Climategate

[Sander]

ok sander.

i have no doubt that humans are having an effect on our planet.

people in favor of AGW tend to agree that our global naturally occurring CO2 levels is about 125-175. and we are at 380 per latest numbers i have heard.

i contend that every 2,500 PPM of CO2 provides 0.1 Celsius of warming globally averaged over a year.

due to that, 380 is not a significant number as it is so low any warming due to human CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases is negligible ( not non-existent due to such low quantities.

now... here is where the kicker is.

prove my position wrong.

dont worry, ill wait.

Oooh, goody, random, uncited numbers without any context or any proof backing them up. I think I'll pass on wasting my time trying to disprove that.

Here, let me repeat what I've been saying throughout this thread: CITE YOUR FUCKING NUMBERS.

Completely agree, afterall science is not a democracy. (pity the alarmists dont agree...) althouth i have to disagree with the "majority issue", since any opposition has been silenced by the media and goons (we now have confirmation from the source - IPCC) and like you said, the media are not reliable. Were do you hear about the concensus? mainstream media ofc...

What about scientific publications? You know, the places where you learn about the actual science instead of the mainstream media which shows diluted views.

And yes, actually, consensus and democracy is how science works. When you have thousands of scientists involved in a debate, the majority is going to be right a lot more often than the minority.

 

[TheWesDude]

actually sander...


nobody with any amount of intelligence on the subject will say that humans are not having any affect on the environment, and even global warming.

i believe that human emissions are causing a warming of our planet by putting these greenhouse gases BACK into the atmosphere.

what i DO contend is the quantification of that affect.

people who proclaim anything close to a "doomsday scenario" due to global warming are the ones in the wrong in my opinion.

until they can quantify the affect that these GHGs are having, the discussion is good, but ultimately futile as they cannot PROVE it.

that was the whole point of my statements. the whole point was....

THERE ARE NO FUCKING NUMBERS

the people predicting doomsday scenarios are those who cite results from climatological models.

these same models that are questionably accurate 1 week out. and they are running these models for DECADES and saying they are accurate.

i will say it again...

THERE ARE NO FUCKING NUMBERS

 

[Sander]

that was the whole point of my statements. the whole point was....

THERE ARE NO FUCKING NUMBERS

Yes there are. In fact, you've been showing us numbers throughout this thread, without any way of backing it up other than 'cause I said so'. Your point may have been to discredit other numbers, but you haven't been citing any of those either.

My criticism of you not citing is numbers is based in that because you tell us 'the truth' and then give us no way whatsoever to check anything you're saying. You consistently refuse to give us any background, context, proof or even a single link to any kind of article (except for the bit about nuclear energy, which is rather irrelevant to the points you're trying to make about global warming). You are trying to argue from a position of authority without anything to back that up.

And that's what pisses me off about all these fucking debates.

 

[TheWesDude]

what numbers?

i contend that every 2,500 PPM of CO2 provides 0.1 Celsius of warming globally averaged over a year.

that was unfounded numbers

these same models that are questionably accurate 1 week out. and they are running these models for DECADES and saying they are accurate.

that is true. we are only able to predict weather up to 7 days ( 1 week ) and be reasonably accurate.


there are only numbers of the past. there are no accurate numbers for the future.

because we do not know.


should we curtail our most wasteful abuses?

hell yes.


are people who are predicting doomsday scenarios doing so with any basis of science fact?

hell no.


because we do not know.


i am not trying to argue for one side or the other from any point of authority.

my POINT is that there is NO source of authority as all anyone can do is give opinions.

the reason there is no source of authority is because they cannot quantify the amount of warming due to greenhouse gases.

 

[Zeal]

Completely agree, afterall science is not a democracy. (pity the alarmists dont agree...) althouth i have to disagree with the "majority issue", since any opposition has been silenced by the media and goons (we now have confirmation from the source - IPCC) and like you said, the media are not reliable. Were do you hear about the concensus? mainstream media ofc...

What about scientific publications? You know, the places where you learn about the actual science instead of the mainstream media which shows diluted views.

And yes, actually, consensus and democracy is how science works. When you have thousands of scientists involved in a debate, the majority is going to be right a lot more often than the minority.

like i said, peer-review has been completely manipulated, have you checked the emails at least?

We had scientists for the last 3 years saying they were being intimidated, fired or just censured when trying to counter the apocalypse scenario.

And actually, since the 4000 scientists gore keeps saying that are "pro-apocalypse" have been debunked to burocrats mostly, lefting just a couple hundred of scientists with interests, the 32000 petition alone should prove there is no AGW by your perspective of things.

again, SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, it is the persuit of truth using the scientific method established by Popper.

Science is not public opinion, science is not a tool to fit our own interests (like ethics), science doesnt care for our world views.

At least, altho incorrect, say the theory of AGW is the correct one, but never say science is a democracy please... Well maybe in north korea its a "democracy"....

Edit: i rememeber when the "consensus" was that the Earth was flat, or that we do not evolve from primates, or that the sun rotates around the Earth... etc. Beware when men in power talks about "consensus" and the need to silence any opposition... Truth is not democratic...

 

[Sander]

what numbers?

i contend that every 2,500 PPM of CO2 provides 0.1 Celsius of warming globally averaged over a year.

that was unfounded numbers

these same models that are questionably accurate 1 week out. and they are running these models for DECADES and saying they are accurate.

that is true. we are only able to predict weather up to 7 days ( 1 week ) and be reasonably accurate.

Excuse me? Week-to-week weather patterns have shit-all to do with global warming.

Also, predicting precise weather events has nothing to do with predicting general weather behaviour. I can predict that it's cold in winter without knowing complex exact models of what's going to happen on the 25th of december this year.

are people who are predicting doomsday scenarios doing so with any basis of science fact?

hell no.

So the scientists who are involved in research and publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers are not actually using science? I'm sure glad to hear that from you, the expert on science.

i am not trying to argue for one side or the other from any point of authority.

my POINT is that there is NO source of authority as all anyone can do is give opinions.

the reason there is no source of authority is because they cannot quantify the amount of warming due to greenhouse gases.

How do you type that last sentence, not back it up in any way and then still claim that you are not arguing from authority? The only thing backing your statements up, is you. I'm supposed to believe you, random internet guy, over thousands of scientists who've made it their job to know this?

like i said, peer-review has been completely manipulated, have you checked the emails at least?

There are significantly more scientists in the world than those people.

Yes, the scientific atmosphere isn't conducive to a healthy debate. But that's still easily the best source we have to go on. I'd rather trust scientists working in a slightly manipulated environment than, well, people who don't cite facts and just expect you to believe them because.

Edit: i rememeber when the "consensus" was that the Earth was flat, or that we do not evolve from primates, or that the sun rotates around the Earth... etc. Beware when men in power talks about "consensus" and the need to silence any opposition... Truth is not democratic...

You don't remember those times unless you're a medical marvel. Truth isn't democratic, but determining what is a 'truth' certainly is.
Just think about it. You have, say, 5000 scientists, and the vast majority of them clain one thing, while a small minority claim the opposite thing. Who, exactly, are you going to side with? The majority is going to be right much more often than the minority, and while the times the minority is correct aren't non-existent, as a non-expert it's rather hard to determine when exactly the minority is right.

And actually, since the 4000 scientists gore keeps saying that are "pro-apocalypse" have been debunked to burocrats mostly, lefting just a couple hundred of scientists with interests, the 32000 petition alone should prove there is no AGW by your perspective of things.

No it shouldn't. For one, only 9,000 of them have PhD's, and when you look at the outlining of the fields it suddenly gets both a lot less impressive, and it still remains completely unclear who of those people does or doesn't have a PhD or even where they got those degrees (which is important). I'd be very, very surprised if there wasn't an overwhelming majority of scientists with PhDs in relevant fields who think that global warming is a problem, worldwide.

Secondly, if you look at peer-reviewed articles, the 'global warming is taking place' articles vastly outnumber the others, or so I've been told by several newspapers. Peer-reviewed articles are more relevant than amount of scientists, since peer-reviewed articles give a sense of how many people have actually done research into this field. However, the scientific atmosphere might discourage people from publishing their research. Then again, apparently over 32,000 American scientists have no problems opposing global warming

Thirdly, I don't see a petition categorizing any scientists who favour the proposition. So no, you can't compare numbers. The numbers from Gore's film are largely irrelevant as they aren't an American, nationwide poll of basically everyone with a BA in anything even remotely related to science.

 

[TheWesDude]

sander...

these climatological models are not accurate...

they cannot duplicate the weather we have had previously... if they cannot even duplicate weather we had, what makes you think they can duplicate weather we will have?

oh, the models fail to be remotely accurate when predicting global climate if we start back and advance forward through times we have numbers, but they miraculously become accurate when predicting #s we cant verify?

you cannot take these climatological models in even 1940 or 1950 and duplicate the progression to 2000.

oh, and you are absolutely right about the "big players" in global climate change theory not being above manipulating data... the whole "hockey stick" incident never happened did it.

and the media did not buy it and create a fervor until others called the media on it.

oh, and that guy definitely recanted his hockey stick... oh wait, no he didnt. he has not to this day.


the problem with these scientists advocating AGW is there are times even the "most respected" scientists and journals have done things directly opposite to credible science.

after all, how did the guy get his "hockey stick" graph published in "peer reviewed science journals" and even in the IPCC report with it being directly in opposition to scientific data if they should be above suspicion?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Wes Dude, let me ask the question that Sander has been asking so that you can answer it.

What are your sources? Once you answer that, give us a link to the relevant articles so that we can check them.

If you don't provide sources (which you have not done after repeated requests) then you are clearly either working from memory (which is hardly reliable), embarrassed by your sources (or realize they're unreliable), or don't have sources.

The point is, the discussion is irrelevant unless people who provide data provide the sources for it.

 

[TheWesDude]

ok, what exactly do you want sources on?

for the hockey stick graph, the IPCC is the ones who first published it i think in 2000 to 2004 period.

i havent actually read up on it, all i know is everyone talks about it with a lot of derision.

what exactly are you looking for sources on?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Whenever you list off numbers you need to provide a source if you expect people to take them seriously.

 

[TheWesDude]

the only #s i have cited is:

i contend that every 2,500 PPM of CO2 provides 0.1 Celsius of warming globally averaged over a year.

which i have already stated was made up and was used to state a point.

we do not know how much warming is being caused by the GHGs and how much is a part of the normal warming/cooling cycle.

no citation needed as its made up #s.

these same models that are questionably accurate 1 week out. and they are running these models for DECADES and saying they are accurate.

this is the only other time i cite #s.

even the IPCC admits that the highest accuracy per resolution figuring for the smallest resolution is 95%.

whats the smallest resolution? monthly on a 5x5 degree lat/long grid globally.

and its per iteration... so the first iteration figuring a 5x5 lat/long grid of a month is 95% accurate. the second month is .95*.95 accurate... very quickly it falls apart.

they figured the accuracy of these models by starting in 1850 and going forward to 1950.

full details and such is available on the IPCC web page. www.ipcc.org

there is your source. oh wait, the IPCC is a very questionable and invalid source as they published the hockey stick.

shit, i guess i dont have a source that says these models are 95% accurate per iteration for the best model.

oh, and that the biggest reason for inaccuracy in these models is that scientists do not fully understand clouds.

and whats one of the big things that will happen if the world heats up? clouds will form a lot faster, and it will rain more.

so... if the biggest problem for these models is their abysmal understanding of clouds, and one of the biggest changes if the world warms up is the global cloud cover increases... they will become less reliable.


then again, if you had read up on these models from multiple sources you would know these issues and this information and would not need anyone to cite references.

thats one of the reasons for some things i do not cite references. like these models. there are lots of sources that cite the problems and why these models are inaccurate. it is very easy to find a source that backs up my statement on them being inaccurate.

even the IPCC admits they are inaccurate.

but they are accurate enough to predict doomsday scenarios?? either they are accurate or not.

oh, and figuring the smallest resolution of monthly and 5x5 grid, the highest confidence models tend to agree... on a 1% CO2 increase in our atmosphere ( which is what we are experiencing based on IPCC #s ) the highest confidence is an increase of global average temperature of somewhere around .5 to 1.3 celcius in a decade.

that is a huge range. no, really, it is. it could go up .5 in a decade, or it could go up 1.3 in a decade, or anywhere in between.

thats based on the monthly 5x5 grid that is only 95% accurate per iteration.

 

[Zeal]

Garlic it seems you have missed my posts...

Anyway, except from welsh posting what i think its manipulated data (but at least he posted something trying to support he´s claims, but come on.. canibal polar bears due to AGW... :/), no1 posted anything else...

Anyway here is a movie i think its good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QL_HaYgLYA&feature=PlayList&p=50705F36687032CE&index=0&playnext=1

enjoy

 

[Kahgan]

I don't see anyone here claiming that the efforts governments are taking are correct, and scientists around the world aren't suggesting that higher taxes is the solution to global warming. Most scientists and people like myself are just genuinely concerned that we might be screwing up our environment. The fact that governments are making a profit on it doesn't mean that we should stop being concerned. And I don't think I've read many "doomsday" posts here either.
Lastly, I think the argument that this is some "doomsday prophecy" is just a pathetic way of trying to clear one's conscience or justify one's inability to see the faults in one's way of life.

That said, I do believe society as we know it may very well go down the crapper some day, but not nessacerely because of global warming.

 

[Zeal]

I don't see anyone here claiming that the efforts governments are taking are correct, and scientists around the world aren't suggesting that higher taxes is the solution to global warming. Most scientists and people like myself are just genuinely concerned that we might be screwing up our environment. The fact that governments are making a profit on it doesn't mean that we should stop being concerned. And I don't think I've read many "doomsday" posts here either.
Lastly, I think the argument that this is some "doomsday prophecy" is just a pathetic way of trying to clear one's conscience or justify one's inability to see the faults in one's way of life.

That said, I do believe society as we know it may very well go down the crapper some day, but not nessacerely because of global warming.

We are screwing the environment, i have been a "ecologist" (these days the word means something else) since the 6th grade, where i made my 1st ecological campaing (me and a friend made the school project of that year to be ecological awareness, at least our neiborhood started recycling way before the governmental campaings - i still have our wok on tape ^^).

The problem is that all attention went to a ghost problem due to the raping of science by political/economic interests of the burocratic oligarchy. Who pays the bill? the common guy and the real environment...

 

[TheWesDude]

zeal, that source is flawed and invalid.

they used the same scientific measurements ( not models ) from sources that OISM used as well to say the exact same thing.

because OISM used the same data from the same scientists, and arrived at the same conclusion, that documentary is flawed because OISM is a flawed source.

if thats a little convulated..

A = data sources
B = OISM
C = that documentary

C is flawed because B used A as well and got the same conclusion. because B is a flawed and invalid source scientifically, C must be flawed as well as they used the same A.

at least thats what everyone tells me.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

So, this is the new thread where Sander gets his daily nourishment of arguments. Awesome.

<3

 

[Zeal]

zeal, that source is flawed and invalid.

they used the same scientific measurements ( not models ) from sources that OISM used as well to say the exact same thing.

because OISM used the same data from the same scientists, and arrived at the same conclusion, that documentary is flawed because OISM is a flawed source.

if thats a little convulated..

A = data sources
B = OISM
C = that documentary

C is flawed because B used A as well and got the same conclusion. because B is a flawed and invalid source scientifically, C must be flawed as well as they used the same A.

at least thats what everyone tells me.

Yes, but thats the point, even using alarmists data/arguments, like sources from IPCC, there is no apocalypse...

The author tryed not to look biased too i guess.

Edit: This was done before climategate.

 

[Sander]

zeal, that source is flawed and invalid.

they used the same scientific measurements ( not models ) from sources that OISM used as well to say the exact same thing.

because OISM used the same data from the same scientists, and arrived at the same conclusion, that documentary is flawed because OISM is a flawed source.

if thats a little convulated..

A = data sources
B = OISM
C = that documentary

C is flawed because B used A as well and got the same conclusion. because B is a flawed and invalid source scientifically, C must be flawed as well as they used the same A.

at least thats what everyone tells me.

I don't know anything about the details here, but the fact that B is wrong doesn't necessarily reflect on its information, at all. It reflects on B and its methods.

Also, again, you fail to cite anything. Here's how you actually structure a valid counter-argument: you start by showing a complete overview of the theories you are disputing, and then you build your counter-arguments against that.

You failed to do the first thing, and consequently I haven't a clue as to how your criticism of seemingly disjointed and random parts of global warming theory is relevant. Hockey stick graph? First, how fundamental is that to the total argument, and what are its implications? Then, why is it flawed? Why does that reflect on the entire IPCC, instead of just on that graph? And a quick google just shows that it is far from concluded and debate is still going on on the subject, so your characterization of the deal as fundamentally flawed seems much too strong.

You are trying to deconstruct things that no one in here is claiming and basically few people even know about.

Also, your criticism often doesn't make sense. Of course those models are inaccurate, so why is that relevant? Exact cloud cover - who cares. You don't need to have exact detailed models to be able to extrapolate findings on overall tendencies. .5-1.3 degrees is a wide range, but why is that a problem? What would be the consequence of either a .5 or a 1.3 increase?

 

[Zeal]

not wanting to re-post, but the questions you ask Wes is really well explained, detailed with graphs and sources, by one of the staff of the Iron Lady.

Its not just being lazy, my rethoric and intelectual capabilities dont permit me to ilustrate the problem like he does:

http://vimeo.com/8023097

in a nutshell, hockey stick graph was the best evidence the IPCC could report in 2001 UN report for policy makers that the global warming was true, now we know its a complete fraud.

edit: http://www.newscientist.com/article...hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

notice the date of the article, again climategate does not debunk AGW, it helps what the independent scientists have been advocating for the last years, by the IPCC scientists own hand. Now thats irony

You are trying to deconstruct things that no one in here is claiming and basically few people even know about.

thats the main problem, most people just knows about what BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/january/science_impartiality.shtml), NBC, Fox, etc tells them...

edit 2:

Also, your criticism often doesn't make sense. Of course those models are inaccurate, so why is that relevant? Exact cloud cover - who cares. You don't need to have exact detailed models to be able to extrapolate findings on overall tendencies. .5-1.3 degrees is a wide range, but why is that a problem? What would be the consequence of either a .5 or a 1.3 increase?

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

1st estimates say 0,5 ºC for the next 100 years, 2nd according to the history of humanity that would be good remind that Homo Sappiens Sappiens already lived in higher temperatures that the hypotetical 2100 one and blossomed with the heat. (like all other forms of life)

 

[TheWesDude]

zeal, that source is flawed and invalid.

they used the same scientific measurements ( not models ) from sources that OISM used as well to say the exact same thing.

because OISM used the same data from the same scientists, and arrived at the same conclusion, that documentary is flawed because OISM is a flawed source.

if thats a little convulated..

A = data sources
B = OISM
C = that documentary

C is flawed because B used A as well and got the same conclusion. because B is a flawed and invalid source scientifically, C must be flawed as well as they used the same A.

at least thats what everyone tells me.

I don't know anything about the details here, but the fact that B is wrong doesn't necessarily reflect on its information, at all. It reflects on B and its methods.

you fail right on that last paragraph.

it is completely irrelevant to the background of someone making statements if those statements are backed up by non-questioned sources.

i have zero background on market research. i have no education at all on economics. i do not nor have i ever worked in retail in any fashion.

fallout 3 and COD:MW 2 sold millions.

by your argument, that statement is a complete fallacy and in fact is wrong for 2 reasons.

1) i cite no source
2) i have no background

if you want to question specific statements, ask for sources on those specific statements.

and no, i will not cite a source proving that FO3 and CODMW2 sold millions.

Also, again, you fail to cite anything.

of course i did not cite anything. i did not cite anything for 2 reasons.

1) the documentary is linked in a post made by zeal. you may have noticed that i directed my post towards him.

2) my statements are based on anecdotal experience form whenever i linked to a report by the OISM stating that the earths temperature is based much less ( if anything ) on CO2 and more-so upon the sun. which that documentary that zeal linked used some of the same exact graphs and data that the OISM also used but did not generate.

Hockey stick graph? First, how fundamental is that to the total argument, and what are its implications? Then, why is it flawed? Why does that reflect on the entire IPCC, instead of just on that graph? And a quick google just shows that it is far from concluded and debate is still going on on the subject, so your characterization of the deal as fundamentally flawed seems much too strong.

no, the hockey stick has been debunked as flawed science. the hockey stick graph is based on tree ring thickness on trees around northern california. or do you believe that tree ring thickness in a limited area is even remotely indicative of global temperature?

You are trying to deconstruct things that no one in here is claiming and basically few people even know about.

then they have not researched or read up on the global warming debate. i read about it when i read stuff debunking al gores documentary.

Also, your criticism often doesn't make sense. Of course those models are inaccurate, so why is that relevant?

the primary argument for those in favor of AGW or global climate change of what will happen if a severe global reduction in human generated GHGs does not happen is based upon what the models say. especially the IPCC. when they say the global average temperature will go up by 5-7 degrees in 50 years, that is based upon the models. when they say what will happen to areas around the globe, that is based upon the models. whenever someone claims what will happen, it is based on the models.

if the models are not accurate, neither is their prediction for what will happen.

Exact cloud cover - who cares. You don't need to have exact detailed models to be able to extrapolate findings on overall tendencies. .5-1.3 degrees is a wide range, but why is that a problem? What would be the consequence of either a .5 or a 1.3 increase?

because, the greenhouse effect has 3 primary factors, the solar radiation, the oceans, and clouds.

why are clouds so important? because they are mainly composed of water vapor. water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. it is even more important than nitrogen. and it has more than 2x the effect that CO2 has upon global warming.

now, the highest amount of inaccuracy in those models is clouds and how the affect the climate... when the oceans get warmer, the water evaporation of the oceans gets faster, which means more clouds forming. which exacerbates the biggest problem with the models.

thats why clouds are so important.