Deleting correspondence and "losing" raw data is viewed as blatant by some.
Climategate has been thoroughly debunked, but facts just don't matter to the right-wing, and the so-called liberal media doesn't bother because controversy sells, and non-controversy...doesn't.
Deleting correspondence and "losing" raw data is viewed as blatant by some.
Frankly, this kind of attitude just isn't helpful if you're trying to win people over to environmentalism.
For one thing, if anybody in science talks about a "consensus" of any kind bells should be going off. Science thrives of dissent, and any field with no dissent is stagnant. If science can't stand up to thorough questioning then it is no good to begin with. Some of the claims coming from the most prominent spokespeople for the Global Warming movement are demonstrably untrue, alarmist claptrap. Al Gore springs immediately to mind. You have to be able to acknowledge the lies and exaggerations within the movement before somebody on the other side of the aisle can even being listen.
All that being said, environmentalism is important. I've never met anybody who thinks recycling or energy independence is a bad idea. We just all have different ways to go about it. Framing the discussion in terms of whether or not some abstract concept called "global warming" (what is that, anyway, like El Nino?) just puts the fulcrum in the wrong position. The debate itself becomes a distraction. "if there's global warming how come its cold?" or "in fifty years the polar ice caps will melt and Florida will become submerged." This kind of idiocy isn't helpful.
Environmentalism should not be pinned to global warming. We should focus on issues of sustainability and responsible environmental stewardship.
As duece has pointed out they were unfounded allegations whereas I can take virtually any denialist website and show you the cherry picked data and misrepresentations and for not a few the money trail back to big oil and energy
Are we to pretend that warmist scientists don't have a vested interest in getting the next grant, or that the money trail from them does not lead back to government officials and/or individuals who are heavily invested in "green" energy? That's a pretty disengenuous argument.
I'll have a look back at the "unfounded" allegations, but I will tell you this. If I am doing a major research project, I keep copies of my raw data. It's kind of important....
Are we to pretend that warmist scientists don't have a vested interest in getting the next grant, or that the money trail from them does not lead back to government officials and/or individuals who are heavily invested in "green" energy? That's a pretty disengenuous argument.
I'll have a look back at the "unfounded" allegations, but I will tell you this. If I am doing a major research project, I keep copies of my raw data. It's kind of important....
The majority of this board's members are conservative, and conservatives are more likely to disagree with AGW theory. (how this became a right/left issue is beyond me)
So, I'm wondering what the general distribution of the skepticism is. I'm sure some of you would like to say "everything, the scientists are lying about everything!" but that's not really an answer. Being skeptical of CO2's warming influence doesn't make sense if you don't believe the world is getting warmer. The main categories of contention I've come across:
1) The existence of the greenhouse effect
2) That the world is getting warmer
3) That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is affecting the current warming trend
4) Mankind as contributing to increases in CO2 levels
5) The calculations of how much influence CO2 has, relative to other influences
6) The impact of AGW/a warming climate
7) I accept AGW theory
8) Other
Also, please expand on your view.
Frankly, this kind of attitude just isn't helpful if you're trying to win people over to environmentalism.
You can only explain something so many times before you get frustrated with people ignoring your logic.
I first looked at who was trying to espouse this idea, and to find Al Gore as the leading media focus icon should be a wake-up call. Mr. Gore is a politician, traveling around in his SUV caravan and preaching some non-science mantra, with "fear" being the leading factor, it was a no-brainer. For those who've been around the block a few times, the era of the 70's, should offer clues. It was the idea that a looming Ice Age was to destroy the planet back then.
Learning that the ratio of scientists who actually side with this fable compared to the real science observers who oppose, it's a 1 to 30 checkmate. See Petition. Then look at the government funding behind the scenes.
It's not like this type of bologna hasn't existed before, Copernicus and Galileo should be prime examples of historic "heresy." But what changes things today, evidence is no longer a qualifying factor. Illustrate just one "credible" witness in a particular subject (with no facts or scientific evidence) and the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic.
Science today has become what one desires to believe! WOW!! God help us if this type of idealism moves into the Judiciary System!
I voted other. I do not believe in the man made global warming theory. I actually believe that climate change is naturally occurring regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.
I agree 100% with the fact that its not man made. But I believe it is due to the fact that Earth is moving closer to the sun.
Hey, I sympathize. And it's one thing when we're talking about an issue of partisan politics. But with something as important as environmentalism, it's much more important to win people over than to score points in a debate.
....
I admit, that's a new one.
It's also wrong. The earth is not getting closer to the sun. In fact, the earth will slowly increase its orbital distance as the sun loses mass.
I agree 100% with the fact that its not man made. But I believe it is due to the fact that Earth is moving closer to the sun.
It took restraint not to say something more drastic to that lol
You have no idea how many times I had to retype that post to avoid an infraction.
....
I admit, that's a new one.
It's also wrong. The earth is not getting closer to the sun. In fact, the earth will slowly increase its orbital distance as the sun loses mass.
In 1980 with gigabytes of data you might decide differently, especially when you can easily access the raw data at any time.
Everything else you just wrote is a conspiracy theory. Every scientist is dependent on his next grant. Clearly, we should shut down all of our nuclear power plants because the science behind them is unreliable!! They'd have twice as much research to do if they discovered global warming was not a result of CO2, because now there's a giant amount of energy entering the system and nobody knows where the hell it's coming from.
I mean, it's not like we'd suddenly lose interest in what our climate has done, is doing, and is going to do, just because it turned out to be not our fault.
edit: Also, you ignored the part about the blatant cherry picking and deception, which leads to the blogosphere spouting things like "global warming stopped in 1995!" or "in the 70's, the scientific consensus was we were headed for an ice age!"
1) That petition project comes from a right-wing group that is a known shill for the oil industry and tobacco industry.
No, it's not actually a new one. Has the Milankovitch Theory of orbital variances been disproven?
It's pretty straight forward. Temperature readings in the United States are not kept by some British university's research department. (CRU is at the U of East Angalia) The National Weather Service has that data. Similarly, if you want the raw data for temperature stations in Germany you should talk to whatever weather service operates in Germany.I'll look into what you're saying here. If I'm wrong about it, I'll admit it. If I'm not, I'll expect the same from you...
I beg to differ. Many scientists would still have a great deal of interest, but many of their sources of funding would lose interest altogether if they were not able to use the information to their benefit.
I didn't ignore it. I just didn't respond to it because I don't care. Cherry picking and deception happens on both sides. I think you know that...besides, in the 70's, they did say that we were headed for an ice age. Personally, I think that's much more likely than warming (when looking at the historical trend) and would be much more devastating on the population.
And so did the researchers who got data from CRU - which is why CRU felt it did not need to keep all that data. This was in the eighties, remember the paper files, the BIG floppies that nothing can read anymore?
And are you REALLY telling me that the poor schmuck in Antarctica freezing his tushie off counting snowflakes is so wedded to that job that he is going to "cook the books" to keep it.
And it STILL gets back to the sheer size of a "conspiracy" to defraud that you are suggesting.
If this were only a couple of scientists - maybe, if it were a hundred scientists - less likely but it is not even just a couple of thousand it is tens of thousands AT LEAST - particularly if you look over the history of the accumulation of knowledge from the late 1800's to today - were all of THOSE scientists also "on the graft"?
This has only been an issue demagogued by politicians and green energy tycoons for the last few of decades, no. I'm not suspicious of them. And again, for the record, I believe that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. I'll appreciate it if you and Deuce stop trying to convince me on that point.As Deuce has previously pointed out some of the pivotal research into CO2 and infrared actually occurred in the 1950's funded by military science to determine the best guidance systems for missiles - it had NOTHING to do with today's climatology are they too worthy of derision as part of your conspiracy theory?
So please connect the dots - how does a scientist in Australia doing research into atmospheric composition at Cape Grim going to profit from some engineer in China making better solar panels?
Axial tilt precesses and eccentricity changes, but the earth's average orbital distance is not decreasing. If you have evidence to the contrary, please show me, because it means that I'm probably doing some of this astronomy homework incorrectly.
Perhaps the suggestion of the earlier poster was that we may be entering a "point" of one of the particular "cycles" in which the Earth is closer to the Sun than during a typical revolution?From the site:
Milankovitch Cycles
Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers.
It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.
I disagree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?