons flow for awhile... China has no plans to cut back either and I think they currently burn about a third of what we do... and it will climb.

As I said, it is not about which camp is right about Global Warming but, rather, it is about where to target funds for job creation.

 

[monovillage]

Finding fault with some parts, does not imply fault with the overall conclusion. So I assume you also think the NRC endorses bad science? Really, what you're saying is that there is a massive conspiracy where scientists who have years of successful scientific careers are now simply ignoring good science and agreeing with climate science for .. fun? Because it's the status quo?

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...behavior-by-the-us-national-research-council/

 

[TheVrolok]

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...behavior-by-the-us-national-research-council/

He's just pointing out problems with the politics of the NRC/IPCC which he has done in the past (and there are problems inherent in both, that doesn't mean you throw out entire pieces of work). Again, finding some bad does not indicate a massive scientific community conspiracy. You do realize the very guy you're quoting agrees that man significantly effects global warming, right? From Pielke's own paper:

The evidence predominantly suggests that
humans are significantly altering the global
environment, and thus climate

 

[monovillage]

He's just pointing out problems with the politics of the NRC/IPCC which he has done in the past (and there are problems inherent in both, that doesn't mean you throw out entire pieces of work). Again, finding some bad does not indicate a massive scientific community conspiracy. You do realize the very guy you're quoting agrees that man significantly effects global warming, right? From Pielke's own paper:

You do realize the difference between shira's claim that ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is all human caused and Pielke's claim that humans "significantly contribute" ? Please put a number to significant.

I must admit I do regret telling shira to STFU, trying to stifle debate and discussion is always a bad idea.

 

[Paul98]

I was debunking the appeal to authority used in the post I quoted.



Useful? Yes, and still is very useful. However, my point was that even though the entire scientific community supported it for centuries without any dissenting views, it was still wrong.





The IPCC actually used a layman's hiking magazine as if it was a peer reviewed scientific study. Some of the sections of the IPCC's report were based almost entirely on non-peer reviewed papers written by students.

It is a piece of junk and anyone who supports it should be ashamed at themselves for supporting bad science.

You didn't debunk anything, all you did was create a straw man.

 

[Broheim]

" Pretending that mankind is overriding the existing natural cycle which says the temps will continue to increase even if mankind never existed is lame."

This is the really ignorant part of the 'denier' bullet-points.

"After remaining relatively steady for the last 650,000 years or more, in just the last two hundred years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has suddenly shot up from 280, to more than 380 parts per million. And it’s still rising. This dramatic 30% increase has all taken place at the same time as humans have been burning fossil fuels at a greater and greater rate."

That's all a coincidence, right?

CFC's had no impact on anything, did they?

It's just little-old-man, we can't impact anything...7 billion? Who cares, we are so small....

but then why haven't the temperature gone up in the last 10 years when our CO2 output have been increased.

 

[Paul98]

None of my points have been shot down. Pretending the natural cycle ceased to exist is not shooting down the fact that it still exists.

Pretending that supporting an industry whose byproduct is 21 times more damaging than CO2 is fine simply makes your entire stance about regulating others appear stupid....which it, of course, is. Even the EPA says you are a loser for thinking as you do:


http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html

SO keep saying methane is not something to worry about...hypocrit.

Are you trying to argue that man does contribute to global warming? No one pretends that there isn't a natural cycle. Or that CO2 is the only thing that contributes to global warming. These natural cycles have causes the ones before humans obviously weren't human created, but they sure did have causes.

Humans have an impact on global climate. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Paul98]

but then why haven't the temperature gone up in the last 10 years when our CO2 output have been increased.

Because CO2 is not the only contributing factor to global temperature.

 

[TheVrolok]

You do realize the difference between shira's claim that ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is all human caused and Pielke's claim that humans "significantly contribute" ? Please put a number to significant.

I must admit I do regret telling shira to STFU, trying to stifle debate and discussion is always a bad idea.

I haven't even bothered reading Shira's claim because I wasn't discussing anything with him. ACC by definition is all human caused, that's what anthropogenic means. I assume you mean that his assertion is that climate change (in general) is all ACC? With that I would completely disagree. There are many factors that contribute to global warming, ACC is among them. To say that all climate change/global warming is only due to ACC is just as silly as saying ACC is non-existent/marginal. I don't know what you want for a number of significance? The fact that ACC is causing shifts in temperatures above normal/natural cycles is a bad thing, period, as even small shifts/rises can be devastating.

 

[monovillage]

Yes Paul98, almost all agree that humans have an impact on global climate and that CO2 is not the only contributing factor in global temperature.

 

[TheVrolok]

Because CO2 is not the only contributing factor to global temperature.

In fact, people like Pielke (since we've recently brought him up) believe that CO2 is one of the smaller of the ACC factors.

 

[monovillage]

There's a huge difference between "causing a shift" and contributing to a shift.

 

[cybrsage]

You didn't debunk anything, all you did was create a straw man.

Nope, I did not, but you are free to support your postion that I did. Simply saying I did is silly. Support your claim.

 

[cybrsage]

There's a huge difference between "causing a shift" and contributing to a shift.

Correct, just like me peeing in the ocean contributes to a rising ocean level. However, I think we can all agree that the COR (Cybrsage Ocean Rise) contribution is insignificant.

Since the natural recurring pattern shows the temps on Earth would continue to rise even if mankind never existed, I think we can all say that the temps will continue to rise regardless of man's impact on temps.

 

[Paul98]

Correct, just like me peeing in the ocean contributes to a rising ocean level. However, I think we can all agree that the COR (Cybrsage Ocean Rise) contribution is insignificant.

Since the natural recurring pattern shows the temps on Earth would continue to rise even if mankind never existed, I think we can all say that the temps will continue to rise regardless of man's impact on temps.

There's a huge difference between "causing a shift" and contributing to a shift.

So then you both agree with man made global warming. This is exactly what we are talking about, man made contributions that increase the temperature over where it would be naturally. We contribute both negatively and positively to temperature, but the positive contributions out weigh the negative.

Science continues to be done to understand our full impact on global climate, but we do know that we have a noticeable impact on global climate. It's not the earth that cares about the global climate, it's our current society that will have problems with climate change.

 

[Paul98]

Nope, I did not, but you are free to support your postion that I did. Simply saying I did is silly. Support your claim.

What claim? that what we know today won't be 100% correct, and that somehow means we shouldn't listen to the experts that study and understand this stuff?

 

[-Slacker-]

A few dozen vague quotes that could easily be taken out of context, plus a few ones where there some talk touching on politics (expensive research that could lead to expensive applications being vaguely related to politics -imagine that!). Out of 230.000.

Wow.

Well, I dunno about you OP, but I'm sold.

edit: *skims through the rest of the thread*

Good lord you deniers are talkative about this, aren't you? I guess that, on the internet, the amount of knowledge you have about something is inversely proportional to how much you're willing to parrot about it. Give it a rest already.

Look, even if global warming is fake because of photoshop and pixels herp derp that still doesn't change the fact that neither of you know shit about the subject, and neither do the charlatans posing as experts that you get your material from and occasionally buy books from.

Hey, you know what? I don't know dick about the subject either! You know what I do? I keep my nose the hell away from it because, untill I manage to educate myself thoroughly about it, I will NOT be able to tell who is lying and who is telling the truth, and I'll only end up being misinformed by these parrots.

And no, my dissing of the opening post is not an attempt at discussing the science involved, it's merely a simple exercise in logic, i.e. quote mining is NOT evidence! No expertise is necessary to know that much.

 

[monovillage]

So then you both agree with man made global warming. This is exactly what we are talking about, man made contributions that increase the temperature over where it would be naturally. We contribute both negatively and positively to temperature, but the positive contributions out weigh the negative.

Science continues to be done to understand our full impact on global climate, but we do know that we have a noticeable impact on global climate. It's not the earth that cares about the global climate, it's our current society that will have problems with climate change.

Where most people agree about human contributions to climate change, there's a huge step to "you agree with global warming so let's take these expensive, useless and fad driven steps to stop it" Kyoto is an example of a useless/expensive/fad. That's why it was defeated in the U.S. Senate in a bipartisan vote of 95-0.

There should be two separate debates about climate change/Global Warming, one should be the science and the other should be the politics/policy. Good luck on that.

 

[cybrsage]

So then you both agree with man made global warming. This is exactly what we are talking about, man made contributions that increase the temperature over where it would be naturally. We contribute both negatively and positively to temperature, but the positive contributions out weigh the negative.

Science continues to be done to understand our full impact on global climate, but we do know that we have a noticeable impact on global climate. It's not the earth that cares about the global climate, it's our current society that will have problems with climate change.

Yes, but we affect it approximately as much as my peeing in the ocean affects ocean levels. It is not worth destroying economies over.

 

[cybrsage]

What claim?

You claimed I created a straw man. I said you need to support that claim. Have you forgotten about your claim that quickly?