# "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:** 8
**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, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/141 "2009-12-01T00:54:44Z")
I don’t think there is a conflict of interest (or CoI as you say), I merely concede that there could be. I think scientists engaged in climate studies need to tread carefully when it comes to drumming up public and political support for things like major changes to our lifestyle, or attempts to fundamentally alter our use of fossil fuels. There is a fine line there between the science and a political agenda, and I can certainly see how, if one crosses those lines, there could be a CoI. To use your own example, Bo, if a scientist is studying the effects of cigarettes on lung cancer, then that is a good thing. If that same scientist then goes on a crusade to stop people smoking through the use of public and political means, and using such a crusade to further their own funding and gain prestige, then there could be a CoI. It’s far from impossible. I’m not saying that this is the case with all scientists who project their research into the public realm, nor am I pointing any fingers at AGW (or folks who study the effects of smoking)…just that it’s a pitfall that needs to be considered. -XT ---
**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:** [December 1, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/142 "2009-12-01T01:00:13Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > 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 The problem was that the context of that graph was also excluded. [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html) > [@](#): > > Applying the Time of Observation adjustment (black line) resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960’s to the 1990’s. The shift from Cotton Region Shelters to the Maximum/Minimum Thermometer System in the mid-1980’s is clearly evident in the difference between the TOBS and the MMTS time series (red line). This adjustment created a small warming in the US annual time series during the mid to late 1980’s. Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half. Filling in missing data (blue line) produced cooler temperatures prior to 1915. Adjustments to account for warming due to the effects of urbanization (purple line) cooled the time series an average of 0.1F throughout the period of record. > The adjacent graph shows how the annual raw (areal edited) mean temperature anomalies compare with the anomalies from the data set containing all adjustments (final). The difference of these two time series is shown below. > The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940’s until the last decade of the century. What I see here is that they compensated for the artificial cooling **and warming** that the urban isles and other conditions caused to readings. In other words, the difference would be worse if they would not have done the adjustments. And the pointed at graph shows the difference that any users of the raw data need to be aware of, now many deniers sites did claim that no corrections were made to account for the heat coming from readers on cities or other locations. It looks to me like NOAA did the corrections only to get deniers to point at a graph that shows the result of the adjustments, adjustments that BTW deal with degrees in **Fahrenheit** , not \*\*Celsius \*\*and are limited to the USA. > **[RealClimate: Frontpage](https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=465)** > > RealClimate:Climate science from climate scientists... > [@](#): > > Over at Number Watch they have a chart showing the ever increasing “Difference Between Raw and Final USHN Data Sets” as well as photos of temperature sensors near outdoor air-conditioning fans, etc. They claim the first graph shows the adjusting factors are partly responsible for the warming trends, and their second complaint is that temperature stations aren’t monitored and corrected well enough (or is the first the answer to the second?) Comments please, ty. > > [Response: The adjustments to the US data are not responsible for global trends. Continental trends on every continent (except Antarctica) show similar patterns. The adjustments certainly do matter, and the largest one is related to changes in the time of day people in the US took measurements, other ones deal with station moves and instrument biases. Are they claiming that known problems shouldn’t be corrected for? - gavin] Well Gavin, it is clear that deniers are indeed claiming that after making corrections for issues that deniers claimed that it caused the readings to be unreliable is giving them a “great” bit of “evidence” (the graph) to continue claiming that they are unreliable. :rolleyes: So the answers are: “Are the NOAA folks a bunch of ‘deniers’?” NO “do you believe that the NOAA doctored that graph?” NO Now, **sleestak** , do you grant the chance that deniers are misrepresenting what the graphs actually say? ---
**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, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/143 "2009-12-01T01:04:24Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > **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. Here’s a pretty good [Wall-Street Journal article](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html) about the fundamental conflict of interest. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/144 "2009-12-01T01:09:22Z")
There’s not a conflict of interest that I’m seeing. Sure, they have motivation to lie and manipulate the data if they feel it will make their case better, but that’s true of anyone advcoating anything. It’s not a conflict of interest. So the issue becomes the objectivity of their data - there’s nothing inherent about the situation that doesn’t give them the option of being truthful in their advocacy. ---
**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, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/145 "2009-12-01T01:11:58Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > There’s not a conflict of interest that I’m seeing. Sure, they have motivation to lie and manipulate the data if they feel it will make their case better, but that’s true of anyone advcoating anything. It’s not a conflict of interest. So the issue becomes the objectivity of their data - there’s nothing inherent about the situation that doesn’t give them the option of being truthful in their advocacy. Fair enough. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/146 "2009-12-01T01:12:24Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t think there is a conflict of interest (or CoI as you say), I merely concede that there could be. I think scientists engaged in climate studies need to tread carefully when it comes to drumming up public and political support for things like major changes to our lifestyle, or attempts to fundamentally alter our use of fossil fuels. There is a fine line there between the science and a political agenda, and I can certainly see how, if one crosses those lines, there could be a CoI. To use your own example, Bo, if a scientist is studying the effects of cigarettes on lung cancer, then that is a good thing. If that same scientist then goes on a crusade to stop people smoking through the use of public and political means, and using such a crusade to further their own funding and gain prestige, then there could be a CoI. It’s far from impossible. I’m not saying that this is the case with all scientists who project their research into the public realm, nor am I pointing any fingers at AGW (or folks who study the effects of smoking)…just that it’s a pitfall that needs to be considered. > > -XT I think the reverse is more likely, and the issue of smoking and cancer is relevant too! I remembered the presentation of Historian Naomi Oreskes on “The American Denial of Global Warming” [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes\_on\_the\_american\_denial.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php) Long video there, but it is recommended to see it. As the video is long, here are the highlights with the time in the video they appear: > [@](#): > > 00:00 Introduction > > 02:00 Frank Luntz > > 04:00 2001 IPCC TAR, but many decades of science before > > 10:30 1957 Suess & Revelle; “Big Greenhouse” in Time Magazine > > 14:00 1964/65 NAS Science Advisory Committee; President’s Science Advisory Committee “In those days, politicians listened to scientists”;bipartisanship. > > 17:30 1970s NRC; JASON; “Charney Report” > > 23:30 1988 IPCC formed; US National Energy Policy Act; George H. W. Bush > > DENIAL > > 26:30 Why is there denial? Where did it come from? > > 29:15: 1984 George C. Marshal Institute founded by William Jastrow > > Added William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz; S. Fred Singer later. Original goal: Cold War, support Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative from other physicists) Tactics: threaten PBS stations with lawsuits under “Fairness Doctrine” Create uncertainty > > 36:00 1990, cold war over, switch to other areas [global warming, CFC-ozone, tobacco] No Greenhouse problem, as long as free market allowed to solve! > > 39:00 1995 IPCC SAR, personal attacks on Ben Santer > > 42:00 1995 Connection with tobacco, Seitz, tactics Create doubt, do not publish science, but in popular literature, op-eds, Wall Street Journal > > 53:30 Why? In each case, political views [NO REGULATION, EVER] masked as arguments about science. [People can have whatever political views they want, but the proper place to discuss them is in politics, not by fudging science.] Those groups and think tanks were notorious for coming with opinions and biased research that supported inaction by politicians regarding subjects like Tobacco, Ozone depletion chemicals, Acid rain causing chemicals, and then greenhouse gases like CO2. In all cases further research showed that outfits like the Marshal Institute were wrong. As Naomi Oreskes notices, even with the fact that their research and opinion were debunked in the past, those outfits almost never acknowledge that they lost or are losing in the scientific arena, people going to their sites can almost never find any acknowledgment that current or new research has made their points non-operational, so then others just continue to repeat those items. It will not affect the science, the intention is to influence the politicians and the people. Using cherry picked stolen emails with no context to allow them to make baseless and reckless accusations is not beneath them has been demonstrated here and elsewhere. (On edit) Follow the money? Why is that many ignore the money that is going to the denial machine? (And that includes the WSJ) ---
**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, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/147 "2009-12-01T01:17:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t think there is a conflict of interest (or CoI as you say), I merely concede that **there could be**. I think scientists engaged in climate studies need to tread carefully when it comes to drumming up public and political support for things like major changes to our lifestyle, or attempts to fundamentally alter our use of fossil fuels. There is a fine line there between the science and a political agenda, and I can certainly see how, **if one crosses those lines, there could be a CoI**. To use your own example, Bo, if a scientist is studying the effects of cigarettes on lung cancer, then that is a good thing. If that same scientist then goes on a crusade to stop people smoking through the use of public and political means, and using such a crusade to further their own funding and gain prestige, then **there could be a CoI**. It’s far from impossible. I’m not saying that this is the case with all scientists who project their research into the public realm, nor am I pointing any fingers at AGW (or folks who study the effects of smoking)…just that it’s a pitfall that needs to be considered. > > -XT bolding mine First, my apologies for editing out the abbreviation. The default font I use shows a proper upper-case “i” with a header and footer, but the font used once I hit submit uses an upper-case “i” with no header/footer, so it just looks like a lower-case “l”, and it was instantly irritating to see, so I edited it back to the phrase **Sam** used. Now, I agree with what you’ve said here. And I have no problems with the idea of being cautious when looking at data from someone with an agenda. But **Sam** makes the statement that > [@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. He offers no citations for his assertion, no evidence to back up what he says. He just bulls right thru it **as if it was a fact** , and the reasoning he seems to have used to arrive at his conclusion is so ludicrous I couldn’t help but notice it and call it out. See, you used phrases (that I bolded) that show _possibility_, while **Sam** has gone beyond possible, beyond probable, to conclude, seemingly without evidence or logic, that there _is_ a “fundamental conflict of interest”. And that’s what I was taking exception to, and calling out. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2009, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/148 "2009-12-01T01:34:45Z")
If the thermometer/proxy cover of the US during the 20th century was given a score of 100, what would be the score for South America, Africa, Middle East, south Pacific, Indian Ocean? ---
**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, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/149 "2009-12-01T01:36:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > (On edit) Follow the money? Why is that many ignore the money that is going to the denial machine? (And that includes the WSJ) Yeah, an editorial published in a newspaper owned by News Corp. about a “scandal” that was manufactured through deceit and cherry-picking… forgive me if I say that this displays too much potential for conflict of interest for me to give it much weight. I mean, I [read this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal): > [@](#): > > On December 13, 2007, shareholders representing more than 60 percent of Dow Jones’s voting stock approved the company’s acquisition by News Corp.[21] > > In an editorial page column, publisher L. Gordon Crovitz said the Bancrofts and News Corp. had agreed that the Journal’s news and opinion sections would preserve their editorial independence from their new corporate parent:[22] > > “ Mr. Murdoch told the Bancrofts that ‘any interference – or even hint of interference – would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance.’ … Mr. Murdoch and the Bancrofts agreed on standards modeled on the longstanding Dow Jones Code of Conduct. ” > > A special committee was established to oversee The Journal’s editorial integrity. But after the managing editor, Marcus Brauchli resigned on April 22, 2008, the committee said that he resigned under pressure, and that News Corporation had violated its agreement by not notifying the committee earlier.[23] Brauchli said that he thought it was reasonable that new owners would appoint their own editor. > > However, a June 5 Journal news story quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past. One large shareholder commented that Murdoch has long “expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations.” Journalist Fred Emery, formerly of the British newspaper The Times, recounted an incident when Murdoch was reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire The Times’ editors without independent directors’ approval and allegedly responded, “God, you don’t take all that seriously, do you?”[24] So I doubt that anything the WSJ writes these days is going to deviate too much from the line that the rest of Murdoch’s media outlets disseminate, and that line favors big business and the M-I Complex, and those are the people who stand to benefit most from discrediting any AGW researcher. To me, this looks like more of the same type of shenanigans that the Marshall Institute has been doing for nearly 30 years now. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/150 "2009-12-01T02:17:45Z")
**Gigobuster** , you’re now quoting from the comment area of a webpage. C’mon. I’m sure many of the changes are right, but it still does not itch right. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/151 "2009-12-01T03:31:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > **Gigobuster** , you’re now quoting from the comment area of a webpage. C’mon. > I’m sure many of the changes are right, but it still does not itch right. :rolleyes: This is Gavin: > **[NASA GISS: Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/)** Thank you for showing once again that you are not paying attention. RealClimate has the real thing, ClimateAudit has the yahoos. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2009, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/152 "2009-12-01T04:25:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > This is Gavin: > > [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/) > > Thank you for showing once again that you are not paying attention. RealClimate has the real thing, ClimateAudit has the yahoos. > **[RealClimate: Frontpage](https://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=465)** > > RealClimate:Climate science from climate scientists... This was YOUR link to a comment section with 1300 comments. As usual, you expect me (us) to read stuff like that. Dude, what a man-crush. I do not not know Dr. Schmidt well enough to call him Gavin, but he’s a mathematician (like Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit)…oh noes, he’s not a climatologist! It’s not like the chair of the IPCC is not an earth-science guy or something similar to natural sciences…damn…he’s an economist. (I know it’s ad hominem, but but it shows how silly this can get with the name calling) ---
**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:** [December 1, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/153 "2009-12-01T04:42:48Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > [http://www.realclimate.org/?comments\_popup=465](http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=465) > This was YOUR link to a comment section with 1300 comments. As usual, you expect me (us) to read stuff like that. The quote was the only thing I wanted to point at, as it was directed at your “great” misleading bit of evidence. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Dude, what a man-crush. > I do not not know Dr. Schmidt well enough to call him Gavin, but he’s a mathematician (like Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit)…oh noes, he’s not a climatologist! > It’s not like the chair of the IPCC is not an earth-science guy or something similar to natural sciences…damn…he’s an economist. > (I know it’s ad hominem, but but it shows how silly this can get with the name calling) Once again, they are yahoos at ClimateAudit. The bits of evidence so far show where they are coming from. They ignore evidence, misrepresent data (and even graphs) and now resort to use stolen cherry picked emails to press baseless allegations. I would ignore them until they clean up their act. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/154 "2009-12-01T04:49:53Z")
[From SourceWatch:](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre) > [@](#): > > **Stephen McIntyre** is the primary author of the blog Climate Audit, noted for its many articles skeptical of climate change. He is a prominent critic of scientific studies of temperature records of the past 1000 years that show increasing global temperatures. Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. “I’ve spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals,” he said in 2009.[1] > > He has also been a policy analyst for both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[2] McIntyre was also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th, 2009. > > \ > > **Biography** > > McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a “semiretired Toronto minerals consultant” who has spent “two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic” known as the “hockey stick” that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann. He does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[3] > > McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a “strategic advisor.” [4] He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of Northwest Exploration Company Limited, the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. [5] > > At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, McIntyre gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with Roger Pielke Jr.[6] > **The Hockey Stick Study Controversy** > > Stephen McIntyre is especially known for his critique of Michael E. Mann’s hockey stick study, a “reconstruction of temperatures over the past 1,000 years based on records captured in tree rings, corals and other markers,” which shows temperatures swinging sharply upward in the 20th century.[7] Articles written by McIntyre, along with colleague Ross McKitrick, critical of Mann’s hockey stick study led to congressional inquiry into the scientific methods of the studies. Independent research has found that McIntyre’s critique may have “limited significance.” Researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed “a glitch” in Dr. Mann’s work but “found this glitch to be of very minor significance.”[8] > > In recent years, McIntyre has extended his criticisms to also address the “spaghetti chart”; McIntyre argues that all the new reconstructions which confirmed Mann’s earlier results shared some common proxies and that minor changes/updates with regard to proxy selection completely changed the results, again casting doubt on the conclusion that modern-era temperatures are unusual.[1] ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/155 "2009-12-01T23:07:35Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > **The sky is falling, the sky is falling…** 😛 > > I’m not saying global temps don’t fluctuate. … > > Throw in shysters like Al Gore, the rest of the politicians and big wigs trying to line their pockets and now mix in data credibility questions…sorry, it’s just turned into another “follow the money” scenario. “Shyster”? “Data credibility”? I suppose your admission that “global temps [might] fluctuate” is your way of establishing a pro-science bent. :rolleyes: > [@flickster](#): > > Well, we got off on this tangent on your $1.6 trillion insinuation that the top 9 oil producers has that revenue to line somebody’s pockets with Wow! Flickster dishes out unsubstantiated gibberish, but thinks that someone commenting on oil industry revenue should have to provide detailed financial breakdowns! :smack: He thinks (or pretends to think) that someone claimed an entire $1.6 trillion was used to suborn media personnel. Hmm, let’s do the math. 10,000 media-ites worth suborning; divide into 1.6 trill; that’s $160 million per head. Maybe flickster’s just jealous the oil companies aren’t suborning him! 😛 I’ve been browsing blogs about the leaked e-mails for the “smoking guns” and, not counting the rejection of tree-ring data since this had already been publicised, I’ve seen two specific claims: (a) one researcher trying to get software to work with an old data format kept a detailed debug log, with “I’m getting negative squared-error sums!” being the comment that caught the anti-climate blogger’s attention. (It seemed doubtful the blogger knew what a squared error sum was or what its negativity might imply.) (b) in private e-mail, scientists call the anti-climate bloggers “idiots.” (I’d be worried if they _didn’t_ call them idiots!) And if it turns out one of the scientists _did_ do something dishonest or stupid, so what? If we pick sides in this debate by which side has the most stupid or dishonest people, there’s little doubt who would win. 🙂 Best is just to ignore right-wing claptrap. Recall the “Real Anita Hill” which David Brock later recanted. I mentioned to a right-wing acquaintance that Brock admitted lying; he responded “How do we know he’s not lying now?” (There’s a fallacy there – let’s see if any of the anti-intellectuals in this debate can spot it.) ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/156 "2009-12-08T17:54:43Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Are you trying to claim that Al Gore is not after personal financial gain in regarding to AGW? Please… Are you saying that the entire science of AGW is a moneymaking scam cooked up by Al Gore? All those climatologists and research institutes (it’s not like East Anglia is the only one) are being bribed by Al Gore to lie? ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/157 "2009-12-08T19:04:10Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Not even remotely true. First of all, nuclear power in the U.S. was already dead when Chernobyl happened, and it was thriving ten years after Chalk River. It was already dying before the Three Mile Island incident. > > Here’s what really happened: > > In the late 1960’s, ten years after Chalk River, nuclear production plans in the U.S. were estimated by the AEC to result in about 145 GW of electricity by 1980. Nuclear power was in full swing at this time. But that all changed in the early 1970’s, without any major accidents or incidents happening in between. > > The first nail in the coffin of American nuclear power came in 1971, when the AEC reversed rules to allow the National Resources Defense Council to sue to stop construction of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant on environmental grounds. This set precedent which kicked off similar lawsuits around the country. > > When Jimmy Carter was elected, he dealt several blows to the nuclear industry - first, new rules were drafted to make nuclear power plants much harder to build and much more expensive. The he signed an executive order forbidding reprocessing of spent fuel, which created the nuclear waste problem the U.S. has today. Jimmy Carter was all about conservation and cutting back on energy, and nuclear power was not acceptable to him even if he paid lip service to it. He was a fan of renewables like solar power (he even had solar collectors installed at the White House), and nuclear power was not where he wanted the country to go. > > Nuclear power in the U.S. was given the coup de grace by Three Mile Island. When Three Mile Island had its accident, the environmental movement went bananas. It was greatly over-hyped, with all kinds of claims of destruction and radiation poisoning that never actually happened. Hollywood made “The China Syndrome” that year, while was pretty much a scary fable for anti-nuclear people. Within a few months, 65,000 anti-nuclear demonstrators marched on Washington, and set the tone for the generally anti-nuclear regulatory environment that ensued. > > As a result of these regulations and lawsuits, a nuclear reactor in the U.S. was forecast to take 12 to 14 years for construction. Identical plants made by the same companies in other countries took 4-5 years. This was also the era of high interest rates, and nuclear power plants are capital-intensive, so the combination increased the cost of nuclear power plant construction by a factor of ten. The result was the death of the nuclear industry in the United States. > > We are not all to blame for that. Myself and a lot of people I know were trying to explain the real facts to people, and to put the extent of the radiation leak in perspective. No one was killed, no one got serious radiation exposure. But it was like pissing in the wind. Within a couple of years of Three Mile Island, the ‘conventional wisdom’ was that it was a horrific accident, three-eyed fish would be swimming the rivers, people would be dropping dead from cancer in the next few years, and only by the grace of God did it not turn into an epic disaster killing tens of thousands of people. > > Nuclear power never recovered from that in the U.S. Anti-nuke forces started teaming up with opportunistic lawyers, and every nuclear plant under construction was inundated with lawsuits and stop-work orders. The economics of nuclear power turned sour because of the new regulations and legal challenges, with tied up billions of dollars in capital for years or decades. And this was at a time when the cost of capital was extremely high. The risk of starting construction and having billions tied up for years became too high, and the nuclear industry stalled out. > > That’s what happened. It was not ‘everyone’s fault’. It was a bunch of anti-nuclear activists, their lawyers, and a willing, scientifically ignorant media that shut it all down. > > Later on, in the 1990’s, people started recognizing that nuclear power wasn’t the evil bogeyman it was presented as, but by that the price of oil collapsed, and the demand for new nuclear power completely dried up. > > In the meantime, throughout all this France went merrily along building more nuclear plants, as did many countries. France now gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear. THEY don’t have to worry about global warming treaties shutting their economy down. America does. So what you’re saying, if I may summarize, is that: These so-called environmentalists 30-40 years ago were dead-ass wrong in their narrow assertions about a technology that, had we enacted it and begun to rely on it as a primary energy source would have actually prevented what they believe we’re causing because of our consumption. This is happening, in chief, because of what they did back then. Therefore, in a twist of very sad irony, the dying polar bears and melting arctic ice are the fault of the environmentalists who are again ringing the alarm bells about the dangers of what we’ve been forced in the first place by them, to do. Super. Now where did I park my Hummer? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/158 "2009-12-09T03:36:05Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Dude, what a man-crush. > I do not not know Dr. Schmidt well enough to call him Gavin, but he’s a mathematician (like Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit)…oh noes, he’s not a climatologist! His degree is in applied mathematics, but he has a very impressive publication list in the field of climate science…So, yes, he is a climate scientist in any realistic sense of the word. Climate science is a fairly young field so a lot of the scientists in that field have their original training in a related field. (E.g., Jim Hansen is originally an astrophysicist who got interested in the Earth’s climate system only after first studying Venus.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/159 "2009-12-09T04:13:53Z")
[From this week’s “Top 10 Conservative Idiots”:](http://journals.democraticunderground.com/top10/378) > [@](#): > > **3. Sean Hannity** > > The ever-informative Sean Hannity was at the top of his game last week as he reported multiple times that 2009 is “one of the coldest years on record.” So much for global warming! > > “You can also look it up, this is one of the coldest years in history, this past year,” he said on his radio show on November 24. “…this is the coldest year on record … or one of them,” he insisted on November 18. “This is one of the coldest years on record, ladies and gentlemen,” he announced on Fox News on November 10. > > Wow, that is shocking! And… [completely false.](http://mediamatters.org/research/200911250020) According to Media Matters: > > > [@](#): > > > > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 2009 year-to-date global temperatures tied as fifth warmest January-through-October period. > > > > NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies: 2009 year-to-date global surface temperature ranks fifth warmest out of 130 years. > > > > The Met Office: 2009 will be one of top five warmest years globally. > > But come on, who are you going to believe? NOAA, GISS, and the Met Office, or Sean Hannity? > > I rest my case. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966/160 "2009-12-09T04:35:45Z")
I love this about these AGW debates on this board. If the skeptics mention a mistake presented by Al Gore, who is the single biggest and most influential proponent of AGW on the planet, we get told that it’s irrelevant. Gore isn’t a scientist. Even when we specifically mention Gore’s views to demonstrate public perception, that’s the response. But when Hannity says something, that’s suddenly highly relevant to any thread. Because apparently Hannity is a sicentist. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-accelerating-beyond-expectations-while-americans-belief-in-agw-declines/518966.md?page=9)