I may not be literally correct too. We don’t know what the snippits show in detail and we don’t know if anything has been edited selectively quoted.
Yes, that’s true.
My concern is more for the impression you give that even if they are true, there’s no cause for concern. I agree that if the material is fabricated, there’s no cause for concern.
You reaction seems a close cousin to Brian Ekers’s – the one that the OP refers to. Hey, even if it’s a load of hooey, it’s good, since the result is a cleaner environment and more efficient cars.
The claims of fakery are indeed overblown, but there is an issue that climate researchers are being accused of opacity with the data they obtain and use; however, the opacity that some are complaining about is seen in many other fields, I would agree that more transparency is needed; but I do think that skeptics are barking up the wrong tree. I think any mandate or law requesting more transparency will have to be funded to be effective. (You think keeping, storing and transferring all data is free?)
Some verifiable emails talking about a conspiracy would be a step in the right direction. But the only thing that I would find very convincing would be for the anti-AGW side to generate real science and not be nettling nitpickers.
Do you honestly think that every journal and peer-reviewer in the world is in on it. If the anti-AGW side could generate any real science it would be published somewhere.
We sure can; if they made a testable claim that could be falsified, then we can note whether they got it right or wrong.
Not at all. I’m not a scientist. So I can’t make an assessment of a complex scientific issue myself. This is where Scylla and Intention make their mistakes. They seem to want to prove it wrong themselves. But the fact is that people very much smarter and lightyears more qualified can’t overturn AGW. Amateurs are unlikely to come up with a hole in tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles.
Were it to happen, if AGW were disproved and the evidence we do have was reconciled I would change my opinion. I’m not an ideologue on AGW, I trust the vast majority of climate scientists on Earth to tell me the state of the art of our scientific knowledge.
The onus is on the fringe, who think that tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles are completely wrong. The fact that they can’t tells much more than any amount of stolen emails or gotcha points.
You sir, are a scurrilous nabob!
No, they are wrong, to be brutally more accurate, there has been very little cooling or warming in the last decade. But that is not too comforting, the Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
Add to that that researchers like Latif already expected the apparent stoppage of the warming and well…
Yes, as mentioned before, if in the next decade temperatures decrease to the levels seen in the 70’s and remain there that would do it for me since it would not be within the expected values in many projections.
Then calling it “global warming” is, to be brutally accurate, wrong.
That’s not good enough. If temperatures decrease in the next decade, but not to levels seen in the '70s, then we’re not looking at “global warming”; we’re looking at cooling whether there’s a lot or a little of it. To brand that as “warming” misses the point; it’s a question of type, not degree.
What’s the use of branding ‘just about dead even, with very little cooling’ as warming? What’s the use of “expected values” that define global warming in terms of decreases or increases? (What’s next, branding ‘no change’ as climate change?)
Historically speaking, skeptics of the phenomenon had the best support up to the 60’s, then the evidence turned against the skeptics.
The case you are referring to can just be a case of wishful thinking, while even I can not agree with the attempted boycott, I have to wonder if it was effective. In any case, even the published papers failed to make an impression on even the target audience.
One notorious example was a paper that appeared in a publication by the American Geophysical Union that was critical of the climate reconstructions. A few years later the AGU comes with this official statement:
What’s the actual downside, dare I ask? I mean, seriously, it’s not like AGW deniers are being fed to lions or anything.
You can only say that by ignoring that it is not only in the apparent global temperature that researchers are basing their positions. Read the cite.
I’m afraid that is not clear, are you saying that because I’m not calling it “cooling” then it would not falsify the global warming? Well, then call it cooling, I’m easy.
The reason why I mention the 70’s was to point out that even with all the huffing and puffing the last years remain the warmest, that can not be denied. So to get to dismiss global warming it would indeed be helpful to see lower temperatures outside the projection levels.
Here you show that you did not read the citation regarding Latif.
But it’s not just about you. We need the whole scientific community on board, with a big fine consensus about global cooling – if it is global cooling rather than global warming. If it’s not, then that’s fine, too; if it’s getting warmer, then we should call it “global warming”. If it’s getting cooler, we should call it “global cooling”.
Now, that’s a good argument . . .
. . . and that isn’t. Here, you’re effectively saying that if there’s global cooling over the next decade, we should still call it global warming; that’s not helpful. Saying that we should be looking beyond the apparent global temperature is a good move; it still allows us to draw a line between cooling and warming. Saying that a decrease counts as an increase (unless it’s a really big decrease) doesn’t do that; in such a case, you’re not cheerfully tossing off a “Well, then, call it cooling; I’m easy.” Instead, you’re calling it warming – right there in the same post.
You are indeed putting words in my mouth, that is not helpful.
Where do I say that?
It seems that you are trying the damnedest to dismiss what it should be an accepted way to falsify the theory.
I was referring to the next ten years, the past ten years are not good evidence of cooling. I was referring to “the next decade” as I mentioned in the previous post to that one.
You state that "to get to dismiss global warming it would indeed be helpful to see lower temperatures outside the projection levels. " You require, when asked whether a decrease in temperature will falsify global warming, that it be a “decrease to the levels seen in the 70’s”.
And that’s what I’m taking issue with: the claim that cooling within projection levels is still “warming”, the claim that a decrease over the next decade backs a conclusion of increase unless it’s big enough to reach “70’s” levels.
Possibly I’m misunderstanding you; simply answer the following question and we’ll know whether I’m putting words in your mouth or accurately characterizing your position: if the temperatures decrease, but not “to the levels seen in the 70’s”, will that still support a claim that temperatures are increasing as per global warming? Would such a phenomenon strengthen such a claim, decade after decade, so long as it’s never a big enough decrease to reach 70’s levels?
No, I’m referring to “the next decade” likewise. I’m asking whether, in “the next decade”, a temperature decrease would count for or against global warming regardless of whether said cooling fell outside the projection levels in general or reached the 70’s levels in particular.
Look, swap in some other claim altogether for a moment; imagine, say, that someone make a straightforward claim about how nothing can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. And, so long as we’re playing around, imagine that you then produce a nifty rocket that does move a little faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Not good enough, protests the first guy; it’s only moving a little faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, and so my claim stands.
Er, no; it doesn’t. If something moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, then it’s not “slower than” or “equal to” that speed; it’s faster, period, whether a little or a lot. I don’t care whether something is getting a little cooler or a lot cooler; the question is whether it’s getting warmer at all. If it’s getting cooler, or even staying at the same temperature, then it’s not “warming”. If it’s decreasing – whether to 70’s levels or not, whether outside the projection levels or not – then it’s not “increasing”.
I, for one, am glad that it turns out that global warming isn’t really happening. Otherwise, if you care about the future of mankind, it would be something to take fairly seriously.
You are incorrect.
Summary here by Mann and Schmidt
Avoiding journals with shoddy standards IS a key scientific attitude. The emails speak of boycotting a journal which published a severely flawed paper that led to the resignation of half of the editorial board at that journal (Climate Science). There is a difference between publishing in the sense of having it present in a journal and publishing in a respected, independent journal of with strong peer review.
Again with the mythical increase, for the purpose of falsifying the theory I would not expect to see increases.
And you have a fixation with the 70’s, for the purposes of falsifying the theory the 70’s was mentioned only to drive the point that the previous 10 years are warmer than the 70s, they are also warmer than the 80’s. The point is that if in the next 10 years the temperatures remain constant or cooling that then the theory will suffer a huge blow.
A temperature decrease in the next decade should indeed count against the current theories regarding AGW IMHO.
This argument concerns me a great deal in the sense that it is not helpful toward convincing anyone to trust science. Brian Ekers argument is certainly a policy argument, not a science argument. His argument may be valid from a policy/economic sense. If the suggested remedies for global warming have a net positive benefit regardless of their impact on global warmning, then they may be sensible regardless of one’s feeling on science.
The problem is that this line of thinking does nothing to disentangle policy from science. Somehow the premise “If AGW is real, then we must do something about it” seems to have been accepted as the consensus viewpoint. As a scientist (in training at least), I am quite concerned with the willingness to attack science directly rather than attack policy decisions arising from science. The real debate should be between economists/public policy makers on the costs and benefits of altering our behavior.
It is possible the fixes for AGW are not economically feasible. I don’t want to be a part of that debate. Science stands by itself.