One big release of emails discrediting a climate research unit, and all of the advocates of anthropogenic global warming is now discredited? Surely you're joking. (Hint: not every advocate is in that unit)

I'll note that I'm somewhat disturbed by Hadley's comment on the trick though, but the context at which he sent his emails matters, and we'll have to examine the paper for faults - it is the paper after all that matters, not what the scientists' opinions are.

They're human too, and in a (what they expected to be a) private setting, they chose to go on rants against people who disagreed with them. Shocker, I know!

Heck, even presupposing that AGW is false, how do you propose we stop acidification of our oceans due to the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 21 2009, 09:59 AM

Oh, did you read the data other than paraphrasing whatever others found? I'll admit beforehand, I have not read the 64 megabytes of data, it is simply way too much data for me to handle

First, you disbelieve the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Fair enough. Made any steps to prove it other than shouting at the rooftops that it's false?

Have you finished reading all the links? I've been following skeptics for a while now, and right now I'm leaning towards it being more real than not. Come, change my mind with evidence, of clear conspiracy, scientific fraud, collusion, other than 2-3 emails where the people who advocate it being true b*tching about the skeptics (as if the other side doesn't do it.... hmmm, wait, aren't you doing it yourself?)

Please, tell me why it's so damning, instead of pointing me at the 64mb worth of data, and then saying you'll find out the truth there, because I bet you have not even looked through 10% of it yet, if at all. Provide some original commentary instead of repeating the party line or posting links. Convince us that it's true, instead of saying if you look for it you'll find it.

Here's a counterpoint, for balance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...1/the-cru-hack/

And answer the question about ocean acidification please, I'd be interested to know.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 21 2009, 08:25 PM

Why am I in denial? I've considered the possibility that I am, but have you?

Same team? You sure? Or are suddenly all people with PhDs with an interest in global warming just part of a giant conspiracy? Sure I accept that if they're guilty they might want to avoid it. (Heck I don't even have a PhD for goodness' sakes, nor am I studying for one right now, heck I'm not even interested in any climate science at all)

Why the heck do you think that I'm of their ilk? I'm not even certain that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but I'm leaning towards it after being shown the evidence. All you've done is come in, make various claims, most unsubstantiated, throw in multiple accusations without showing any proof whatsoever, throw in a conspiracy about 'my ilk', people I have no relation to or know, or have heard about until I read your links, and claim that I am in denial.

Stop making silly accusations about me [edited word out], and if you want to make an attempt at convincing me, perhaps you should actually start showing scientific evidence that the results were faked, no, the emails don't work, because if it were truly faked you could go back to the original paper and show the flaws in the methodology.

All you have done is say these fellas are discredited, that because of this, their research output is discredited. That's not exactly true, because the papers will live and die based on the data and methodology used, which is the important scientific principle here, and whether it's acceptable or not, not whatever their beliefs are. Stop concentrating on the beliefs and start concentrating on the science itself if you want to make a strong case.

Again, I say that this is, for me, the most disturbing (or you would call damning) piece:



But RealClimate seems to downplay it by putting it into some context, which is most important don't you think?


Also, you have not addressed the question of how is the WHOLE of climate science discredited from just having ONE research unit's (out of many) dodgy looking emails leaked.

What's with you and the religious language of choosing people to live and die? Preventing some form of global warming isn't choosing who to live and die, heck if you suppose that it's real it might even prevent people from dying based on their geographical position due to climate change.

Start concentrating on the science, cut down on the conspiracies please, if you want to convince me at all, and please, if you don't want to alienate people who are on the fence, stop attacking them personally. What you are doing now is not making a concrete argument based on the science, but throwing in all kinds of conspiracies. Start working on the evidence, and you might just win me over.

I'm going to pose this question for the third time, since you seem to have missed it the first 2 times: What do you propose to do about ocean acidification, which is a byproduct of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere?

---

Added on November 21, 2009, 11:23 pmThe world has been cooling down in the past 8 years, except that all of these 8 years have been the 14 warmest years measured (directly, I presume) on record. Have you ever considered that for context?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 12:20 AM

Why am I going into circular arguments? Either you're right, that global warming is one big hoax, or the advocates of climate change are right, that it's real. I've considered the possibility that either of these sides are wrong, but you're not seemed to even accept that possibility, except in going into ad hominem attacks about me going on intellectual wanking. Where's the science behind that except in your accusations?

What's so circular about that?

I have not dismissed any evidence, except in providing some context. Note that I agree that the emails are disturbing, but I'm just saying over and over again that you need the context at which it's being said.

Again: What about ocean acidification?

I apologise for calling you that, and I will retract it from my post [I tend to use it way too much anyway in real life, for both good or bad]. I was, least to say, not the happiest person after being accused to be of some ilk which I never identified myself with, and being accused of being in denial. I hope you notice that it's the only time I've actually gone into a personal attack, which is quite outnumbered by you, if I dare say such a thing I hope you do the same and retract your accusations.

Also, the contributors to the blogs are not from the institution, though it's likely that they know the scientists personally, so I am not using the accused's own words to defend the accused. I am using the words of people who know the accused to defend them, as you would say, or as I'd see it, provide the context in which it was mentioned. I am not trying to show that I know more, I am saying that your claims are quite outrageous really, beyond what the evidence from the links you have provided would support. I'm not trying to lead you into circles at all, I'm trying to argue that your claims are unsubstantiated based on the evidence you have presented, and I'd like you to show me stronger evidence that substantiates your claims, scientifically, that shows that their claims are false, i.e. global warming is indeed a hoax.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question about ocean acidification yet . That has nothing to do with global warming, but is also a side effect of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which I hope we all agree with.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 02:01 AM

Okay, great to hear you talking without the accusations Now let's get to the statement you posted above:

I'd like to ask about this claim:



Suppose indeed this is true, that the Earth's geographical pole is shifting towards the magnetic north. So what would happen is that the poles, the Arctic and the Antarctic would shift towards the Equator, and we do get ice melting on the poles, raising sea levels.

I'm assuming he's talking about the poles about which the Earth rotates, not the magnetic pole which has been known to wander about

My question is: Shouldn't this be completely measurable using our satellites (since if they're in some fixed circular/elliptical orbit), we'd be able to notice changes in their positions relative to our positions on the planet? Since we've had a hot period in the past 40 years or so, why hasn't any evidence come forward yet from satellites, which have been orbiting the Earth pretty reliably since the late 1980's?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 02:42 AM

Sorry, just thought up a way on how it would heat up the entire surface, which sounds quite plausible, just posted another direction exploring a way to make measurements of pole shifts above.

Take a look and perhaps we might be able to even devise an experiment to measure such a thing, if it exists.

Well, the Telegraph is pretty much mainstream media really, but I think they're electing to wait and see and get their facts right. Besides, quite a few tabloids in the UK are already going ahead with this.

It doesn't matter whether a scientist is a scumbag or not, it's the scientific output that matters. Newton wasn't the most friendly scientist around, but that doesn't distract from his achievements.

But that's not really the point. Surely if there are enough people who believe in the pole shift theory, they can surely fund a paper for it, given that satellites are pretty much everywhere.

Another plausible explanation for why the scientists don't bother with pole shifts is because they don't think it's a viable theory. I don't think they're trying to suppress it in any way, it's more of them not being bothered enough to want to measure how valid the pole shift hypothesis is right now.

But really, why do you think man-made global warming is bunk, based on some scientific principles, if possible? I'd really be interested to know, because I can follow the scientific plausibility of CO2 emissions causing the Earth to warm up:

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forc...ages/image7.gif

That's the absorption bands of major greenhouse gases. I'm quite lazy to do the math now, but if you look at the lowest column, the total atmosphere one, you'll notice a low absorption in the regions 0.3 to 0.7 microns. If I remember my physics right, that's exactly the visible spectrum of light. The high absorption to the left corresponds to UV light - that's due to ozone. To the left we have infrared light, which is pretty much the radiated heat - which is the thing we're concerned about.

You'll notice that water vapour is quite a strong greenhouse gas (probably even stronger than CO2) (absorption peaks beyond 0.7 microns), but the nice thing about water vapour is that it gets cycled quickly into a liquid when it rains, and when they clump up into clouds, they have a reflective effect that reduces the amount of heat absorbed. It's believed that the amount of water vapour has been somewhat constant, since it's constantly recycled in the water cycle, and its effects have been somewhat accounted for, so its effects are quite stable.

Carbon dioxide however is a different kettle of fish; it never condenses, so whatever CO2 you pump into the air today will probably stay there for quite a while (there is a carbon cycle, but we're rapidly putting more carbon into the air than can be absorbed, hence the measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations increasing). It is this absorption of the infra red by CO2 that's the key to man-made global warming, which is what its advocates believe. I hope you find this perfectly scientifically plausible.


So yes, that's a short introduction on how plausible CO2 emissions cause global warming, which is real, measurable effect in labs. Now, the argument by sceptics is that this warming effect is swamped by other factors; e.g. the pole shift you used above. I've also seen claims that it's the solar flux that's the main driver of warming, i.e. CO2 emissions are not the main cause of warming, and any other effect swamps it so much that we don't need to bother with CO2 emissions, and that's where I've seen the debate rage, where man-made global warming advocates (the scientists above too, it seems) claim that CO2 is the main factor, while others claim that CO2 isn't the main factor, and thus we cannot control how the Earth will warm, if the main source of warming is say, from the changing flux of the Sun instead.

But CO2 has another effect; it helps acidify the oceans. We learn in chemistry that CO2 (and other 'acidic' gases), when absorbed by water produces a weak acid. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an acidification of the oceans, which is a dangerous thing because it has the potential to change/disrupt ecosystems in the oceans greatly, and will disrupt a great food source for many many people. This effect has nothing to do with global warming, but is very dangerous too.

I know you do think that climate is changing, but what you seem to be claiming is that it's not man made.

1) Agreed
2) I've looked at papers about the algae bloom idea (by sprinkling iron into the oceans) but it seems that what happens is that it just attracts fish to the area which then cut the number of algae. Trees may act as carbon sinks but right now we're unfortunately going through deforestation instead of reforestation, if we are to have any hope of cutting down CO2 levels. The thing about carbon tax is that they wish to tax non-renewable carbon dioxide sources - fossil fuels. You won't get carbon neutral sources, e.g. trees for firewood being taxed because it's simply part of the carbon cycle

3) Not exactly. You have to account for the rate of change of the level of CO2. The rate of change of CO2 concentration/temperatures during the past periods have been much slower than what we have today. Having a 3-6c change in 1-2 centuries is a very disruptive change. E.g. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png . Notice that the steep gradients occur over a few thousand years, which is much longer than the 1-2 centuries being mentioned here. Sure we might in the end see life thriving, but you'll see a lot of ecosystems wiped out, local climate changes for example causing droughts in places where you don't expect them to happen, i.e. local climate becomes unpredictable, we don't know which part's going to get a lot of rain, which part will become very dry. This has the potential of wiping out food sources from agriculture. Sure humans will probably survive, but if you get variations in local climate you will get a lot of deaths and ecosystems getting wiped out (new ones will come out once the survivors manage to settle in favourable places in the new climate)

4) That isn't true either, Al Gore doesn't have a patent on those things