# "Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations"; while Americans' belief in AGW declines **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966 "2009-11-25T22:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/121 "2009-11-30T00:55:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Climatologist [Richard Sommerville](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Somerville) announces, “Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations.” Would this not lower your faith in the current AGW construct? If we understood the problem and its causes, and our modeling is correct, why wouldn’t what actually happens be in line with those expectations? And if what happens is significantly different from those expectations, perhaps we have it wrong…I am not encouraged at the accuracy of our understanding simply because the changes are happening in the same direction as predicted. Either we understand greenhouse gases and climate change enough to make accurate predictions or we do not. If our predictions are wildly inaccurate–even if the general direction is warming–I am underwhelmed that the construct itself has somehow been confirmed. …just sayin’… ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/122 "2009-11-30T01:16:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 'Sawright, have a toke. Would taking a toke have a net effect on the overall temperature of the earth? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/123 "2009-11-30T02:58:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I do agree with the comment by Matt at Real Climate: > > [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/) > > > [@](#): > > > > 18 > > matt says: > > 28 November 2009 at 12:26 AM > > > > When this first broke, I was absolutely horrified. Being a true believer myself, I was crestfallen to find out that the science behind a major and popular theory was “fudged” and had gone unchecked. Even worse were the comments about peer reviewed literature. I felt is if I had been betrayed. I was angry and fearful. > > > > But this controversy seems to be unraveling by the day. The more I read, the more context that is provided about what actually happened…the more the motivations of the deniers and internet foamers become readily apparent. > > > > The longer this controversy drags on it seems that the accusations of fudging data seem to be sticking to the deniers. > > > > I’m really happy that they’ve released the raw data. > > > > Hey kiddos, the data is out there now. BTW You are not the first to recompile it or analyze it. A few DIYers have recompiled the data with their own methods and produced similar results…and yes I’m “hiding” that link from you….because I forgot what page I found it on earlier today. (the conspiracy continues!!!) > > > > This controversy has actually turned out to be good for the AGW crowd. I suspect 2 months from now, this will be barely a blip on the radar screen. I hope he’s right. Though there’s no question this will endure in some circles. But those circles are those who already oppose AGW, and are simply looking for “support” for their beliefs. My question is, how much of an impact is “Climategate,” as some blogs call it, making on the population at large? Will it have an impact on the polls the OP talks about? [ETA: One thing that gets me: whichever side (among those in punditry and policy right now) that ends up being wrong about this whole issue will never see the consequences of their being wrong - if it’s those who believe in AGW, they’ll always think it’s still right around the corner, and if it’s those who don’t, the worst will probably happen after they’re dead.] ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/124 "2009-11-30T04:03:24Z")
One thing I’m confused about: Back in August, CRU said this in response to an FOIA request: > [@](#): > > We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data. I’d link to their original page, but their server appears to be down. So how can they release the raw data if they don’t have it? Or is what they plan to release the ‘quality controlled and homogenized data’? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/125 "2009-11-30T04:09:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes. It is not my problem that you are ignoring the context on the way to attempt to spread ignorance. > Once again, if you ignore that your sources and many cites were already explained or out of date it is not my problem. > You are now then saying that that cost is a settled thing. > > [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/boxer\_myths.html](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/boxer_myths.html) > > You are ignoring also the cost for not preparing or doing nothing. > Meh, just pap, not really an explanation or justification on why you came with reheated and dismissed points here and elsewhere. Do provide the context of a graph, although answering would be better. BTW, nice way of avoiding the debate. I’m not saying that the cost is settled. Not, I’m not ignoring, I am saying that it is better to provide water than to prepare for AGW/CC. Better to repeatad reheated arguments than to defend those who say “let’s redefine peer-review”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/126 "2009-11-30T05:03:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Do provide the context of a graph, although answering would be better. BTW, nice way of avoiding the debate. Not avoiding it, it is you that is not pointing to the context of those graphs. AFAIK, one can get one of the graphs by doing the steps that the National Academy of Sciences concluded were not relevant or the right thing to do. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Better to repeatad reheated arguments than to defend those who say “let’s redefine peer-review”. No sure what you are insinuating here. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/127 "2009-11-30T05:26:37Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > One thing I’m confused about: Back in August, CRU said this in response to an FOIA request: > > I’d link to their original page, but their server appears to be down. > > So how can they release the raw data if they don’t have it? Or is what they plan to release the ‘quality controlled and homogenized data’? Are you having the typical conservative problems with timelines ;). Sorry, old personal joke that I always wonder if it is a rule, AFAIR some requests asked for raw data from the days where it would be prohibitively expensive to save all the raw data; However, as not all met offices for sure had the same limitations, it is likely that raw data was available from other locations (locations that have less restrictions than others) or the there is a different request (again with the missing context! It is clear to me why deniers like to avoid it on top of the cherry picking that they did to the stolen emails) that came later for a different set for more recent years. If I understand correctly, raw data is not preferred anyhow for research, but data already processed to give and request to other researchers, this is why one can still see more of the former released. > **[RealClimate: Data Sources](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/)** > > RealClimate: This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.... ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/128 "2009-11-30T11:57:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not avoiding it, it is you that is not pointing to the context of those graphs. AFAIK, one can get one of the graphs by doing the steps that the National Academy of Sciences concluded were not relevant or the right thing to do. > No sure what you are insinuating here. So, [I provided a grpah](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif) that was made by (for you unimpeachable) sources. It is very simple, it plots the difference between actual temperature readings and the adjusted levels. The graph says that while actual temperature readings have increased 0.1 the adjusted level go up 0.6. I simply ask, does it not bother you at all that most of the warming comes not from reading but from adjustments? I know that there are good reasons to make adjustments; however, at some point the ajustments seems, at least, to take over the readings. Your answer: “hockey stick, nothing elese to say” If you can’t give specific answers, I will no longer reswpond to your posts. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/129 "2009-11-30T12:04:38Z")
The phrase was used by Jones when he assured Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” (from the e-mails) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/130 "2009-11-30T16:32:09Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I simply ask, does it not bother you at all that most of the warming comes not from reading but from adjustments? I know that there are good reasons to make adjustments; however, at some point the ajustments seems, at least, to take over the readings. No, it does not bother me, it did not bother other organizations looking at the data. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Your answer: “hockey stick, nothing elese to say” You did post the graphs showing the creative reconstruction by the deniers. Dismissed by the scientific reviews and investigations. Everyone else can see that you are not dealing with the answers to that. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If you can’t give specific answers, I will no longer reswpond to your posts. As mentioned before, bring issues that were not investigated before, you are just swallowing what deniers say, not looking at the science. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/131 "2009-11-30T16:43:46Z")
OK, suppose that the models proposed by the AGW proponnts are valid. How sensitive are these models to varainces in the inputs? For example, suppose the temperature measurements over wide areas of (the former) USSR were found to have been doctored-and the models are re-run with the correct data-what are the actual predictions? It sounds to me, that the models did not show any big variance in outputs, which is why the data was altered. By the way, how well do the predictive models work in the case of Mars? ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/132 "2009-11-30T19:48:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, it does not bother me, it did not bother other organizations looking at the data. > > You did post the graphs showing the creative reconstruction by the deniers. Dismissed by the scientific reviews and investigations. Everyone else can see that you are not dealing with the answers to that. > > As mentioned before, bring issues that were not investigated before, you are just swallowing what deniers say, not looking at the science. Question for you, that graph that **Ají de Gallina** posted comes from the NOAA. Are the NOAA folks a bunch of ‘deniers’? (Hint, you may want to look at the URL) The answer is to be in the form of yes or no. Second question, do you believe that the NOAA doctored that graph? Yes or No. If the answer is yes, why would they do that? Slee ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/133 "2009-11-30T21:08:49Z")
> [@Original Post](#): > > Amanda Feinberg, a retired administrative assistant living in South Williamsport, Pa., said she became disenchanted with the idea of human-caused global warming when former vice president Al Gore launched a public awareness campaign with his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” > > “He just seemed a little radical in his views,” said Feinberg, a Republican. “I don’t deny it’s happening, I just think it’s just an evolution of nature.” What a dumb-ass reason for rejecting science. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/134 "2009-11-30T22:28:39Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The reason this is happening is that there’s a fundamental conflict of interest at play here - the same people doing the science are also acting as political agents to gain public support for government regulation. The careful analysis of science gives way to the need to dramatize the projection, minimize the uncertainty, and convince the public to take drastic action. How is this a “fundamental conflict of interest”? Is a cancer researcher who advocates people stop smoking tobacco also engaged in a “fundamental conflict of interest”? ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/135 "2009-11-30T22:46:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > \ > [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html) Just curious: doesn’t the University of East Anglia provide a lot of data to the Met Office? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/136 "2009-11-30T23:49:33Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] How is this a “fundamental conflict of interest”? Is a cancer researcher who advocates people stop smoking tobacco also engaged in a “fundamental conflict of interest”? [/QUOTE] They are if you couple that with attempting to stop people from smoking in an effort to generate public (and political) support to leverage additional funding (and deny said funding to the opposition) for your own research. Everyone seems to think that scientists are unbiased because they aren’t in it for the money (like, say, cigarette companies), and to a point that’s true. But scientists are in a huge competition for funding…and also for prestige and public recognition. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/137 "2009-12-01T00:10:14Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > They are if you couple that with attempting to stop people from smoking in an effort to generate public (and political) support to leverage additional funding (and deny said funding to the opposition) for your own research. Everyone seems to think that scientists are unbiased because they aren’t in it for the money (like, say, cigarette companies), and to a point that’s true. But scientists are in a huge competition for funding…and also for prestige and public recognition. > > -XT Then every single person who lobbies any government for anything is involved in a “fundamental conflict of interest”. You want a skate park in your town? Better not ask the local government to help, that would be a conflict of interest. How can we believe your survey that 1000 people want the skate park? You own a taco stand near the park. That data is prolly fudged; after all, we know you want the skate park. You’d say anything to get what you want. MADD? Clearly a conflict of interest. I don’t know why we even bothered to look at their data, let alone listen to them testifying before congress. Clearly their data is unreliable: they fudged it because they just want us to pass certain laws. They’d do anything to get those laws passed. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. It’s only slightly less ridiculous than the shit that’s been coming out of the Marshall Institute for the last 20-odd years. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/138 "2009-12-01T00:16:59Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] Then every single person who lobbies any government for anything is involved in a “fundamental conflict of interest”. [/QUOTE] Well…yeah. Of course they do. That’s why they are called ‘special interests’. > [@](#): > > You want a skate park in your town? Better not ask the local government to help, that would be a conflict of interest. Huh? You lost me. Just because I might be a skate board manufacturer and that lobbying for a skate park (on the public’s dime) in a town would be a good thing, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t lobby for it…or that it’s not a good thing. > [@](#): > > MADD? Clearly a conflict of interest. I don’t know why we even bothered to look at their data, let alone listen to them testifying before congress. As long as one acknowledges that their data viewpoint might be skewed by their own interests, I don’t see the harm. Again, you aren’t making sense. That there is a bias doesn’t discount the data automatically. > [@](#): > > This line of reasoning is ridiculous. It’s only slightly less ridiculous than the shit that’s been coming out of the Marshall Institute for the last 20-odd years. Well, your post is confusing…you seem to be conflating a bunch of stuff together seemingly at random, and you really didn’t address the point I was merely attempting to clarify. It seems rather obvious (and not ‘ridiculous’ as you put it) that groups attempting to gain public and political support for their theories in order to ALSO gain funding may have some conflicts. I don’t see that this is necessarily a bad thing…seems like ‘reality’ to me. Groups do this all the time in the real world. YMMV of course. -XT ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/139 "2009-12-01T00:45:06Z")
It’s probably been said, but global warming doesn’t validate AGW. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/140 "2009-12-01T00:45:11Z")
**XT** , my post really wasn’t aimed at your post #136, but rather at the attitude displayed in **Sam** ’s post claiming a “fundamental conflict of interest”. For one thing, he claims that there _is_ a “fundamental conflict of interest”, but provides nothing to back up his assertion. Thus, I can only conclude that anyone who tries to drum up support for anything is involved, to **Sam** , in a “fundamental conflict of interest”, since in some way they will stand to gain from that support. And that reasoning is ridiculous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966.md?page=8)