Climate change deniers, doubters, and fence sitters: an honest question

[GIGObuster]

@Defero

Daniel Henninger on Climategate: Science Is Dying - WSJ

Sounds like certain threads on…er…the internet!

Give it up, global warming already had his Galileo, Callendar was ridiculed but later vindicated for proposing that CO2 was becoming an issue. Scientific organizations were convinced only after several years of confirming data and experiments.

Look for the Callendar saga here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

@Defero

Copy that! Most of us “deniers” are on that already. Can someone who’s been around a while tell me: was AGW hoax clarity considered a CT around here last year?

:rolleyes:

No, actually many tenacious skeptics before actually made **extreme **efforts in denying that they were following a CT like “Scientists are falsifying information and they know AGW is a crock”. It was actually because of the CRU email hack that that skeptic was revealed to be indeed a CT and a plain denier.

And that is because he refused to see he was had by the ones that made and used the emails to mislead people.

There was no hoax or conspiracy.

RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context

6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails

So, are you a McExpert?

[Defero]

I can’t say it any better than this:

http://blogs.aip.org/CLEAN/2009/12/energy-and-climate-research-hacked-emails-and-controversy.html

Lew Wolfgang | December 5, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply
I searched the aip.org web site for the word “Climategate” and this is was the only hit. That this references only the biased RealClimate.org is of concern. The totality of the Climategate data, including emails, computer source codes and data points to serious problems with the science supporting AGW. That the mainstream media and science reporting organizations are silent on this important issue lends credence to the hypothesis that the whole global warming movement is political. The conspiracy to suppress dissenting scientific opinion by corrupting the peer-review publishing process, the ignoring of FOIA requests, and the suppression and loss of raw data are by themselves enough to qualify this event as being the most significant scientific news item of the century. That the processed data was skewed to support the desired political goal of changing worldwide society is the overall news item of the century. The community’s silence on this issue is telling indeed.

Main-line Science needs to fairly evaluate the claims that the skeptics have been making for a decade if they hope to maintain any semblance of future relevancy.

By the way, google returns 14,500,000 references for the search term “climategate”. How is this not news?

Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal (Wall Street Journal)

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.” Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen

See the part in bold? There is a difference between saying “that has been discredited” and it actually being discredited. What you might want to say is “that has been verbiaged”.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

The fact is the dam has broken. It becoming increasingly safe for scientists to speak the heretical truth that AGW was a hoax. And so they do.

[GIGObuster]

@Defero

I can’t say it any better than this:

http://blogs.aip.org/CLEAN/2009/12/energy-and-climate-research-hacked-emails-and-controversy.html

“That the mainstream media and science reporting organizations are silent on this important issue”

That is a lie, for many journals came with very strong rebuttals.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy

…

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

@Defero

Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal (Wall Street Journal)

See the part in bold? There is a difference between saying “that has been discredited” and it actually being discredited. What you might want to say is “that has been verbiaged”.

It was posted and cited already that the claims of bias and preventing dissent from being published are silly.

7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship

@Defero

The fact is the dam has broken. It becoming increasingly safe for scientists to speak the heretical truth that AGW was a hoax. And so they do.

:rolleyes:

As it was discovered before, you do not pay attention to what even your “champions” say. Give a cite that demonstrate and has a scientist claiming that it is a **hoax **or **you **are discredited.

[Defero]

That the anthropogenic assumption is unfounded, implausible:

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future

Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate...

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/

The Continuing Search for an Anthropogenic Climate Change Signal: Limitations of Correlation-Based Approaches
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL02207.shtml

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

System Unavailable

That existing climate models are inconsistent, unreliable or directly at odds with observed phenomena:

Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448–455
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Aug27-PIPGreview2003.pdf

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023644.shtml

That pertain to what could actually be causing climate changes

A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6029/abs/316591a0.html

A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5546/1431b

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04121.html

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/5/455

---

This link is funny. I note that “peer reviewed” is definitely stretched in some examples! But I also note that many are from reputable publications:

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Overt fraud suggestive quotes of the day:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” - Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007) Leaked email.

“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Overt fraud suggestive facts of the day:

• The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
• 89% of U.S. temperature stations are biased by +1 to +5°C (http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf)

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artifcial heating or radiating/refecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were flled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

---

Lay researchers help save the day:

The startling, extraordinary realization that thermometer readings increase as thermometers proliferate southward. Probably worth a Nobel.

Thermometer Years by Latitude Warm Globe

Find the Stations, Find the Warming

Well There’s Your Global Warming Problem

“While the “good stations” are only 3000 out of 13,472 they account for well over 1/2 of the record.”

[GIGObuster]

Nope, you do not pay any attention.

Saying that it is a Hoax requires an specific scientist claiming that and you posting his direct quote reporting a Hoax and the evidence, innuendo and contradictory research is not the point, **you **are affirming that the scientists knew that it is a hoax.

Produce the scientific organization that is reporting that AGW is a hoax.

There is a sea of difference between claiming skepticism to claiming that something is a hoax.

[GIGObuster]

BTW virtually all of your points were refuted many times before.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says