Hackers & Global Warming

Remove all ads!

That guy! Isn't he the one who started all that stuff about an asteroid hitting earth from space, and that NASA needed to start a program to save us from extinction? I think for years he's been a harsh critic of GW. It's good to see that he is moving a bit towards the center on the issue, even if it is just a tad.

 

You'll note that he never said that. Pointing it out for the scientists is important, though, because many Americans (I don't know about others) assume a scientist (especially a non-corporate scientist) is unbiased and in it for the public good. Business men are assumed to be greedy and croocked, but scientists are often assumed to be better.

Just to be clear, has anyone in this thread actually denied global warming as a whole?

As I implied above, I think it's less a "forgot to mention" and more a "didn't feel the need to mention". You'll note he also didn't mention how the sky was blue, or how the Sun warms the Earth. Everyone knows these things already.

 

He has been critical of Bush in the past, which is why I pointed out I wouldn't consider him a conservative.

Regarding the asteroid issue, yes, he did say that, but he was arguing in favor of enhanced tracking of asteroids (near-Earth objects was the specific term used) over a manned space mission to Mars. Remember back in Bush's first term when he said we should go to Mars? Easterbrook thought that was a ridiculous waste of resources. He felt that if we were going to spend billions of dollars on a new project for the space program, at least spend it on something that could have some practical benefit - like being able to identify an asteroid coming at the earth early enough in advance that we could do something about it. He was proposing it as an alternative, as he sees no practical benefit in the foreseeable future of sending people to Mars.

And I wouldn't shrug off the possibility of an asteroid impact. Sure, something like the asteroid that killed off the dinosuars that is miles across is an extremely remote occurance, but about 100 years ago, we had the Tunguska Event, which was believe to be caused by an asteroid only that was about 50 meters wide. Then, there's Meteor Crater, also believed to be caused by an astoid about 50 meters across. Those such objects are many orders of magnitude more common than mass extinction causing asteroids.

 

Yes, there is, but I don't see the significance here. My point was that people generally assume that all scientists (or at least all tax-funded scientists) are in it for truth and mankind. Just to point out that some aren't is a fact well worth mentioning.

Being one of those members, so would I. But my point is that the real consensus doesn't even recognize this point, because scientists in general don't agree on it. And the thousands of respected scientists world-wide who disagree with AGW to some significant degree or another are not the "few scientists" you say you disagree with. I was just trying to settle down exactly what you had meant by that comment.

I'll agree that there are both simple and complex truths that are not universally accepted, and that there are simple and complex false-hoods that are, but I don't think "corporate fat-cats are likely to be greedy" fits into either of those categories. I think that's widely accepted as fact (about as much as the Earth being round) and pretty accurate, especially in light of semi-recent events. In short, I still believe that pointing out that fact would be adding in a no-brainer to an otherwise well-written article.

 

You'll note I said people, not sensible people.

Actually, in the previous thread, I provided links to lists. They covered over a thousand. I don't know about two thousand. As for the article mentioned, look again. It admits there's a consensus, and that is that global warming exists, not that it's man-made. Specifically, it says:

Ah, I had mis-read your original post on the topic. I thought you were talking about the big-oil owners, not the crooks they hire. On that note, I think the breadth of the problem is largely unknown period. Meaning, a lot of the scientific work coming from people on retainer for Big Oil and the like isn't clearly wrong. There's no evidence that most of it has been faked, no blatantly contradictory studies, and the only accusations brought against is are that they're biassed studies. The article was criticizing the panic that AGW scientists have created and trying to set the record straight. Since the record on the Big-Oil side isn't settled, trying to set it straight is premature. I'll agree he could have made the point, but I think it would have been an unsubstantiated and tangential comment.

 

Coin, that would be a great video for this topic, except that it doesn't address any of the problems we're talking about. The problems we've discussed in here are more directed at the concealing of data (or of the loss of data, and said loss to begin with).

And, as for the Hockey Stick graph, the problem with it isn't that it goes up at the end, but that it's relatively straight before that. Historical records tell us it shouldn't be, and our understanding of the nature of temperature change of the Earth today would require something of a miracle for the temeratures to remain that constant for that long. To put it simply, I don't claim the Hockey Stick graph shows anything particularly wrong with the modern measurements. I (and a great many others) claim it is revisionist history.

 

But that's not what started the controversy. Once the media hype was fabricated, AGW opponents didn't want to lose their momentum, since they're succeeding in swaying opinions by casting doubts.
First it was delibrately misinterpreted stolen e-mails, now it's nitpicking about how data is presented. If you look at the video, you'd know that he isn't talking about hiding a decline in temperature, but simply about removing an unexplained anomaly in tree ring data. He masked the anomalous decline (which isn't synonymous to a decline in temperature), which is a valid method approved by peer reviewers. All other data gathered, supports the hockey stick graph. His methods were explained in publications. You don't even see how much politicians are reaching to find controversy here...
This all boils down to blatant political meddling in a scientific issue, in order to gain popular support.Same old same old....

 

My point, Coin, was that what you presented wasn't the entire controversy, nor the topic of this thread. I'll agree that those who pushed such things lacked understanding and/or were intentionally misguiding the public (I imagine there was a mix, at least at the beginning), but they weren't the only issue. In fact, the day the story broke, the first thing I heard about it was the big reveal that the scientists had 'lost' the data, and may have conspired to do so (not hard to infer from the emails, but hardly the only reading).

 

Yet again, I fail to see the benefits alleged conspirators would gain, over any length of time, from attempting to misinform the public this way.

The CRU knew full well it would eventually have to make its data public. And they understand how it would look if they intentionally lost their data.
I find it far more likely that the missing data (which they did make accessible only to a small group of scientists), was lost not by their own doing, but by people seeking to discredit them. If they conspired, they did so very poorly, because anyone who takes rumours at face value now believes global warming is a hoax. You'll notice that the 'debate' is far more prevalent in the States than elsewhere. Although the CRU was highly respected, and the most often cited reference to climate data, they weren't the only research institute that came up with the same findings. Being most cited, means they were an obvious target for character assassination. The american media is being practically infantile in their inability to see patterns, fact-check and ask follow-up questions. How difficult is it to read the whole e-mail and realise that there isn't a story after all. The confidence with which they misinterpret people's words also shows that mainstream media isn't worried about being humiliated by corrections. A clear sign of monopolistic corruption.
If the video I posted didn't demonstrate the obvious biased reporting of the media to you, then I don't know what will. Will it never be clear to you, that the US media has become a subtle propaganda machine, that presents itself as an independent safeguard for openness in democracy?

I would like you to explain to me, exactly how environmentalist conspirators would stand to gain from this large scale misinformation. And how they thought to pull it off. Do you think they believed they could uphold the lie? Scientists know that their peers will investigate their findings eventually.
The only way to successfully commit scientific fraud, a conspiracy for personal gain, is to reap the benefits before the scientific community catches up. This conspiracy you are convinced of, is far too long-lasting to be realistic. The environment will always be out there for all to witness and measure, and many institutions have independently gathered data which would have questioned the CRU's findings by now.
The best that AGW skeptics can do, is post websites like the one martaug linked to long ago, with record low temperatures listed per year. The later years being cluttered with nonsense like "it was freezing in Houston" and "fresh snow on mount blabla" (dammit, it's just fresh snow, what's it doing in a list of record lows??).

 

Coin, their entire effort was to avoid making the data public, and now it looks like that's happened. I'll agree it's somewhat unlikely that the loss of data was malicious (though at least one of the emails speaks of deleting the data rather than handing it over), but more likely that it was just carelessness. I'd encourage you to re-read the emails, you can find unedited copies of them all over the place. I'll agree that most of it is understandable and more techy melodrama than news, but there is a very strong theme of disrespect for anyone who challenges them and an unwillingness to let their results be critically examined.

As for motive, it's simple, classic, and old: greed. Do you have any idea how much money has already been given to continue their research? Do you know what would happen to their careers if their data came up and said, "Well, no global warming here, go look elsewhere"? It may sound cliche, but it's cliche because it happens, all the time. We're in a recession because of it.

And, as for them getting away with it, it really looks like they have. Since this is such a politically charged issue, all the AGW believers have rallied around them, rather than question whether one of their own could do such. Likewise, all their critics have been marginalized as 'Global Warming sceptics' (many of them are, but not all). The politicians don't dare do anything for being labelled as the latter.

 

It seems to fit the topic of the thread to me....

Coin's post seems to answer that pretty well. I have a feeling you just don't like the way it answered that question, NOG.

 

Hmm, I may have been side-tracked by what the topic became, rather than how it started.

 

Your ability to see the errors you make in the past, and correct them before they put you on the defensive, is perhaps the most enlightened part of your character. You should nurture it more, as should everyone.

What you percieve as scientists 'rallying around' the climate awareness cause, I'd categorize as solidarity. The reason scientists do this, is to keep the message clear and simple for the uninformed public. The slightest doubt or confusion is enough to paralyze society. Similarly, spreading lies and rumours is not beneath the scope of persuasions priests use: They see it as justified in promoting a cause of divine importance.
A funny one, is one a turkish friend from karate class told me: About how Darwin allegedly forged a fake skull in order to fabricate a connection between humans and apes. It's well known nowadays (especially from the recent movie about Darwin) that Darwin never tried to directly make such a statement (nor did such a skull exist during his lifetime). It's just that his theory of evolution inevitably leads to that conclusion.
The political, social, military and economic mechanisms prevalent today, are limiting our response to this lifethreatening global situation. Scientists involved in PR and social situations, may oversimplify to the point that it becomes misinformation. The difference with priests is, that they don't *believe* it is justified because of their faith in God; they *know* it is necessary because of knowledge of a real and dangerous situation.

If we can't overcome the corrupt nature of current society, due to political and economic pressures, then society, monetary-ism, democracy, it all needs to be seriously re-thought and redesigned. From the look of things now, we're nothing more than an oversized horde of chimps, choking and trampling eachother underfoot as we scutter in the wrong direction, away from progress.
But when there is an active campaign of disinformation, that actually drives us towords annihilation faster, then I find that seriously offensive. I take these things personally, because there's no 'us' and 'them' here; we're all humans, and we've got to live on this planet together.

The motivation of AGW skeptics is barely understandable, since they should also be aware of the long-term damage they're doing.
What they object to, is that climate awareness is taking place in western countries, and not so much in the third world. This is due to a combination of factors, such as education, available knowledge, ability to act, and freedom to discuss and express thoughts. We have it, people in the third world don't.
The result will be, that western countries start contributing to the solution sooner than the rest of the world. This is objectionable to economic-political stakeholders, because their relative advantage over the rest of the world will deteriorate. Now, we're getting the rest of the world to go along with us, but we need to move forward ourselves now, and stop fearing that others might get an advantage over 'us'.
Evangelic christians want the end of the world to come, but I'm sure most of these stakeholders don't want to see catastrophies any more than you or me. It's the power structure that is in place, that is causing them to protect their direct interests at the expense of everyone's future. Their judgement has been clouded, because their power has corrupted them. We need a unified voice from the public, to get them to see the harm they are doing. As long as we are divided, with some of us questioning reality (even though it is proven beyond any doubt), then they can continue to protect their institutions. The permanent carrying capacity of the earth will be irreversibly reduced if we do nothing, and it looks like it will happen faster than we could compensate for with science and technology. Unless we act.

It's obvious to most people outside the States that it's these stakeholders that are raising 'questions' about global warming. The purpose is solely to cast doubts within the general public. They use corporate owned media to spread the message of confusion to paralyze environmental action. This is becoming increasingly problematic, and is leading people like me to question the viability of the 'independent' media, democracy, the monetary system, nations as entities, everything!

I would gladly sacrifice my life, my livelihood, everything, to safeguard the future of this flawed society. Because the spark of civilization (which you demonstrated, by begrudgingly admitting when you were mistaken) is in all of us. Perhaps it's even worth giving up your seat in heaven for?

 

Thank you. I've been trying.

Actually, I was more talking about everyone else than the scientists. From what I've seen, the scientists have had the varried reactions I would expect from an honest analysis, from harsh declamations, to criticism over witholding and 'losing' the data, to support and downplay.

... So you're comparing what the scientists are doing to, say, spreading lies and rumors? Great defense, there. Beyond that, though, this simply seems to me like scientists embracing the most dangerous aspect of arrogance: I'm smarter than you, therefore I should tell you what to do and you should simply obey. I'm sorry, but it isn't the job of the scientists to set policy, nor should they be out to manipulate public opinion. I understand scientists caring about the outcome of their research, and wanting to see it have a good effect on humanity, but it's an awefully slippery slope.

Actually, I had never heard that one. I wouldn't put it past anyone, mind you, but it's not one I'm familiar with.

Actually, no they don't. Here's the thing: the real, scientifically predicted global warming isn't that life-threatening. They're talking about a 1-foot rise over a century. That looks like these pictures (the pictures of elevation above sea level further down, specifically). Please note that those show elevation in meters, meaning one foot is 1/3 of the first notch. Furthermore, more and more research is debunking the idea of a 'runaway greenhouse effect', so it's not even like we need to act now or it'll balloon out of control (unlike what some have claimed). Considering the costs that immediate action would require, I think this a reasonable response.

Ah, the difference perspective can make. From here it looks like we're a bunch of rather reasonable people, not being overcome by a bunch of fear-mongers. Sure, we get awefully chimp-ish in other respects (especially those crazy sports fans), but not here.

Could you possibly point out the supposed annihilation?

A few things:
1.) You blindly discount the possibility that people actually doubt the theory of AGW. I'd remind you, the scientific consensus isn't all that impressive.
2.) You miss the part where, if everyone in the western world cooperated, it still wouldn't make any sizable impact.
3.) You say the rest of the world is starting to go along, but they really aren't. I don't see China or India seriously working to cut emissions at any time in the next century, and any other undeveloped nations that start developing are probably going to join them.

In essense, the AGW activists want us to give away our future, our resources, our money, our jobs, and our economy, in order to feel better about doing our part to avoid a 1-foot sea level rise... which isn't going to be avoided to begin with.

From here on out you just get so crazed I can't believe it. Do you really believe that corporate America is trying to end the world for a quick buck? Do you really believe the AGW doubters have bought off the American media? Do you really believe the world is ending because of CO2? Are you really willing to sacrifice your life to stop it? If so, take a second look at things. Even your own AGW scientists admit the effects won't be that drastic. This is exactly the kind of thing that reasonable, rational people should not be doing. Stop and ask yourself this: If you're willing to give away your life to 'protect the future', are you also willing to take someone else's? How far are you from becoming an eco-terrorist, the likes of the Jihadists who blow up marketplaces?

Furthermore, from that site I just linked you, it seems the sea-level rise has been happening, rather consistently, since long before this current 'AGW crisis', and continues undaunted, only supporting the non-AGW theories of global warming.

 

Certain spokespersons may simplify the message in order to make it clear and understandable that action must be taken. When looking at the specifics, while ultimately true, they may have been found to make large omissions.
I compare that to religious oversimplifications. As an extreme, i talked about priests, who believe wholeheartedly that they need to save your soul, and will lie to do so. So... Darwin may not have forged a skull, but God does exist.
I'm not equating simplified messages from the scientific community, to willfull misinformation from faith peddlers. That's only what you read.

Substitute 'smarter' with richer, more powerful, more pious, and you won't have a problem with it. Maybe it's because smarts is a point of personal pride... Envy towards those who appear to have more of it than you, may be the reason why it's so easy to provoke outrage and hostility towards scientists. It's easier to cope with people being rich, powerful, or pious; they just had better opportunities (or some similar rationalisation). But there's no trick behind smarts... Well, actually there is: It's called education. I know you're an educated man yourself, so don't think I mean this personally. But there's this myth that intelligence is something innately unchangeable, while it really isn't.
My mom and I did the same IQ test long ago, and she was very disappointed that she scored much lower than me, at the brink of crying even. She had hoped that somehow she would magically get a high score, despite her difficult youth and lack of education.
The more you know about scientific procedures, the more you understand how hard it would be to intentionally falsify results, and get away with it. The claim is that a global warming hoax is being maintained for 1 of 2 reasons: 1) Scientists intentionally sought to somehow reap the benefits from this misinformation, and keep the truth secret.
2) Having staked their reputation on the existence of anthropogenic global warming, scientists realized that they were mistaken, and now knowingly lie to people, in order to maintain their pride and positions.

Nr. 1 is flawed by definition, since any intellectual with knowledge of the scientific community and peer reviews, would know that it would be exposed very fast, and their respectability would vanish.
That leaves nr. 2, where the intent to mislead emerged during time. The first to get off of that bandwagon would be the first to save their skin; they'd be tripping over eachother to come clean! I should remind you that the findings on global warming have been peer reviewed, and duplicated by reviewers, as well as many other independent researchers. The CRU's protectiveness over it's data did make them aweak target for this sort of criticism: 'What were they hiding?'

I can't tell you, but neither could they. The thing is, if you amassed a large amount of data, you want to hold on to it, to credit any discoveries to be found within the data to yourself. I worked in a genetics lab for a year, on the genome of Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) and related genus members. I made some phylogenetic trees based on a few gene sequences, and found an interesting connection between certain related species, their active genes, and their ability to grow at low temperatures. My professor was excited, and wanted to corroborate this connection with more species data. We wrote to a lab in the States, which has the largest collection of the species, and we offered a collaboration (a bit generous of us, but we needed access to the samples). It was difficult to explain it in the right way: Say too little, and the professor in the States won't be interested. Say too much, and he'll be able to reproduce the findings himself before we could publish. We never got a reply, and a few months later a publication emerged with similar findings to ours. Co-written by that professor, of course.

Hopefully that explains the phenomenon of secrecy in science to you. Fortunately, the scientific method demands openness in order to verify the results, and be able to reproduce them. Certain scientists were allowed to view the (now missing) data, and it was verified, and findings corroborated. Certain requests for access will be denied, if there is a suspicion that the person might:
- Steal data
- Destroy data
- Lie about results
- Perform non-related research with it
My guess, is that an malicious scientist received access to the data, and now it's missing. YouTube is swamped with videos documenting how scientists were denied access to the data, even describing court cases to attempt to gain access. I guess all it really proves, is that the data was a great source of interest.

This is an often-used argument, as if the rising oceans are the only problem. Sea level rise is just a small part of it. Ocean currents will change, turning northern europe into a tundra. Warm water currents create clouds, and the rainfall patterns will change. Places with sparse vegetation will become inundated with rainfall, creating mudslides, because the ground is too loose. Places that rely on steady rainfall will dry up, ruining the productivity of agriculture. Wind patterns will create giant storms much worse than hurricanes and tornadoes nowadays. Our civilization has emerged, and been built around, reliable weather patterns and climate conditions. When these change, we won't be capable of resettling everyone in time. The arable land won't just move to different places either; it will reduce in size, due to the increase in tundra, desert and swamp area.
Many animals and plants that rely on these water, land and wind conditions, will also die out. Diseases will emerge in the swamps, and among human populations due to inadequate hygiene.
This is just what I could think of off the top of my head. It goes much further than a mere rise in sea level.

Really? Show me a single publication in a respected scientific journal that seriously questions global warming, then. wattsupwiththat.com doesn't count.

Oh? And how can you be so certain of things even scientists can only estimate?
Slowing down the climate change could buy enough time to allow us to alleviate the negative effects. And the steady advancement of science allows us to improve our productivity.
We as individuals definitely can make a difference, but it's the heavy industry that needs to change the most. Wasteful techniques need to be replaced with durable ones. If we let corporations go about their business, then they'll cut corners to beat the competition. We need less overproduction of redundant comsumer products. Scarcity drives the economy, but we need to be open to methods that allow for abundance too, instead of regulating against it to make a profit. We need to be aware when we're being duped into consuming scarce and wasteful products, while we could be enjoying abundance.

Your argument is getting old, literally. In the past 3 years, China has gone from the most criticized polluter, to the leader in green policy. You should really see if you can't get some real news, maybe from Mexico?

Like my karate teacher said: "There's a certain rigid discipline in communism. They can get things done, no nonsense. Boom - like that."
Without elections, there's no need for empty promises. At what point did communists become more trustworthy and reliable?

Do I have to look up one of your rants about homosexuals in the marriage thread? We were getting along so well, without smears. This is something I feel strongly about, so please accept that.

Your argument is based on the percieved linear increase in sea level. Sea level is the least of our worries, but i'll humour you.
2 things you overlook:

This is a random curved graph, showing exponential increase. Notice how it seems to be linear in the early years. Fluctuations in measurements (check your own link to see the fluctuations) can make it impossible to determine whether the percieved increase is linear, or part of an exponential curve.

Then there's the phenomenon of tipping points. When balances are disrupted, a point of no return can be crossed, leading to a whole new imbalance much greater than before. For example, drought and fire could cause the Amazon rainforest to disappear. Huge amounts of methane could be released by the meltdown of Siberian peat. Aerosol emissions could end the Asian monsoon, causing widespread famine. Even former president Bush's chief climate modeler noted that the glaciers and ice sheets at the poles are disintegrating at alarming rates and warns that we may be only a decade and one degree of warming away from global catastrophe.

Why is there an exponential increase in global warming? Because human industry grows that way, for one. Every year we pump more CO2 and greenhouse gases into the air, and this causes the warming effect to increase on top of the increase created by the excess CO2 from the previous years..

Global warming estimates are wrong, time after time. If anything, estimates are consistently too conservative, and outcomes seem to continually exceed expectations. Recent studies have determined that the melting ice caps have increased their rate of melting since 2006, far exceeding predictions.

 

It's what you wrote, however I'll believe it's not what you meant.

No, no, I really would. Well, with the possible exception of power, which may include legal power, legitimate authority, or power granted by myself (though that last one raises the question of who is really more powerful).

I would lend this some credence, except that it hasn't been historically seen. It's only really on a few issues where there's significant questioning, and for most of them it's only from a select sub-group (challenging evolution, for example).

I'll agree and disagree with this. There do seem to be certain inborn talents for learning, remembering, understanding/assimilating, and applying information, along with talents for creative expression, logic, and the like. More and more psychological research, however, is showing that these talents are much like natural talents for music, art, singing, or anything else: they're only useful if developed, and most other people can develop some level of proficiency with them even without a special talent. That is to say, Einstein wasn't Einstein just because of learning, but without the learning he probably would have been a rather successful farmer or something.

There are problems with that.
1.) The 'research' being done is neither historical nor experimental, but rather computational modeling (and trust me, it's very easy to tweak and manipulate the results of that if you don't have verification, which they don't). I suspect I'm in a better place to understand this point than most because of my experience with CFD, which is similarly computation modeling. I raised a small storm on this issue a few years ago, because the rigors and caution that are required as a baseline in CFD are absent in the Global Warming field.
2.) I had assumed everything was being reproduced and verified, just like you probably do. Then I learned there wasn't any verification to most of their models, and what there was was weak and controversial. Now we learn that, at least the models from the CRU weren't even reproduced. That then casts the entire peer review process in doubt, if their work was 'peer reviewed' and published with nothing more than a 'well, that sounds about right'.
3.) The climatology community has something of a history of playing fast and loose with data. The models that go back a few centuries tend to ignore the Medival Warming Period, the Little Ice Age, and (for the few that go back that far) the Roman Warming Period. These are historically verified and accepted facts for at least 1/2 of the world (meaning we know they were present and significant for at least the northern hemisphere from). On top of that, much of the field was started by a man who was later proven to have discarded data in his research simply because it didn't fit his expected trend. Almost 90% of his originally accumulated data on CO2 concentrations was discarded as 'error'.

Basically, there's no hard proof of it, just predictions which are already showing questionable in the short term (the older one's have all been proven completely wrong, while the newer ones don't have enough of a track record to be reliable).

There are two problems with this, both of which have been discussed already.
1.) As a state university, their data wasn't theirs to do with as they pleased. It was open to FOIA requests. Their own government contact told them as much.
2.) Their data wasn't even their own. They got it from other sources, rather than collecting it themselves. The FOIA requests they dodged weren't even for the raw data, but rather for which data points they used from where.

1.) Can you show me any of the reproductions of their research?
2.) This is computer data, not hand-written documents. If someone else is given access to it, they aren't given access to the original/only data. At most secret, they're allowed access to a PC that can access the (already backed up) data. More likely, their given a copy of the data on a disc or something. Even the facility is not saying the data was stolen, but rather that it was 'not retained', suggesting they thought it reasonable to delete their original data once a modified dataset had been developed (in order to save space, for example). If they were doing this for simple personal curiosity, it would have been reasonable. For scientists publishing their results, though, it's careless at best.

This is oft repeated as well, but not scientifically suportable. There was one suggestion at one point that massively sudden polar ice cap melt may shift the Gulf Stream (which would have bad consequences, yes). No evidence was ever produced to support that, and what we're seeing isn't massive ice cap melting, but much more gradual. Moreover, as I pointed out above, evidence from the Medival Warming Period shows that Europe and their section of the Arctic Circle has already experienced similar warming. The result: a massive boom in farming, crop production, and population that went unchecked until the Little Ice Age began and the Black Death came. Incidentally, that peaked at about 1 degree warmer than we are now.

I'm sure your definition of 'respected scientific journnal' and mine don't match up. Still, before you discount Petition Project, click on that "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research button and give it a read. Beyond that a quick search brought up Shaviv 2005 (the link to it was unfortunately dead) and Zhen-Shan2007 as directly against it. Lai 2004 is less direct.

It's actually the scientific estimates that I'm talking about.

I agree with you, so long as you're suggesting a moderated and careful approach. Unfortunately, the current IPCC and political climate is not encouraging a moderated and careful approach, but rather a "Blame the West and rush to fix it at any cost" approach.

Actually, China is still the world's leader in CO2 output. They're also the world's leader in renewable energy production, but both are continuing to grow. If you want recent news, you can look here.

Please do. I think you'll find it substantially less rant-ish than you remember. I understand you feel strongly about it, but you were starting to descend back into your '9/11 conspiracy theory' rants there. When you first came on these boards, I (and I think most of the rest of us) thought you were a complete loon. Since then, you've earned some respect with a much more moderated, rational tone and a willingness to consider other people's information. I'm a little worried you may be going back to that ranting conspiracy theorist on this topic.

I'm quite familiar with exponential curves, and in fact both the graphs I linked to and the estimates that put the century-end rise at 1-foot are based on exponential curves. The point I was trying to draw with those graphs, though, is that sea level rise is continuing consistent with it's history, apparently unchanged by global warming.

If you find proof of such a tipping point, please tell us. Short of that, I'd remind you that trying to artificially hold a fluid system in suspension can also result in the complete breakdown of that system. Historically, climate change happens. The current mindset, however, seems to be one of "Climate change is bad, we must freeze it!" Even assuming that we could doing so may completely destabalize our ecosystem.

Actually, you may want to look at this on that issue.

 

I never pictured you as such a rebel, NOG. It is indeed important to question authority (i say question, not blindly oppose).

Who can say? My point was, that society focuses strongly on the 'je ne sais quoi' you described. Any talent a person may be born with, is given undue weight (glorified even) in respect to the importance of learning experiences. It's a slippery slope that leads to generalizations based on social class, race, and religious background.
Einstein is an extreme example; his brain cells were found to be abnormally well connected to one another. Most human beings are on the average spectrum (not genius >140, nor mentally impaired <80), and then it's education, upbrining and all the rest, that brings about the greatest change in IQ. Not to mention that IQ-tests are hardly objective or standardized, but let's not diverge too far...

I can't claim to know exactly how peer reviewers scrutinize these publications; it would take me far too much effort personally. But I certainly wouldn't trust the popular media account of events.

The global warming predictions, whether seen as anthropomorphic or not, have largely underestimated the actual outcomes. Scientist's predictions are becoming increasingly ominous as a result.

Even your own president, who leads a country unwilling to act upon climate change, has no reason to doubt this assessment. Things may change in the future, though, when the doubts caused by a misinformation campaign give him sufficient support at home to question the claims of scientists. A politician questioning the findings of scientists - doesn't that seem the slightest bit odd to you??
I still find it preposterous that we're even discussing this: We don't know anything about the climate, we haven't performed any surveys or taken measurements. All we do is check through the contradicting stories on internet, and voice our silly opinions on whether or not we should trust scientists to do the work that they are tasked to do, for us.

Blame the west?? The IPCC isn't a court of law; they aren't interested in assigning guilt, or handing out punishments. The only thing they want, is to find a solution to the problem. It's up to the political representatives to bicker about who ought to be doing more to help. Here you can see, that it isn't 'corrupt scientists' that are the problem, but politicians focused on blame and guilt tripping.

I remember, I was trying my very best to discuss what people considered to be compelling evidence, until I'd had enough of the insults. If you remember it as me being unwilling to consider people's arguments, then your recollection is flawed. And just FYI, I was active in the Icewind Dale 2 forum months before I noticed the Alleys: I had my comprehensive mod-list stickied, and had already submitted the first version of IWD2_4dummies for the IWD2 Tips, Tricks & Hints section of SP. I'm still not very active outside the IWD2 forum or the Alleys, but I'm guessing not everyone assumed I was just a kook.
As for ranting, there are many sorts of rants, and we'll all engage in them from time to time. The rants I thought were most prevalent in the 9/11 thread, were what wiki describes as: "Rants can also be used in the defense of an individual, idea or organization. Rants of this type generally occur after the subject has been attacked by another individual or group."

I'll quote wikipedia again, for a quick response to your requested evidence:
* Boreal forest dieback
* Amazon rainforest dieback
* Loss of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
* Disruption to Indian and West African monsoon
* Formation of Atlantic deep water near the Arctic ocean, which is a component process of the thermohaline circulation.
* Loss of permafrost, leading to potential Arctic methane release and Clathrate gun effect

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here... going with the flow might be wiser, because we might inadvertently effect the collapse of the ecosystem..? The basis for this seems to be: The global ecosystem is so complex, that we don't really know what we're doing, so let's just leave well alone and deal with stuff as it happens.
That reasoning might serve us well in different scenarios, but we can ill afford mistakes due to negligence and mismanagement. The suspension argument is also invalid, since we are trying to keep the current processes in the environment running to the best of our knowledge, not to freeze them.
I know you're convinced that the measured global warming is part of a natural process, and that fossil carbon and other human effects aren't the cause of it. But letting this alleged natural process run its course will result in a reduced carrying capacity of the earth.