# "It's cold, so there's no global warming." Do they KNOW that's false? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 13, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421 "2011-01-13T03:27:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/281 "2011-01-22T01:52:30Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Poor you, you can’t even comment of data. With you, its always dodging and posturing. Actually the info is easy to find, but there you go again certifying all how useless you really are, and once again, it is by looking at the context that one can do a good check of what what done to the data to get the graphs. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > No, dude, no. You said “_Smoking as a cause of cancer had AFAIK similar levels of uncertainty when the clampdown on tobacco makers came._”. I’m sorry that I thought that by “_similar levels of uncertainty_” you were actually going to put some numbers, especially since I had just commented on error bars and statistical uncertainty. And for not searching you look then more pathetic when information is available, I should not had said similar, but \*\*worse \*\*probabilities, for less probabilities than what we are expecting about the rise of temperature with an increase of CO2, society decided to do something about regulating Tobacco. [http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI\_Pub\_Interface/raterisk/risks158.html](http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/risks158.html) > [@](#): > > Smoking is currently estimated to cause 85 percent of all lung cancer deaths. Lung cancer mortality increases with increasing dose, as determined by number of cigarettes smoked daily, smoking duration, and inhalation patterns. The risk of dying from lung cancer is 22 times higher among male smokers and 12 times higher among female smokers than among people who have never smoked (U.S. DHHS, 1990). So what about the probability of the warming that comes when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles? > **[Climate sensitivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity)** > > Climate sensitivity is a key measure in climate science and describes how much Earth's surface will warm for a doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. Its formal definition is: "The change in the surface temperature in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration or other radiative forcing.": 2223  This concept helps scientists understand the extent and magnitude of the effects of climate change. > The Earth's surface warms as a direct conse... > [@](#): > > Forest, et al. (2002)[17] using patterns of change and the MIT EMIC estimated a 95% confidence interval of 1.4–7.7°C for the climate sensitivity, and a 30% probability that sensitivity was outside the 1.5 to 4.5°C range. So yes, my posturing is that you will be useless again and forget to post a link to the articles that are using your images, either because it will show how dumb the denier writers (and you for swallowing it) were, if the article you got the images comes from a denier site; or it would show how properly the scientists explained in proper context why the discrepancy you are complaining about comes from. Since I was capable of doing a simple search and citations to support what I said, come with the full articles that use the images you posted, otherwise you do deserve the titles others are giving you in this thread. ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/282 "2011-01-22T02:06:48Z")
And in case the condiment of Chicken brain does not get it, this was done before by him, posting images that showed just partial shots of the recent upward trend in temperature in an attempt to show the last few years looked just like the period around the 60’s to the 70’s. With no context the effect was just like the denier site (found after many searches) wanted it, to imply that there was no difference and nature was doing the changes, only that the shots omitted that the temperature was higher on the second image. The reason now to demand a proper context is that I want to verify how the likely proper adjustments were done to the data that the deniers are attempting to discredit. ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/283 "2011-01-22T02:44:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So you don’t even know that you aren’t educated enough to actually have a worthy opinion? You really don’t? > > Climate scientists, that is to say the people who actually understand the issues, are largely united on this. There is a scientific consensus. > > What does it matter when some silly, ignorant bitch like you thinks he’s found a smoking gun? You don’t know what you’re talking about, so why do you think that you understand what climate scientists can’t see? > > But keep on, keepin’ on. You’re just looking more and more the fool. What smokng gun did I say I found? I’m simply pointing out that the adjustments on raw data are what change the trend from diverging to paralell. What is the right thing to do? If it was, did they do it right? Those are good questions for I and you do not have the answer. Does the whole “you’re a fool and an ignorant bitch” really work for you on real life debating or is it simply web-cojones? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually the info is easy to find, but there you go again certifying all how useless you really are, and once again, it is by looking at the context that one can do a good check of what what done to the data to get the graphs. So, you’re still on the “I don’t comment on NCDC data” camp. OK. > [@](#): > > And for not searching you look then more pathetic when information is available, I should not had said similar, but \*\*worse \*\*probabilities, for less probabilities than what we are expecting about the rise of temperature with an increase of CO2, society decided to do something about regulating Tobacco. > > [http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI\_Pub\_Interface/raterisk/risks158.html](http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/risks158.html) You pointed to a data-less article, not I. Yor tobacco article, while very interesting, offers absolutely zero information on statistical uncertainty and error bars. I don’t see how that article helps prove or disproves those two very vlear topics. > [@](#): > > So what about the probability of the warming that comes when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles? > > [Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity) Will there be warming if CO2 doubles? Of course. The doubling CO2 alone would contribute about 1°C. It is the forcings and positive feedabacks the get the (real or supposed) extra warming. You do know that positive feedback make for very unstable systems, don’t you? > [@](#): > > So yes, my posturing is that you will be useless again and forget to post a link to the articles that are using your images, either because it will show how dumb the denier writers (and you for swallowing it) were, if the article you got the images comes from a denier site; or it would show how properly the scientists explained in proper context why the discrepancy you are complaining about comes from. > > Since I was capable of doing a simple search and citations to support what I said, come with the full articles that use the images you posted, otherwise you do deserve the titles others are giving you in this thread. SO, again, no comment on data, only the name of the guy posting it. I’ll post the place(s) later or tomorrow or whenever, but please don’t make your reply 49.9% “it’s a deniers place”, 49.9% a link to your favourite website and 0.2% actual anaylisis. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And in case the condiment of Chicken brain does not get it, this was done before by him, posting images that showed just partial shots of the recent upward trend in temperature in an attempt to show the last few years looked just like the period around the 60’s to the 70’s. > > With no context the effect was just like the denier site (found after many searches) wanted it, to imply that there was no difference and nature was doing the changes, only that the shots omitted that the temperature was higher on the second image. The reason now to demand a proper context is that I want to verify how the likely proper adjustments were done to the data that the deniers are attempting to discredit. It was the 30’s actually, and you pulled the same “I don’t comment on data” stuff. You didn’t even bring yourself to say the data was wrong. Of course, no comment either on the super-extrapolated map. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/284 "2011-01-22T03:07:12Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > What smokng gun did I say I found? > I’m simply pointing out that the adjustments on raw data are what change the trend from diverging to paralell. What is the right thing to do? If it was, did they do it right? Those are good questions for I and you do not have the answer. > Does the whole “you’re a fool and an ignorant bitch” really work for you on real life debating or is it simply web-cojones? In real life debating a moron like you wouldn’t be whipping out web-quotes to divert from how utterly worthless his arguments are. ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/285 "2011-01-22T05:06:52Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You pointed to a data-less article, not I. So sorry to bust your bubble, you missed the point that societies committed to a path of action in the past with even less odds than the ones mentioned regarding the likely rise in temperature. Your original say so was “Would you accept any other area (or human experience) of science with such levels of uncertainty?” The answer is that not only I would accept it, it was accepted before by many societies that rely on science to make progress, similar situations can be found (with the same merchants of doubt as opponents) with issues like CFCs affecting the ozone layer, Acid Rain and phosphate river contamination. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Will there be warming if CO2 doubles? Of course. The doubling CO2 alone would contribute about 1°C. It is the forcings and positive feedabacks the get the (real or supposed) extra warming. You do know that positive feedback make for very unstable systems, don’t you? Ignorance showing once again, it is not only models that are used to calculate how warm it will get. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/dessler\_debates\_lindzen.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/dessler_debates_lindzen.php) The important bit starts at minute 16, the models agree with the data. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > SO, again, no comment on data, only the name of the guy posting it. > I’ll post the place(s) later or tomorrow or whenever, but please don’t make your reply 49.9% “it’s a deniers place”, 49.9% a link to your favourite website and 0.2% actual anaylisis. Meh, that is translated as “I do not want to deal with the fact that I’m repeating items that were explained properly many times before.” > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It was the 30’s actually, and you pulled the same “I don’t comment on data” stuff. You didn’t even bring yourself to say the data was wrong. I never said that because the point was that the graphics without context were offered to mislead others into assuming that nature was driving the changes, ignoring on purpose the warming that took place from the 70’s on. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Of course, no comment either on the super-extrapolated map. And to repeat, no comment in the specifics will be made until you post the context, chances are that once again the researchers had excellent reasons to adjust the data, unadjusted data can mislead and deniers of course love that. Incidentally, the last images posted by you seem to come from Watts up With That, a site that claims to do science, but in reality they never report how wrong they were regarding temperature adjustments. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/dcxVwEfq4bM/maxresdefault.jpg "Watts Up With Watts?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM) ---
**Author:** ![Electric](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Electric](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Electric)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/286 "2011-01-22T05:59:31Z")
Was this on the Drudge report? ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/287 "2011-01-22T17:22:45Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > In real life debating a moron like you wouldn’t be whipping out web-quotes to divert from how utterly worthless his arguments are. I assume that dodging works great when you debate against the wall. However, in real life, it doesn’t. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > So sorry to bust your bubble, you missed the point that societies committed to a path of action in the past with even less odds than the ones mentioned regarding the likely rise in temperature. And the data was… , I see, none. For the fourth time, with uncertainty a mean statistical uncertainty of outcomes (e.g. how much rain will we get this year? Well, the 10-year average is 10 mm. This year we’ll get more 11-345mm with 95% confidence). Yo do know even a bit a statistics, don’t you? > [@](#): > > Your original say so was “Would you accept any other area (or human experience) of science with such levels of uncertainty?” > > The answer is that not only I would accept it, it was accepted before by many societies that rely on science to make progress, similar situations can be found (with the same merchants of doubt as opponents) with issues like CFCs affecting the ozone layer, Acid Rain and phosphate river contamination. I didn’t say what many societies did, I asked about you. So, you’d happy with the answer "This car gives between 3 and 54 mpg 95% of the time"as a good answer for mileage? > [@](#): > > Ignorance showing once again, it is not only models that are used to calculate how warm it will get. > > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/dessler\_debates\_lindzen.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/dessler_debates_lindzen.php) > > The important bit starts at minute 16, the models agree with the data. You’ve got to be really full of yourself if I’m going to watch just the part you like of a 2-hour debate. Or that I’m going to watch a 2-hour debate right now simply to answer you. > [@](#): > > Meh, that is translated as “I do not want to deal with the fact that I’m repeating items that were explained properly many times before.” Maybe you should only answer by saying that all the time. That really works. > [@](#): > > I never said that because the point was that the graphics without context were offered to mislead others into assuming that nature was driving the changes, ignoring on purpose the warming that took place from the 70’s on. Is it misleading to say that a temperature increase in the 30’s was mostly cause by natural forces and not by CO2? It’s not ignoring the 70’s increase, it’s comparing. Are you saying you can’t analyse or even comment on the data without even saying it’s false or not? You need context, I’ll give you context, sweetie pie. [random number alert] If between 1905 and 1920 the temperature increased 34° and between 1975 and 1990 the temeprature increased 34°, wouldn’t it be interesting to compare what caused them both in the context were AGW say that CO2 is driving the present increase and early in the 20th century there wasn’t that much more that pre-industrial revolution levels? > [@](#): > > And to repeat, no comment in the specifics will be made until you post the context, chances are that once again the researchers had excellent reasons to adjust the data, unadjusted data can mislead and deniers of course love that. > > Incidentally, the last images posted by you seem to come from Watts up With That, a site that claims to do science, but in reality they never report how wrong they were regarding temperature adjustments. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM) [/QUOTE] The use of passive makes it sound like you can order me to do something or you are some international expert I have to bow in front of, dude, you’re an anonymous guy on an anonymous board, nothing more than that. I never said that the adjustments were no the right thing to do, I’m simply wondering. You couldn’t resist on the ad hominen. Where in the nternet I found the chart is irrelevant for real discussion and only serves you to dodge again. I’ll see if I can be bothered to find those same chart in a place you won’t be able to chiken away from. Bye, bye, princess. ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/288 "2011-01-22T18:01:36Z")
Wealth or power? > **[Cyberthieves Target European Carbon Credit Market](https://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133123389/cyberthieves-target-european-carbon-credit-market?sc=emaf)** > > In a case that is every bit a 21st century crime both in terms of what was stolen and how, thieves have made off with about $40 million worth of carbon emission permits. Hmmmm, maybe both. Just another of the multitude things I know nothing of. 😛 ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/289 "2011-01-22T19:18:51Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I assume that dodging works great when you debate against the wall. However, in real life, it doesn’t. Of course, care to reply to the Pat Michaels question? Is he wrong? And Why? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > And the data was… , I see, none. > For the fourth time, with uncertainty a mean statistical uncertainty of outcomes (e.g. how much rain will we get this year? Well, the 10-year average is 10 mm. This year we’ll get more 11-345mm with 95% confidence). Yo do know even a bit a statistics, don’t you? Do you even have a clue who to quote to get support about your say so’s? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I didn’t say what many societies did, I asked about you. > So, you’d happy with the answer "This car gives between 3 and 54 mpg 95% of the time"as a good answer for mileage? What part of “The answer is that _not only I would accept it_” did you do not understand? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You’ve got to be really full of yourself if I’m going to watch just the part you like of a 2-hour debate. Or that I’m going to watch a 2-hour debate right now simply to answer you. What part of “start at minute 16 for the important part (saying that you could ignore the rest before)” do you do not understand? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Maybe you should only answer by saying that all the time. That really works. What it is clearly to all is that you just assume your opponent is using the same rotten tactics that you are using. While you pretend the images with no context are the end of it all, the reality is that if they are finally offered we may find the original scientific source or the stupid reasoning of the deniers that made the article. In any case, the evidence was already presented that scientists do not go adjusting data just for shits and giggles. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Is it misleading to say that a temperature increase in the 30’s was mostly cause by natural forces and not by CO2? It’s not ignoring the 70’s increase, it’s comparing. The images you posted omitted the warming that appeared during the 70’s, you just had a beef when I pointed that out, and clearly the denier source that cropped the images had the intention to mislead others. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Are you saying you can’t analyse or even comment on the data without even saying it’s false or not? > You need context, I’ll give you context, sweetie pie. [random number alert] If between 1905 and 1920 the temperature increased 34° and between 1975 and 1990 the temeprature increased 34°, wouldn’t it be interesting to compare what caused them both in the context were AGW say that CO2 is driving the present increase and early in the 20th century there wasn’t that much more that pre-industrial revolution levels? Time to show the Gallina how ignorant is he once again: This was replied before and with sources, you seem to have good memory about what a denier says with cropped graphs, but not a good one for what the scientists said before. > **[What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)** > > Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past... > [@](#): > > If there’s one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it’s that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found. What was the reason for the changes in temperature before the evidence mounted that humans began to change it in the 70’s? The old reason many deniers still insist is driving the current warming, solar activity. > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ > [@](#): > > In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades > **[Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm)** > > There are a number of forcings which affect climate (eg - stratospheric aerosols, solar variations). When all forcings are combined, they show good correlation to global temperature throughout the 20th century including the mid-century cooling... > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The use of passive makes it sound like you can order me to do something or you are some international expert I have to bow in front of, dude, you’re an anonymous guy on an anonymous board, nothing more than that. > I never said that the adjustments were no the right thing to do, I’m simply wondering. I see, “just asking questions”, as even skeptics that drink one every time a denier resorts to that tactic can tell you, you are not impressing even the serious skeptics. [Northern Colorado Skeptics in the Pub: Asking Questions](http://nocoskeptics.blogspot.com/2010/08/asking-questions.html)🙂 > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You couldn’t resist on the ad hominen. Where in the nternet I found the chart is irrelevant for real discussion and only serves you to dodge again. I’ll see if I can be bothered to find those same chart in a place you won’t be able to chiken away from. > Bye, bye, princess. Bulls-eye, can I call it or not? What you are demonstrating to all is that your brain is at least smart enough to not bring the context where you got the images. And if you consider the request to post the link to where you got the images to mean that I consider myself “some international expert” it is not me who has a problem. ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/290 "2011-01-22T19:37:59Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Wealth or power? > > [Cyberthieves Target European Carbon Credit Market : NPR](http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133123389/cyberthieves-target-european-carbon-credit-market?sc=emaf) > > Hmmmm, maybe both. Just another of the multitude things I know nothing of. 😛 If you bother to search you will see that I’m on the record already criticizing many of the cap and trade solutions proposed; however, you seem to have evidence that the thieves were related to the scientists. 🙂 The reality is that wealth and power are driving most of the attacks to the science and the attempts to subvert democracy by getting people in power that will delay for years what needs to be done. [http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/02/what-were-up-against-tea-party-afp-climate-zombie-astroturfing-cancun/](http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/02/what-were-up-against-tea-party-afp-climate-zombie-astroturfing-cancun/) [http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/climate-zombies-now-run-the-house-of-representatives/](http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/04/climate-zombies-now-run-the-house-of-representatives/) ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/291 "2011-01-22T20:57:57Z")
I guess you can be a denier and a believer at the same time. Just deny the parts you don’t like and believe the ones you do. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reality is that wealth and power are driving most of the attacks … Don’t be so naive. The reality is wealth and power drive EVERYTHING. The big disctinction with scientists personally in this regard, is they expect other people’s wealth to be supplied in the form of government grants among other things. Look at what all that ethanol research and subsidy got us and it’s just one small slice of the GW pie. :rolleyes: I’d really like to be more supportive of this science if it wasn’t so intricately entwined with the politics. The fact that big money is at stake makes it all the more suspect. Manipulation going on? Hell yes - ALL kinds. Data “adjustments” maybe, who knows, don’t care. If it looks like a duck, walks like a… ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/292 "2011-01-22T21:11:53Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > I guess you can be a denier and a believer at the same time. Just deny the parts you don’t like and believe the ones you do. > > Don’t be so naive. The reality is wealth and power drive EVERYTHING. The big disctinction with scientists personally in this regard, is they expect other people’s wealth to be supplied in the form of government grants among other things. Look at what all that ethanol research and subsidy got us and it’s just one small slice of the GW pie. :rolleyes: So, a distinction with no difference to you, useful to deceive yourself I guess. I’m also on the record of dismissing ethanol as a solution, unless it is not made with corn or other materials that could be used as food. > [@Nadir](#): > > I’d really like to be more supportive of this science if it wasn’t so intricately entwined with the politics. The fact that big money is at stake makes it all the more suspect. Manipulation going on? Hell yes - ALL kinds. Data “adjustments” maybe, who knows, don’t care. > > If it looks like a duck, walks like a… Nope, you just swallowed conspiracy claptrap. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/7nnVQ2fROOg/hqdefault.jpg "6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg) > [@](#): > > I’ve taken the two [emails] that seem to be getting conspiracy theorists most worked up – Phil Jones’s e-mail about “Mike’s Nature trick” and Kevin Trenberth’s e-mail about a “travesty.” I’m glad to see that skeptic websites that cover the science understand what these e-mails actually mean. As you’ll see, very few commentators who jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon even before reading the e-mails managed to get it right. ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/293 "2011-01-22T21:39:56Z")
You say conspiracy, I say opportunity. Opportunity for corruption, market manipulation and scamming. Lots of different fundamentally unrelated people running around doing that all on their own in the name of GW. ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/294 "2011-01-22T22:19:59Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > You say conspiracy, I say opportunity. Opportunity for corruption, market manipulation and scamming. Lots of different fundamentally unrelated people running around doing that all on their own in the name of GW. What it is clear is that you don’t see a difference between opportunity and conspiracy, in this case you have a peculiar definition of opportunity, do you have a good example of this “oportunity” made by the scientists? ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/295 "2011-01-22T22:24:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …do you have a good example of this “oportunity” made by the scientists? Oh yeah - crime. I forgot about crime. Another of those “opportunistic” endeavors. I posted that one in the NPR article earlier. Just came out today. ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/296 "2011-01-22T22:25:58Z")
Well, there are all those endorsement deals, movie and book contracts, royalties (‘scientists’ get a cut every time ‘Global Warming’, or own of the other trade marked names are used in print), that sort of thing. Not to mention those vast grants they get that are unavailable to the poor schmucks working for corporations on research to prove GW and AGW is all a hoax or a opium dream. Plus, let’s not forget the Global Warming groupies… -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:** [January 22, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/297 "2011-01-22T22:39:09Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > Oh yeah - crime. I forgot about crime. Another of those “opportunistic” endeavors. I posted that one in the NPR article earlier. Just came out today. Ok, before it was a joke, but now… Are you willing to say that scientists are involved in the crime you reported? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Nadir](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nadir/32/7302_2.png) [@Nadir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nadir)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/298 "2011-01-22T23:20:27Z")
The obvious (to me) answer to the OP’s original question: > [@Leaper](#): > > This just advances the false (though admittedly with at least a little basis in “common sense”) perception that “global warming” means that everywhere on the planet will be hotter all the time. Do people who do this know it’s false, and are just advancing it anyway for their political agenda, or do they really don’t know? Is both b) and c). BOTH sides promote their agenda for political goals. Neither can claim anything definite in the bigger scheme of things at this time. Whether it’s an anomaly to be concerned about makes for good, worthwile scientific study. Politically motivated alarmist calls to action? Not so much. Tree rings are good too. 😃 That’s just my now after this thread more (mis)informed opinion. Not entertaining other questions at this time. The believers can go cyberbully someone else for awhile now after I’ve been duly informed of my low knowledge level, worthless input and bad personal hygiene. 😛 ---
**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:** [January 22, 2011, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/299 "2011-01-22T23:42:08Z")
> [@Nadir](#): > > That’s just my now after this thread more (mis)informed opinion. Not entertaining other questions at this time. The believers can go cyberbully someone else for awhile now after I’ve been duly informed of my low knowledge level, worthless input and bad personal hygiene. 😛 Ah yes, I can see how lucky you feel. [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html) ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421/300 "2011-01-23T02:12:08Z")
**Nadir** , you might want to go bandage those bleeding holes in your wrists, as the blood is getting all over the floor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-cold-so-theres-no-global-warming-do-they-know-thats-false/567421.md?page=16)