global warming fraud "tricks" exposed by hackers

[Infinite Grey]

Originally Posted by Valnorran

Excuse me, but where did I say global warming isn't happening? My whole point is we don't know what's going on.

And my point is, if you look at the scientific literature instead of denialist blogs and nitwit journalist's opinions, you'll know scientists have a very idea of what is going on.

[Valnorran]

Originally Posted by Infinite Grey

Yeah, I knew you pull that one.

Asking an honest question is "pulling" something?

As I mentioned earlier, CO2 isn't the only driver of climate... it's just one of the two main players (the other being the sun) - with many amplifiers. The levels of CO2 vs temperature have been explained, all you have to do is search the scientific literature instead of reading climate skeptic blogs.

Neither of the blogs I linked are skeptical about global warming happening.

Again, the best explanation for current changes is our actions. It's idiotic to point to events that happen milllions (in some cases billion) of years ago and crow "see it happens all the time".

Considering how long the planet's been around, pointing to something that's been happening for a hundred years - or even a few hundred thousand years - and crowing "They sky is falling and it's all our fault" strikes me as being pretty idiotic.

Yeah well, it's pretty much conclusive that it is cause by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The sun, position of the continents, the earth's orbital tilt, none of these are in a current state to explain the rapid warming trend. The only thing that is really different about our planet, is us.

Then explain the evidence for warming on other planets.
http://www.livescience.com/environme...s_warming.html
Hey, look at that. Scientists disagreeing.

Did I say otherwise? Duh. Will you stop strawmanning my position? It makes you look either dishonest or obtuse.

Well, you made "significant extinction" sound pretty important in your previous post. Is it or isn't it?

And my point is, if you look at the scientific literature instead of denialist blogs and nitwit journalist's opinions, you'll know scientists have a very idea of what is going on.

And if you look at the sites I linked, you'll see they are not global warming denialists or journalists' opinions.

Where did most of this scientific literature come from? The IPCC? The ones who get most of their information from the organization producing these questionable emails?

[Infinite Grey]

Originally Posted by Valnorran

Asking an honest question is "pulling" something?

Because past CO2 levels to climate temperature have been comprehensively covered in the scientific literature, all you would have to do look it up. But instead, you visit skeptic blogs who peddle in misinformation.

Neither of the blogs I linked are skeptical about global warming happening.

LoL they might as well be... magical rapid change caused by mysterious phenomena.

Considering how long the planet's been around,

Ah oh, I sense a variant of the argument from personal incongruity about to manifest.

pointing to something that's been happening for a hundred years - or even a few hundred thousand years - and crowing "They sky is falling and it's all our fault" strikes me as being pretty idiotic.

The conditions of the past were different, you have to take them into account... or do you believe the Earth, its orbital tilt and the sun have been static for the past 4 billion odd years? It's not difficult stuff to wrap your mind around val.

Then explain the evidence for warming on other planets.
http://www.livescience.com/environme...s_warming.html
Hey, look at that. Scientists disagreeing.

Yeah scientists disagree, who said they didn't?

There is various potential reasons for other planets to be warming... else you believe they should fall in line with Earth too? (I can't go into details right now, but I will)

Well, you made "significant extinction" sound pretty important in your previous post. Is it or isn't it?

It is important, but not the only important thing. You implied that I did not know about past extinction events, from a mostly throw away comment.

And if you look at the sites I linked, you'll see they are not global warming denialists or journalists' opinions.

Ummm true, but Roy is not a denialist... but you do have

Where did most of this scientific literature come from? The IPCC? The ones who get most of their information from the organization producing these questionable emails?

You can not be that stupid. Where do you think the scientific literature is? I'll give you hint, it's the same place all other science comes from... yeah that's right, peer reviewed journals. Nothing at all to do with IPCC. No wonder you're so misinformed.

[Infinite Grey]

My last post is a little weak because I'm in hurry to do more important things... but I will say this before bugger off.

Valnorran, debating you is frustrating. Not because you present challenging questions, but because you ask really really basic questions - you seem to be ignorant of things you should have learned in junior high. In debating you, one is forced not only to be an opponent, but also a high school science teacher... hand walking you through the basic concepts before we can reach the crux of the conversation. Unfortunately, after a mere half a dozen posts, you've discarded what has already been covered and return to tired all misinformed arguments as if the debunking never happened.

How do I know this? Because of fundamentally ignorant statement/questions like this one

How can something that naturally composes .01 to .1% of our atmosphere be so lethal?

Our bodies are mostly water, but we still drown in it. We need O2 to breathe, but too much will poison us. We use iron in our bodies, but too much will cause heavy metal toxicity. And so on.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Valnorran

The fact that so many questions still exist indicates they do not.

There are really not as many questions as you would like to think. Unless you mean questions by people who are abjectly unqualified to ask. Not every opinion is of equal value. Iggy is right, you do not ask the questions of a dissenting scientist... you ask the questions of an ideologue.

[Cassie]

Originally Posted by Valnorran

Excuse me, but where did I say global warming isn't happening?

I never said that you particularly said that global warming isn't happening, although some posters here do seem to doubt that basic fact. You do however seem to dispute the evidence related to the causes of global warming and your arguments tend to follow the denialists line.

My whole point is we don't know what's going on.

My point is that we do know what is going on and that it is irresponcible to deny the evidence of the majority.

[Tiberias]

How can something that naturally composes .01 to .1% of our atmosphere be so lethal?

Good point! Tell you what - replace .1% of your blood with mercury. Since it's such a tiny percentage, there shouldn't be any negative effects.

*facepalm*

[Valnorran]

Originally Posted by Infinite Grey

Because past CO2 levels to climate temperature have been comprehensively covered in the scientific literature, all you would have to do look it up. But instead, you visit skeptic blogs who peddle in misinformation.

Well, again, not one source I've linked so far has been a skeptic blog.

LoL they might as well be... magical rapid change caused by mysterious phenomena.

Then you obviously didn't read them. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm isn't devoted to global warming skeptics. It rebuts their arguments and actually supports a lot of what you say. If you'd read the link you'd have known that.

The conditions of the past were different, you have to take them into account... or do you believe the Earth, its orbital tilt and the sun have been static for the past 4 billion odd years?

Do you expect these changes to stop just because you're now here to be inconvenienced?

Yeah scientists disagree, who said they didn't?

Well, I said they don't know what's going on and now everyone is telling me that's wrong, so I sort of got the impression they felt the scientists were in agreement about this.

There is various potential reasons for other planets to be warming...

Yep. Just like ours.

You can not be that stupid. Where do you think the scientific literature is? I'll give you hint, it's the same place all other science comes from... yeah that's right, peer reviewed journals. Nothing at all to do with IPCC. No wonder you're so misinformed.

Because past CO2 levels to climate temperature have been comprehensively covered in the scientific literature, all you would have to do look it up. But instead, you visit skeptic blogs who peddle in misinformation.

Valnorran, debating you is frustrating. Not because you present challenging questions, but because you ask really really basic questions - you seem to be ignorant of things you should have learned in junior high. In debating you, one is forced not only to be an opponent, but also a high school science teacher... hand walking you through the basic concepts before we can reach the crux of the conversation.

There's something here you don't seem to understand, and that's the fact that not everybody is as into this topic as you are. Not everybody reads scientific journals for fun. Not everybody has global warming as their pet topic. Expecting them to know all about it right off the tops of their heads is unrealistic. I have my pet topics, but I understand not everyone is as interested in it as I am, so I have no objections to explaining things to others who don't have my familiarity with it. When it comes to Constitutional rights our positions are reversed, yet I've never ranted about how ignorant you are of American political philosophy. I've tried to explain it to the best of my ability. Am I expecting too much from you in thinking you could return the courtesy? The fact that explaining your position causes you such aggravation says a lot. I hope you never go into the teaching profession.

Originally Posted by Cassie

I never said that you particularly said that global warming isn't happening,

Really? Than what was this (emphasis mine)?

It's kind of heartwarming to see Inward Visionary, Valnoran and a few others supporting a minority lost cause. In the unlikely event that their denialist perspectives turn out to be proved correct, I hope I will have the good grace to admit that they were right all along.

although some posters here do seem to doubt that basic fact. You do however seem to dispute the evidence related to the causes of global warming and your arguments tend to follow the denialists line.

Cassie, seriously... how is asking questions following a denialist line? How the hell do we get answers without asking questions (unless we're operating under the "just shut up and take my word for it" method)?

My point is that we do know what is going on and that it is irresponcible to deny the evidence of the majority.

Except I'm not denying anything, and there's every possibility that the majority is wrong. Not saying they are, just pointing out a possibility. The great scientists in history were great precisely because they proved the consensus wrong.

Originally Posted by Thunder

There are really not as many questions as you would like to think. Unless you mean questions by people who are abjectly unqualified to ask.

So you have to be qualified just to ask a question?

Not every opinion is of equal value.

How is asking questions expressing an opinion?

Iggy is right, you do not ask the questions of a dissenting scientist... you ask the questions of an ideologue.

1. I'm not a scientist at all, dissenting or otherwise, and I never claimed to be.
2. I'm asking questions in an effort to get people to explain their positions and try to understand what's happening. If that makes me an idealogue, oh well.

[Valnorran]

Now, here is my take on the whole global warming issue. This is from the perspective of a laymen whose scholarly training lies in a different field than science.

As I go about my life, I am presented with the issue of global warming. On the one hand, it could spell the end of humanity (although as time goes on, I'm less and less certain that's a bad thing ). On the other hand, it might not be happening, or if it is it might be something completely out of our control. In that case attempting to stop it will probably only cause more problems. So... what to do? My natural impulse is to try and understand what's going on. Towards that end, I try to notice things and ask a lot of questions. So here is a hodge podge of questions, things I've noticed, and thoughts that crossed my mind.

As far as I can tell, serious study of global climate change has only been going on for about forty years or so. That's a pretty short lifespan compared to most other sciences, and I think it's also a pretty short period of time to try and understand something as complex as the entire world's climate. To me this relative lack of experience means the odds of them having all of this so perfectly figured out are pretty slim. I don't think we've been studying global climate change long enough to really be aware of what we don't know. We can rule out certain possible causes for warming, but for all we know there are factors at work about which we are totally ignorant. Climate has always changed, sometimes quite radically, so what about the current change? Some say its rapidity proves human causes, but how can we be so sure? How do we know its rapidity isn't natural and it just happened to occur while we were here to witness it? Given the short span of time we've been studying this complex phenomenon and the vast amount of time the climate has existed, how can we be so sure it isn't the result of some unknown factor?

If the planet as a whole is warming, why are Baltimore and Washington, D.C. currently expriencing record high snowfalls? My own region normally sees snow once every seven or eight years, yet the last two years set new records for early snowfalls. Several regions have experienced record cold winters in the last ten years. Fom 1930 to 2000, Pasadena, CA, Berkley, CA, Death Valley, CA, and New York City have experienced an increase in temperature. In that same period, McGill, NV, Guthrie, OK, Boulder, CO, Truman, MO, Greenville, SC, Ann Arbor, MI, Syracuse, NY, Albany, NY, and Oswego, NY all experienced a decrease in temperature. Albany and New York City are only a hundred miles apart. West Point, NY, lies between them, but from 1826 to 200 their temperatures remained stable. Alice Springs, Australia, has had stable temperatures from 1879 to 2003. Clyde, NWT has experience cooling from 1943 to 2004. Christchurch, NZ has experienced warming from 1864 to 2003. So has Kamenskoe, Siberia from 1949 to 1998, as well as Rome from 1811 to 1989. Paris has cooled from 1757 to 1995. So has Stuttgart from 1792 to 1999 and Navacerrada, Spain from 1941 to 2004. In Japan, Choshi has warmed from 1887 to 2004, Tokyo warmed from 1876 to 2004, and Takayama has warmed from 1900 to 1990. Lahore City, Pakistan has warmed from 1876 to 2003. The records naturally have years of varying warming or cooling, but once graphed they show a general trend - warming, cooling, or stable. And CO2 has increased worldwide. So if the warming is global and CO2 is the main culprit, why the divergence among these regions?

Melting glaciers is another one. We always hear about how the world's glaciers are melting, but here's the thing. Of the 67,000 or so glaciers, only a few have been studied with care, and only 79 have mass balance data going back five years or more. On that limited knowledge base, we cannot say "the world's glaciers are melting" because we don't know.

Rising sea levels is another. Sea levels have been rising for the last 6000 years. They rise about four to eight inches every hundred years or so. To top it all off, computer models are offered up as proof when the best they can do is predict. A prediction - something that hasn't happened yet - cannot, by definition, be proof.

Based on things like this, I think there's room for asking questions.

Another big argument is that even if global warming isn't a problem we should do something. My first objection to this argument is that is assumes we can control the climate. The second problem is that if we took measures the benevolent scientists would not be the ones calling the shots. Politicians would. How can anyone expect politicians to manage the climate when they cannot manage their own finances or personal lives? My personal belief is that controling a system as complex as a planet's climate is not humanly possible, but even if it is do we honestly want it to be a government operation?

As this layman watches things unfold, he begins to think there is no way to really understand what's going on because the topic has just gotten too politicized. Supporters accuse deniers of having an agenda, but don't the supporters, the ones calling for drastic changes, also have an agenda? Of course they do. Everyone does. To dismiss one group's findings because someone is paying them is silly. Everyone's salaries are paid by someone, and environmental groups are no different. If the environment is saved, they can kiss those donations good-bye and start looking for real jobs. They say researchers working for corporations have a vested interest in ignoring global warming, but they have a vested interest in making sure their pet problem is never solved. They are no purer than the corporate shills they so despise.

It's hard to take the global warming thing seriously when I see who is on board with it. Scientists? Sure, but also flaming hypocrites like Al Gore, corrupt organizations like the UN, and slobbering nutjobs like environmental extremists who are famous for making huge doomsday prophecies that never come true. When people like this are sold on an idea, I can't help questioning that idea's credibility.

Given the short span of time we've been studying this complex phenomenon, how can we be so sure it isn't the result of some unknown factor? How do we know it isn't just coincidence that this warming takes place during our tenure? The whole thing smells to me of human arrogance. It reminds me of a small child who happens to clap his hands right before it rains and becomes totally convinced he controls the weather. We can't handle the idea that nature does what it does without regard for our input or convenience. We seem to want things to stay the same, something in direct opposition to natural law. Even if the current climate change is normal we want to stop it. It just looks to me like we, like the child who clapped his hands before it rained, noticed a warming trend - a very brief one, in terms of the planet's life - saw some things that linked it to us and instantly concluded its our fault, never considering that things often just happen and there isn't a hell of a lot we can do about it. This issue has generated a lot of hystrics, panic and strife. It has even taken on a quasi-religious aspect: there are fearful predictions, end-of-the-world scenarios, don't ask questions, just shut up and obey, anyone who questions will not be tolerated. Politics got thrown into the mix and the result of this neurotic mishmash, I fear, will render any honest attempts at resolution impossible.

That's how this issue looks to me. I'm trying to make sense of it as best I can, an effort that seems to irritate a lot of global warming supporters. I find this - getting angry for someone asking questions in an attempt to understand something - particularly odd considering their professed love for science. You'd think they would welcome such a thing. It creates the impression that I'm just supposed to shut up and obey, which creates the impression that if they don't want to explain their position perhaps it's because they aren't totally convinced their position is the correct one, which creates the impression they have something to hide, and that just opens a whole new batch of questions and the cycle starts over again. That is the result of these emails, and it probably never would have happened if the issue wasn't so politicized. I suspect politics has hopelessly contaminated this topic.

[Infinite Grey]

Originally Posted by Valnorran

Now, here is my take on the whole global warming issue. This is from the perspective of a laymen whose scholarly training lies in a different field than science.

An answer from a layman whose scholarly training also lies in a different field than science, but is a science enthusiast.

As I go about my life, I am presented with the issue of global warming. On the one hand, it could spell the end of humanity

One among several worst case scenarios - probably the least likely. The more probable result would be the end of life as we know it - as in a drastic change in a life styles, that will happen in either case, but the point is really the minimization of a negative shift.

On the other hand, it might not be happening, or if it is it might be something completely out of our control.

It's happening, and a good portion of it is still in our control.

In that case attempting to stop it will probably only cause more problems.

Like what?

So... what to do? My natural impulse is to try and understand what's going on. Towards that end, I try to notice things and ask a lot of questions. So here is a hodge podge of questions, things I've noticed, and thoughts that crossed my mind.

I guess I'm going to have to play science teacher again, right?

As far as I can tell, serious study of global climate change has only been going on for about forty years or so.
That's a pretty short lifespan compared to most other sciences, and I think it's also a pretty short period of time to try and understand something as complex as the entire world's climate. To me this relative lack of experience means the odds of them having all of this so perfectly figured out are pretty slim. I don't think we've been studying global climate change long enough to really be aware of what we don't know. We can rule out certain possible causes for warming, but for all we know there are factors at work about which we are totally ignorant.

The study of climate has been around a lot longer than forty years Val, the birth of modern climate science essentially began with the Temperature Record in 1850. Compared to other sciences you take for granted, climatology has had a long and illustrious career. Take physics as an example, the theorems to led to things such as nuclear power are relatively young in comparison. Computer sciences are infants in comparison, so is quantum mechanics, genetics, aerial engineering, rocket sciences, nano engineering, and so on.

A mature field does not equate to "knowing everything there is to know about a that field", indeed if scientist knew everything, there would be no science. By its very definition science is the study of the natural world. Now, while there is a period of time for a field to mature, meaning the establishment of a comprehensive set of core theorem and laws, this period is in no means the same for any two fields. Usually it's within a generation of scientists that the core theorems and laws are formed; oh they get added and altered as time progresses - Natural selection replaced Transmutation of species, General and Special Relativity replace Newtonian gravity (though it is still used for localized calculations), Big Bang replaced the Stable Universe Model, and so on. It's nature of science.

Most of the products of science you take for granted, are new and even still in their infancies.

If you want to get technical, Climatology -- as in the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time -- is nearly a thousand years old. The first climatologist on record was a medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo.

But in the end, the age of a scientific field is irrelevant. The study of global climate destabilization draws on a range of scientific and mathematical fields, including Meteorology, atmospheric Chemistry, Atmospheric Physics, Aeronomy, Atmospheric Dynamics, Agroecology, environmental archaeology, oceanography, geology, volcanology, Biogeochemistry, Biomonitoring, Aviation meteorology, Hydrometeorology, Nuclear meteorology, Maritime meteorology, Thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamics, Biophysics, Econophysics, Agrophysics , Astrophysics, Relativistic electromagnetism, Chemical thermodynamics, Acoustic theory, Aerodynamics, Aeroelasticity, Aeronautics, Computational fluid dynamics, Flow measurement, Hemodynamics, Hydraulics, Hydrology, Hydrostatics, Electrohydrodynamics, Magnetohydrodynamics, Rheology, Quantum hydrodynamics, planetary astronomy, planetary geology (together with geochemistry and geophysics), physical geography (geomorphology and cartography as applied to planets), atmospheric science, theoretical planetary science, and the study of extrasolar planets. ... and many more.

Most of these fields have emerged within the the last century and you trust most of them implicatively without even knowing it - that's part of a modern life, taking things for granted unless it directly and publicly flies in the face of one's beliefs.

Climate has always changed, sometimes quite radically, so what about the current change?

The rate, and that we can locate the source during the act.

Some say its rapidity proves human causes, but how can we be so sure? How do we know its rapidity isn't natural and it just happened to occur while we were here to witness it?

Let's see... because we can isolate past and possible natural causes of a rapid climate change - it's called climate forcing and the main culprits are: Plate tectonics ( mountain-building and continental drift), Solar output, Orbital variations, Volcanism, Ocean variability, plant bio-density and Green house gas concentrations. Unfortunately the thing to change significantly in the last 10 000 years is us, humans. In the last 100 years we have not only exceeded the natural levels of green house gas emissions, but have done so with a passion. During the pre-industrial holocene, concentrations of existing gases were roughly constant. In the industrial era, human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests - this table shows the increase.

Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas per-industrial.

Given the short span of time we've been studying this complex phenomenon

If you consider nearly 1 thousand years short... or if you only include modern study, over 150 years.

and the vast amount of time the climate has existed, how can we be so sure it isn't the result of some unknown factor?

Such as? Magic warming pixies with a bad attitude?

Honestly, the causes of climate change a pretty well known - based on the study of the past and present. There are some mysteries, but know of those specific mysterious apply to our current situations anyway.

If the planet as a whole is warming, why are Baltimore and Washington, D.C. currently expriencing record high snowfalls? My own region normally sees snow once every seven or eight years, yet the last two years set new records for early snowfalls. Several regions have experienced record cold winters in the last ten years.

Proof that I was right in my assessment of you earlier - this has been explained, yet you continue as if it has not.

As the planet warms rapidly, weather patterns become increasingly unstable - this includes localized cold spikes, blizzards, super freezing and so on. It is all covered in the scientific literature.

Point being here, is you do not seem to know the difference between long-term trends and short-term fluctuations
Here is a graphic monitoring the snow fall within the northern hemisphere.


Warmer temperature tends to melt snow, but also causes more water vapor in the air, so there’s more possibility of snow. And as long as it’s still cold enough to snow (which it still is during winter), we shouldn’t be surprised by no change in snow cover.

But the rapid decline of springtime snow cover over the last four decades, and the even more rapid decline of summer snow cover, show the mark of global warming unambiguously.

Fom 1930 to 2000, Pasadena, CA, Berkley, CA, Death Valley, CA, and New York City have experienced an increase in temperature. In that same period, McGill, NV, Guthrie, OK, Boulder, CO, Truman, MO, Greenville, SC, Ann Arbor, MI, Syracuse, NY, Albany, NY, and Oswego, NY all experienced a decrease in temperature. Albany and New York City are only a hundred miles apart. West Point, NY, lies between them, but from 1826 to 200 their temperatures remained stable. Alice Springs, Australia, has had stable temperatures from 1879 to 2003. Clyde, NWT has experience cooling from 1943 to 2004. Christchurch, NZ has experienced warming from 1864 to 2003. So has Kamenskoe, Siberia from 1949 to 1998, as well as Rome from 1811 to 1989. Paris has cooled from 1757 to 1995. So has Stuttgart from 1792 to 1999 and Navacerrada, Spain from 1941 to 2004. In Japan, Choshi has warmed from 1887 to 2004, Tokyo warmed from 1876 to 2004, and Takayama has warmed from 1900 to 1990. Lahore City, Pakistan has warmed from 1876 to 2003. The records naturally have years of varying warming or cooling, but once graphed they show a general trend - warming, cooling, or stable. And CO2 has increased worldwide. So if the warming is global and CO2 is the main culprit, why the divergence among these regions?

-face palm- the over all global mean temperature has risen and as you yourself have said, our climate and weather is complex - if you are truly interested in answering those questions all you have to do is look through the articles of a several Peer reviewed journals, (most are searchable by key words) and find the answers. I am not prepared to answer each individually... I really do not care enough about your opinion to invest that much time in something you could do yourself. But I suspect you won't do it, as you're not really looking for answers, are you.

Melting glaciers is another one. We always hear about how the world's glaciers are melting, but here's the thing. Of the 67,000 or so glaciers, only a few have been studied with care, and only 79 have mass balance data going back five years or more. On that limited knowledge base, we cannot say "the world's glaciers are melting" because we don't know.

That is either a gross example of misinformation or you're a bold faced lair. I don't really care which.

The world glacier inventory has been compiled since the 1970s. Initially based mainly on aerial photographs and maps, this compilation has resulted in a detailed inventory of more than 100,000 glaciers covering a total area of approximately 240,000 km2.
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

For practical reasons they concentrate their efforts on a selection of glaciers, but that isn't to say that other glaciers go unattended. They are monitored via satellites, aerial fly bys and local observations.

Rising sea levels is another. Sea levels have been rising for the last 6000 years. They rise about four to eight inches every hundred years or so.

I'm not going to bother going into sea level changes

To top it all off, computer models are offered up as proof when the best they can do is predict. A prediction - something that hasn't happened yet - cannot, by definition, be proof.

Wrong. Computer models are offered up as a prediction. You are right that a prediction is not proof, hence why scientists do not offer it up as proof. You really need to read what the scientists write instead of what the journalists and politicians say, as they usually know dick about what they're talking about.

Based on things like this, I think there's room for asking questions.

And a little actual research would have answered all those questions.

Another big argument is that even if global warming isn't a problem we should do something. My first objection to this argument is that is assumes we can control the climate.

We can to a degree - why is that so hard to believe? Because the climate is old? Rocks are even older and we curve them up and make houses.

The second problem is that if we took measures the benevolent scientists would not be the ones calling the shots. Politicians would. How can anyone expect politicians to manage the climate when they cannot manage their own finances or personal lives?

That's a political problem, and has no bearing on whether or not climate change is sourced in human activity.

My personal belief is that controling a system as complex as a planet's climate is not humanly possible,

Argument from personal incongruity, it's a fallacy. Just because you can't personal believe something, does not make it impossible or even unlikely. Terra-forming is not just science fiction.

but even if it is do we honestly want it to be a government operation?

No. It should be a collective effort based on science, not individual countries acting alone.

As this layman watches things unfold, he begins to think there is no way to really understand what's going on because the topic has just gotten too politicized.

There is quite a simple way to avoid the politicized versions of events... go straight to the source. Go to a library with Peer Review Subscriptions, or subscribe yourself. Look at the science before it hits the journalistic and political mulching machine. There are over a 1000 different papers covering this topic with more continuously being published... all the information you will ever need is in the scientific literature.

Supporters accuse deniers of having an agenda, but don't the supporters, the ones calling for drastic changes, also have an agenda?Of course they do. Everyone does.

Yeah it's called, avoiding disaster.

To dismiss one group's findings because someone is paying them is silly.

errr no. If a scientist that is funded by group that has something to gain by not proceeding with changes, is speaking as an expert but not through the peer review, it's a safe bet that there is a conflict of interest.

Everyone's salaries are paid by someone, and environmental groups are no different.

Indeed.

If the environment is saved, they can kiss those donations good-bye and start looking for real jobs.

Real jobs eh? Well now you just revealed what you think of scientists didn't you. What do you do Val?

They say researchers working for corporations have a vested interest in ignoring global warming, but they have a vested interest in making sure their pet problem is never solved. They are no purer than the corporate shills they so despise.

CONSPIRACY! Not everyone thinks like you, and very few people become scientists for the money. We have the scientific method that all but literally castrates scientists that publish works that are made with such an agenda. Environmental scientists will never go out of business and need "a real job" as long as there is an environment... whether or not global warming is real or not. So yeah... how about you go back to your "real job" and leave the thinking to scientists, you ain't very good at it anyway.

It's hard to take the global warming thing seriously when I see who is on board with it. Scientists? Sure, but also flaming hypocrites like Al Gore, corrupt organizations like the UN, and slobbering nutjobs like environmental extremists who are famous for making huge doomsday prophecies that never come true. When people like this are sold on an idea, I can't help questioning that idea's credibility.

Yet you side with people like Rush Limbaugh, Tim Ball, Alex Jones, O'Reilly and like? I'm sorry, nutjob to scientist ratio, the denailists a swamped with conspiracy theorist, religious bigots, assholes, and the out and out insane. It seems your idealogical motivations allow you to ignore the nutters on your side and focus on the minority of crazy people on the rational side.

Given the short span of time we've been studying this complex phenomenon, how can we be so sure it isn't the result of some unknown factor? How do we know it isn't just coincidence that this warming takes place during our tenure?

Answered above.

[quote]The whole thing smells to me of human arrogance. [/It reminds me of a small child who happens to clap his hands right before it rains and becomes totally convinced he controls the weather. We can't handle the idea that nature does what it does without regard for our input or convenience. [quote]

More arguments from personal incredulity.

We seem to want things to stay the same, something in direct opposition to natural law.

Self preservation is also part of natural law.

Even if the current climate change is normal we want to stop it.

Why not?

It just looks to me like we, like the child who clapped his hands before it rained, noticed a warming trend - a very brief one, in terms of the planet's life - saw some things that linked it to us and instantly concluded its our fault, never considering that things often just happen and there isn't a hell of a lot we can do about it.

Again you are showing your complete ignorance of science and the scientific method... how do you think it works? Some random guy comes up with an idea and everyone just jumps on the bandwagon? I am so sick of repeating this to you and others of your elk... My assessment was indeed correct.

This issue has generated a lot of hystrics, panic and strife. It has even taken on a quasi-religious aspect:

Oh, I was wondering when you would jump on Memnoch's band wagon. I am very tempted to do a thread comparing methods and arguments of climate change denalists to those of creationists... it's amusing how similar the groups are.

That's how this issue looks to me. I'm trying to make sense of it as best I can, an effort that seems to irritate a lot of global warming supporters.

This is because you are lying. You are not trying to make sense of anything. You have repeatedly ignored evidence, explanations, and have shown an absolute contempt for science and scientists. What you are are after is support for your own beliefs and ideologies, without really give a rats ass about reality.

I find this - getting angry for someone asking questions in an attempt to understand something

Yeah, as I explain earlier - you either ask questions that have been answered, ask fundamentally stupid question and have a disregard for the methods of understanding the issue... why do you think climate realists get frustrated with you?

-

particularly odd considering their professed love for science.You'd think they would welcome such a thing. It creates the impression that I'm just supposed to shut up and obey, which creates the impression that if they don't want to explain their position perhaps it's because they aren't totally convinced their position is the correct one,

1> Science is full of passionate debate and argument, even among those that agree. It's one of the methods in which crap is weeded out... "if you don't have the evidence, piss off"

2> If you were honest in your questions, people would be more likely to answer your questions.

which creates the impression they have something to hide,

Hide in plain sight maybe. It's all there in the scientific literature... but you're too lazy to do real research, aren't you.

That is the result of these emails, and it probably never would have happened if the issue wasn't so politicized. I suspect politics has hopelessly contaminated this topic.

The only issue that isn't already public knowledge, i.e. already accessible to the public if they could be bothered - was the possible deletion of emails in response to a FOI request. That is the only suspicious act and it is being investigated. The scientific stuff was all available through peer review - hell they even link to some of the papers in their emails!