Climategate 2.0

[JSt0rm]

it's a hoax. We all know it. Even the eco-KOOKS know it. It's all about creating revenue from taxes and endless tax payer funded grants to study "nothing" for ever.

Thats not how science works though. Different labs compete with each other to make break thrus and they get more and more money the better they are at this. Dont you think that in this environment some lab would break the mold?

 

[akahoovy]

Thats not how science works though. Different labs compete with each other to make break thrus and they get more and more money the better they are at this. Dont you think that in this environment some lab would break the mold?

Not if there's money in it. If most of the labs involved are in favor of saying AWG exists to continue to get money for their work, then a few single labs against these colluding labs will be in the minority of providing evidence, and not likely to be listened to. The problem with this is that there is so much data to look at, coming to a conclusion is difficult. So, with the science being so vague, these labs start to make themselves out as oracles.

 

[NeoV]

" 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....

 

[IGBT]

Not being a Climatologist I have to rely on what expertise I can bring to the topic along with a bit of 'horse sense'...

I think moving toward a Greener means to generate power, and etc. is a good thing because of the folks who have a lot of what we may need are not us... It is about creating the demand to develop and implement Green stuff as part of an economic up tick. A move away from Exxon to Greenthumb.

So... I don't care if it is true or false. It makes sense to default in the true family... To assume it to be true and therefore move toward the logical and away from what funds the opposite... assuming there is an effort against Climate Warming by those who would be economically affected.

It's never a good idea to formulate public policy on a hoax. Alarmist eco-KOOKS need to go to jail.

 

[cybrsage]

Not to jail, just remove their funding and they will vanish.

 

[cybrsage]

When those who believe the Earth is being killed by global warming give up all cow products (beef, milk, leather), I will start to take them seriously. Since the methane produced by cow flatulence is FAR FAR more damaging than CO2, cows should no longer be raised.

Steaks are just to yummy, though, so the Earth be damned...we need to tax people instead, amirite?

 

[NeoV]

ahh...when all of your other bullet points are shot down, just go to the next one on the list...the 'cows' one this time, huh?

"While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 2.8% of the warming CO2 contributes. This is not to say methane can be ignored - reducing methane levels is definitely a goal to pursue. The good news is since the early 1990's, the trend in increasing methane has slowed down and even leveled off in the last few years"

Next? How about telling us that Neptune is getting warmer, so it can't be anything man is doing?

 

[palehorse]

ahh...when all of your other bullet points are shot down, just go to the next one on the list...the 'cows' one this time, huh?

"While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 2.8% of the warming CO2 contributes. This is not to say methane can be ignored - reducing methane levels is definitely a goal to pursue. The good news is since the early 1990's, the trend in increasing methane has slowed down and even leveled off in the last few years"

Next? How about telling us that Neptune is getting warmer, so it can't be anything man is doing?

Are higher taxes and spending more billions the answers? Has there been any measurable reduction in the warming rate given the increased taxes already levied, or the untold billions of tax dollars already spent on "solutions"?

 

[sandorski]

Are higher taxes and spending more billions the answers? Has there been any measurable reduction in the warming rate given the increased taxes already levied, or the untold billions of tax dollars already spent on "solutions"?

Maybe. Science notes the problem(too much GHG emissions) and what needs to be done to correct it(lower GHG emissions). It is up to Politicians, Society, and Industry to implement the solution, whatever that may be.

 

[yllus]

Are higher taxes and spending more billions the answers? Has there been any measurable reduction in the warming rate given the increased taxes already levied, or the untold billions of tax dollars already spent on "solutions"?

Creating economic incentives to pollute less probably are the only answer. It's the handing that money over to random third world countries via Kyoto Part Deux that I'm not on board with.

 

[TheVrolok]

It always blows my mind when I realize that there are still a large number of people who do not believe that humans have had any impact on global warming.

 

[cybrsage]

ahh...when all of your other bullet points are shot down, just go to the next one on the list...the 'cows' one this time, huh?

"While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 2.8% of the warming CO2 contributes. This is not to say methane can be ignored - reducing methane levels is definitely a goal to pursue. The good news is since the early 1990's, the trend in increasing methane has slowed down and even leveled off in the last few years"

Next? How about telling us that Neptune is getting warmer, so it can't be anything man is doing?

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:

Methane is about 21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) by weight (see box below). Methane's chemical lifetime in the atmosphere is approximately 12 years. Methane’s relatively short atmospheric lifetime, coupled with its potency as a greenhouse gas, makes it a candidate for mitigating global warming over the near-term (i.e., next 25 years or so).

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

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

 

[cybrsage]

It always blows my mind when I realize that there are still a large number of people who do not believe that humans have had any impact on global warming.

No one believes that. I have personally raised the level of liquid in the ocean by peeing in it once.

Was my impact negligable? Yes. Just like mankind's effect on global warming.

 

[LunarRay]

It's never a good idea to formulate public policy on a hoax. Alarmist eco-KOOKS need to go to jail.

Hoax... or not my premise is based on the established economic facts regarding our oil importation for use in what ever power generation or plastics or what ever it may be used for.

I'd like to see us move toward some form of Public Works or incentive program(s) to establish Solar, Wind, Tidal or any technology that creates employment opportunities while also reducing our dependence on foreign oil... We have coal and gas and oil here that can last for quite awhile so we can be self sustaining with addition of Green stuff during a transitional phase.
More importantly is the expectation that nations like China will be increasing their demand for oil and in our current economic situation the likelihood of the dollar being the denominator for oil ending seems plausible, ergo, we'll be looking at this from a 'must' pov in time.

I don't know the truth of the motivator 'Climate Warming' but I've seen what seems reasonably determined calculations. None of these are without critics however. I can't determine the truth by deciding from two camps what seems to be equally reasonable 'evidence'... So, I will always default to what seems best to me regardless of the truth...
You may know based on your own intellectual pursuit regarding this but I've to rely on the folks I know to be honest scientific minds... on both sides...

 

[NeoV]

cyber - no one has said there aren't natural cycles - what's been said is it's ignorant to think man can't impact these natural cycles.

Cyber - also - no one has denied Methane can become a problem - particularly if the vast amounts of it in the perma-frost in Siberia is released - but that doesn't diminish anything in the CO2 discussion either.

"Creating economic incentives to pollute less probably are the only answer. It's the handing that money over to random third world countries via Kyoto Part Deux that I'm not on board with." - Agree 100%

 

[TheVrolok]

No one believes that. I have personally raised the level of liquid in the ocean by peeing in it once.

Was my impact negligable? Yes. Just like mankind's effect on global warming.

Allow me to rephrase then, tt always blows my mind when I realize that there are still a large number of people who do not believe that humans have had more than a negligible impact on global warming.

 

[palehorse]

It always blows my mind when I realize that there are still a large number of people who do not believe that humans have had any impact on global warming.

Why? There's been no concrete evidence that we have -- IOW, no direct correlation. I'm of the belief that we may have made a very minimal contribution to the climate as a whole, but that the majority of the warming and other changes are completely natural. Not a single study, to date, has convinced me otherwise.

That said, I have no problem doing some things, and following some regulations, to protect the environment; but, the second you start talking about carbon credits, cap&tax, or some other extremist/expensive/excessive nonsense, I'm going to laugh in your face and walk away...

 

[cybrsage]

Allow me to rephrase then, tt always blows my mind when I realize that there are still a large number of people who do not believe that humans have had more than a negligible impact on global warming.

Why should the truth blow your mind?

 

[cybrsage]

cyber - no one has said there aren't natural cycles - what's been said is it's ignorant to think man can't impact these natural cycles.

Cyber - also - no one has denied Methane can become a problem - particularly if the vast amounts of it in the perma-frost in Siberia is released - but that doesn't diminish anything in the CO2 discussion either.

It does when those who want to legislate how much CO2 other people can emit refuse to control their own impact via the FAR FAR worse methane...while proclaiming global warming is a menace.

When someone refuses to change their life on their own, why should I listen to them when they demand I change my life?

"Creating economic incentives to pollute less probably are the only answer. It's the handing that money over to random third world countries via Kyoto Part Deux that I'm not on board with." - Agree 100%

Kyoto was an abortion. It pretended that China and India's pollution was not harmful to the planet. Any treaty that pretends the pollution from some nations is not harmful and therefor should not be part of the deal is not a treaty any sane person should support.

I assume you are for shutting down the beef and milk industries, or taxing the crap (heh...) out of them for their role in "global warming", right?

 

[TheVrolok]

Why? There's been no concrete evidence that we have -- IOW, no direct correlation. I'm of the belief that we may have made a very minimal contribution to the climate as a whole, but that the majority of the warming and other changes are completely natural. Not a single study, to date, has convinced me otherwise.

Science has made enormous inroads in understanding climate change and its causes, and is beginning to help develop a strong understanding of current and potential impacts that will affect people today and in coming decades. This understanding is crucial because it allows decision makers to place climate change in the context of other large challenges facing the nation and the world. There are still some uncertainties, and there always will be in understanding a complex system like Earth’s climate. Nevertheless, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position

No concrete evidence? The NRC doesn't know what it's talking about? Obviously you're a denier, and you'll cite the typical non-sense which attempts to call all the clear evidence into question. It's just a shame. Hell, read the list of supporting agencies. The best dissension you get is "noncommittal," not even clear disagreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[cybrsage]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Did you also know that, for hundreds of years there was no dissenting opinion on Newton's failed Universal Law of Gravity?

According to you, that means it has not failed...that gravity is transferred instantly and undiminished to all bodies in the universe. Of couse, we know this is wrong, but since there was no dissenting opinion it cannot be wrong...

So...are you going to keep using that logical fallacy?

 

[TheVrolok]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Did you also know that, for hundreds of years there was no dissenting opinion on Newton's failed Universal Law of Gravity?

According to you, that means it has not failed...that gravity is transferred instantly and undiminished to all bodies in the universe. Of couse, we know this is wrong, but since there was no dissenting opinion it cannot be wrong...

So...are you going to keep using that logical fallacy?

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. 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. You don't think there are groups trying desperately on a daily basis to prove and publish clear scientific opposition to man made climate change? Or do you think they're sitting there going, "Nah, no need to try, because everyone already knows that the IPCC is a bunch of bunk even though it has been scientifically unopposed." I agree that appeal to authority is absolutely a type of logical fallacy, but it is not entirely appropriate in analogy you describe.

 

[shira]

Not if there's money in it. If most of the labs involved are in favor of saying AWG exists to continue to get money for their work, then a few single labs against these colluding labs will be in the minority of providing evidence, and not likely to be listened to. The problem with this is that there is so much data to look at, coming to a conclusion is difficult. So, with the science being so vague, these labs start to make themselves out as oracles.

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.

 

[NeoV]

don't bother Shira, they never answer that question - it's been brought up in this thread as well - but they are quick to point out that some emails were deleted....

 

[cybrsage]

I'd like to see us move toward some form of Public Works or incentive program(s) to establish Solar, Wind, Tidal or any technology that creates employment opportunities while also reducing our dependence on foreign oil... We have coal and gas and oil here that can last for quite awhile so we can be self sustaining with addition of Green stuff during a transitional phase.

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