1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I got a question for you now, Techie...

    Are you here to derail the thread? Because all you've done here is point fingers at the membership. It's a thread crap. Techie's contribution - "You guys sure talk on and on, considering that you think it's settled."

    That about sum it up? You don't need to keep on, if that's all it is.
  2. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    No I was discussing the issue. The impact of climategate months later. If you think I'm missing something in my assessment, show me. If you think you were wrong, man up. No need to construct straw men and attack them or attempt to move the thread OT just for the sake of arguing.
  3. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I'm certainly not bringing up a straw man, Techie... Unless it wasn't you who said -

    All I have left to say is for having placed the "final nail" in the coffin a couple months ago, you are all are still very concerned with trying to prove it isn't real...:)


    I think whatever you decide to call it (GCC or GW) the majority of membership from the beginning did not agree that it was man made. At a minimum let's say that if Obama posted something here saying he believed GCC was caused by man and we need to do things to fight it he would not be greeted with a rousing beat of hail to the chief.


    I just haven't seen a shift at all. People here were generally not believers in Global Climate Change and nobody has changed that position.

    Sure looks like you're just using the thread to talk about the membership... which has been rather typical.
  4. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Global Affairs is a sample of people debating GCC/GW as much as anywhere else, I think the position/consensus of the players here is particularly relevant to the topic of the impact of climategate. My point being is that it's something that's been latched onto by people that already don't believe GCC/GW is man-made or are at least skeptical thereof, and therefore the impact has been muted. I'm not saying its bad or the people here are wrong on the GCC/GW issue (though I do dissent). It's just that I don't think it moved beyond the echo chamber.
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    From Walter at LGF who is NOT a denier but a man of integrity and science, he actually saw the computer code and the model CRU used. Today he writes:

    I don't know if this Harvard abstract will help.
    [Link: adsabs.harvard.edu...]
    And these guys are Russians, so it's probably junk science. (sarcasm)
    [Link: journals.cambridge.org...]
    And the best article that addresses you question is at the University Of East Anglia, the CRU, but surprisingly, they have shut down public access to a lot of their papers...
    [Link: www.cru.uea.ac.uk...]
    [Link: www.cru.uea.ac.uk...]
  7. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Let's discuss that in two years. Things like Climategate have much longer lasting impact. What you will see now is every time someone spouts something alarmist, it will be subjected to intense peer review from both sides of the aisle, where before that was just not the case. This is a good thing - it's how science is supposed to work.
  8. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Yeah, this is just getting started. This isn't a battle over the climate, this is a battle over information, and who controls it.
  9. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    I get that there are dissenting/alternative views in the scientific community. I think there always have been and I think the larger point is kind of flying over my head. Are you saying that these scientists that previously focused on GHGs are now focusing on other possible causes?
  10. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    As they should be?
  11. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    I mean I was just confused because when you kept saying they were "investigating climategate" I thought you were referring specifically to the e-mails, not to the science.
  12. Kluge

    Kluge Observing your world for over 50 years

    Ah, that's better.
    One more thing: This debate has taken on the personality of the debate about the worldbeing round circa 1492 and the debate whether the universe turns around the earth or not, circa Copernicus.
    There is evidence of climate change. The abandoned adobe cities in the southwest USA are, IMHO, places that could not have supported the population required to build them. The neighborhood where I lived in 1958, Shore Acres, Texas, was dry grass in sandy soil with palm trees and reeds, now it's lawns shaded by leafy desiduous trees. When I ride my motorcycle on a fast road through a suburb it's warmer than when the same road passes through natural areas. What good will it do for anyone
    debate what I see and feel?
    But there are worldwide strategic policies that will be influenced by climate change. Populations that live on meltwater from far away glaciers will thrive or perish if the faraway environment changes, their happiness will likely influence the quantity and skills of any terrorists their culture may produce.
    Even an inevitable non-anthropogenic climate change will have grave consequences because the quantity of available living space will change, and it will change even if the "global" average temperature does not, merely altering the distribution of climates will cause upheaval if it happens. Those who predict it well will profit, those who plan to profit will not promote your understanding of the issue and may even engage in a campaign of misinformation to keep you ignorant.
    Moral of the story: Don't take it personally, or to re-interpret a Commandment (not authored by me), "Thou shalt not take any graven image" nor become fixated with one climate model.
  13. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    Well....this story just won't go away:

    Climategate: a scandal that won’t go away - Telegraph

    So much for all that peer-review claims:

    [bl]The first report centred directly on the IPCC itself. When several of the more alarmist claims in its most recent 2007 report were revealed to be wrong and without any scientific foundation, the official response, not least from the IPCCs chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was to claim that everything in its report was peer-reviewed, having been confirmed by independent experts

    But a new study put this claim to the test. A team of 40 researchers from 12 countries, led by a Canadian analyst Donna Laframboise, checked out every one of the 18,531 scientific sources cited in the mammoth 2007 report. Astonishingly, they found that nearly a third of them 5,587 were not peer-reviewed at all, but came from newspaper articles, student theses, even propaganda leaflets and press releases put out by green activists and lobby groups. [/bl]
  14. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Gosh, what a shocker... NOT!
  15. Swamp Fox

    Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    Well, this would be a shocker to the GW true believers - if they opened their eyes and saw the truth.
  16. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  17. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

    Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes
  18. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Huge surprise, eh?

  19. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    Just to play devil's advocate, it will be interesting to see if by say, 2050 that climate change proves to be true. Then we just might need plans to deal with the weather change and seeing it as a 'political view' will really have done more harm than good.

    It shows that scientists need to be objective at all times even if they feel passionate about an issue.
  20. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Just because people lie about something doesn't make that something false. GW is going to be a valid or non-valid theory irrespective of people's political activism. I still have no idea if there is global warming, or if there is whether it's natural or man made or part of each. However I do believe that if there's any validity to the theory at all we should be looking for more weather extremes rather than mindlessly assuming it's just going to get a couple of degrees warmer.

Share This Page