Climategate

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Just like AGW. Some of the disaster scenarios should have played out by now.

Disaster scenarios, like weather, are not climate. Predicting what will happen as a result of warming is more difficult because the systems and factors are more complex. Just because this specific region didn't experience an increased temperature or this specific species didn't experience pressure or just because that particular area had more snowfall doesn't mean the overall temperature of the planet isn't increasing.

In the case of AGW they already have predictions that have come to fruition, in the case of that guy's paper he's speculating on something that hasn't arrived yet.

Originally Posted by zuluking

My point here is that the real issue isn't sun-exclusivity arguments on this topic; it is greenhouse gas exclusivity.

No one says it's greenhouse gas exclusively either. There's lots of factors, each one which contributes to the final result.

But they're obviously important, without the little bit of greenhouse gasses we have now the earth would be a frozen ball.

[Red Slinger]

I don't really understand the argument of the climate change skeptics. Do they argue that we should continue to polute the atmosphere? Do they argue that there are no negative consequences? I understand why industry rallies against it (ie. money) but why do 'regular' people? Is it just a matter of principle around truth and transparency or something else? What exactly is the downside to polluting less?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Thor

What scenarios are those?

Look them up. The Maldives should be mostly submerged, shouldn't they? ie. not weather

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by zuluking

"But there are many papers that support the sun's contribution to current warming being small to minimal:" - this was the point I was challenging. Now you say nobody disputes the sun factor. Just look up to the top of the page your post is on.

Who said I was confusing sun-exclusive argument with solar cycles. Did you read the paper? It wasn't inferring sun-exclusivity either. My point here is that the real issue isn't sun-exclusivity arguments on this topic; it is greenhouse gas exclusivity.

I apologize, then. The way you said it made it seem like you were twisting your opponent's meaning to "changes in the sun's output have no relevance to Earth's climate".

[Thor]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Look them up. The Maldives should be mostly submerged, shouldn't they? ie. not weather

You made the statement, its your job to list them.

Btw there are plenty of people losing their island homes as sea level is rising, are you denying the sea is rising too?

[LChoy]

Just my 2 cents:

I believe in climate change and that humans have taken over as a significant driver to that. However, I think one of the factors that people have towards resisting the idea is to what extent we humans want to control this change.

What I mean is that I'm all for reducing the pollution we send up into the air, the dumping of chemicals and waste into the environment, and generally take steps to leave our environment in the same condition for the next generation. However, with or without us, climate change is not something that we will stop. In the geological sense, our climate runs on a cycle. Glacier will melt, islands will be submerged, deserts become forest and vice versa. We will have another ice age, maybe not in our generation or any time in the near future, but it will happen. Looking at our fossil records, animals will go extinct especially those that fail to adapt to changing conditions.

Maybe it's a mainstream thing or it's something I'm generalizing, but I think it's unreasonable for us humans to believe that the climate we live in right now will remain unchanged forever. Still, I think it's of mankinds benenfit to do our part to make the world a better place on the areas that we can control.

Just my thoughts

[photon]

Who expects the climate we live in right now to remain unchanged forever?

We're in an interglacial period.

[GP_Matt]

My concern with global warming is not with the science, it is with the solution. I am not a big fan of damming more rivers for electricity and I don't think we are going to be able to replace our energy generation with wind and solar in the near future.
I also have trouble trusting the international community to enact something that will accomplish the task. Every nation is looking out for their own interests first and foremost so it seems like they are all waiting for everyone else to suffer through a reduction in GHG's so they can see how it will affect their economies. We see the oilsands being attacked from countries that obtain a large portion of their electricity from coal.
My second concern is that I see AGW as one of several environmental problems that we need to solve. In my mind the state of the water bodies of the world is an equally pressing problem. There are a lot of rivers and lakes on earth that are deemed too polluted to swim in let alone drink from. Massive amounts of waste are dumped in lakes and oceans. If cities like Victoria find it acceptable to dump raw sewage into the ocean can you even imagine what the Chinese deem an acceptable level of waste.

[troutman]

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...titute-climate

Climategate sequel? Scientist lies to get Heartland Institute documents.

Climate scientist, Peter Gleick, lied to acquire – then leak to the press – documents from the Heartland Institute, an organization that argues that global warming poses no threat.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...tute-documents

Heartland's leaked documents show how climate skepticism spreads

Leaked internal documents from The Heartland Institute show how one organization is working to promote global warming denial.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...ticism-spreads

The Heartland Institute's climate conference reveals the motives of global-warming sceptics.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/475423b.html

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by troutman

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...titute-climate

Climategate sequel? Scientist lies to get Heartland Institute documents.

Climate scientist, Peter Gleick, lied to acquire – then leak to the press – documents from the Heartland Institute, an organization that argues that global warming poses no threat.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...tute-documents

Heartland's leaked documents show how climate skepticism spreads

Leaked internal documents from The Heartland Institute show how one organization is working to promote global warming denial.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...ticism-spreads

The Heartland Institute's climate conference reveals the motives of global-warming sceptics.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/475423b.html

troutman, the reality of this situation is that a prominent AGW scientist has disgraced himself by obtaining docs from Heartland fraudulently and also (likely) authored a document which blatantly misrepresents and lies about Heartland activities.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...climate-clash/

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by zuluking

troutman, the reality of this situation is that a prominent AGW scientist has disgraced himself by obtaining docs from Heartland fraudulently and also (likely) authored a document which blatantly misrepresents and lies about Heartland activities.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...climate-clash/

The authenticity of most of the released Heartland documents has been independently confirmed. While the method of acquiring these documents was a bit dubious, it isn't worse than how the original climategate emails were obtained - and unlike the emails, these documents aren't out of context.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

The authenticity of most of the released Heartland documents has been independently confirmed. While the method of acquiring these documents was a bit dubious, it isn't worse than how the original climategate emails were obtained - and unlike the emails, these documents aren't out of context.

Cool - then you can explain how the climategate emails were obtained. And the climategate emails were entire threads of discussion that were totally in context. The Heartland documents don't even support the wild claims that are being made against them - the only doc that is "alarming" is fabricated. And Heartland has stated that all the docs (except the fake) are their documents. There was no need (and, in fact, wasn't) an independent verification - you just made that up.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...vs-climategate

[bomba]

Are we still debating this? I thought junk science behind climate change had been debunked?

[photon]

Originally Posted by bomba

Are we still debating this? I thought junk science behind climate change had been debunked?

Yup, right around the time evolution was dis proven in favour of intelligent design.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Yup, right around the time evolution was dis proven in favour of intelligent design.

Oh, the irony of your signature.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Oh, the irony of your signature.

Oh the irony of you seeing irony.

(Stop reading what you wish into what I say)

[troutman]

Originally Posted by zuluking

troutman, the reality of this situation is that a prominent AGW scientist has disgraced himself by obtaining docs from Heartland fraudulently and also (likely) authored a document which blatantly misrepresents and lies about Heartland activities.

I agree with the first part. The forged document details are independently supported, so I don't see how it misrepresents anything about Heartland.

Please note, my post gives all sides plenty to chew on.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by troutman

I agree with the first part. The forged document details are independently supported, so I don't see how it misrepresents anything about Heartland.

Please note, my post gives all sides plenty to chew on.

I'm just saying that the forged document details have been debunked and are not supported by the legitimate Heartland documents.

I'm replying to this as I've been following this story since it broke and watched it collapse onto itself. I'm trying to correct some misrepresentations of the current situation that were not covered by your post.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh the irony of you seeing irony.

(Stop reading what you wish into what I say)

So you're not equating AGW with evolution and climate skepticism with intelligent design. My apologies for the misrepresentation.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I'm just saying that the forged document details have been debunked and are not supported by the legitimate Heartland documents.

I'm replying to this as I've been following this story since it broke and watched it collapse onto itself. I'm trying to correct some misrepresentations of the current situation that were not covered by your post.

Ok, show us, don't tell us. How have the details been debunked?