So when "Climategate" occurred the media was all over a bunch of emails taken out of context. Who can hold their hands up and say they've even heard of "denialgate"? The TLDR version is that The Heartland Institute, a registered charity, has been shown to bribe certain scientists to deny climate science, spends literally millions having people produce documents attacking climate science and is implementing a US based, nationwide strategy that aims to distort the teaching of basic climate science in schools. They are funded by several large oil companies. They spend no money on actual research into climate science. When they were caught they straight up lied about the veracity of some of the documents. They also take money from large tobacco companies to try to "manage" information about smoking harm These people's sole purpose in life is to misinform the world and undermine others legitimate work and reserch so that large companies can carry on getting richer. Scumbags. The long version is: The story is that The Heartland Institute, a particularly vile group funded by several large companies, pays certain scientists to make themselves available as rent-a-quotes and actually appeared to have a specific agenda around distorting the teaching of climate science in schools: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate But then it turned out that some of the documents leaked were fake and the Heartland Institute have come forward to damn this disgusting leak of their data because we all know that such leaks are unethical and it turns out the hysterical climate scientists are getting worked up over nothing* Suffice to say, this was not their position during the Climategate debacle http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/heartland-institute-fraud-leak-climate Now the guy who leaked the documents has come forward to reveal that 1) the documents are authentic and 2) that he conned the Heartland institute into sending him the documents. Credit to him as he may get into legal trouble for this but a least he's exposed the fact that the heartland Group unquestionably authored those documents. http://www.desmogblog.com/whistleblower-authenticates-heartland-documents * where nothing = 7/8 of the documents leaked being genuine and demonstrating that the Heartland Institute pays people to act as talking heads and deny climate science.
Good post. I've been discussing this for awhile (and I'm writing about it formally) and most people are completely ignorant of it. When I bring it up anywhere I often have to explain repeatedly what I'm referring to in the same communities I've talked about the subject before in. Incredibly important stuff that needs more coverage.
Well, a think tank might at some point in the future release some educational documents supporting the skeptic point of view. Educational materials supporting the changer's point of view is already out there, so at least it'd bring a bit of balance. But frankly the whole setup on both sides has so many vested interests, so many reputations on the line, and has shown so many people willing to abandon their professional ethics, corrupt data, hide research, malign and slander the other side, that it's pretty much impossible to get a clear answer. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/21/gleick_admits_to_heartland_hack/ Shoot the lot of them, and start over. Seems to be the only solution.
Ahem: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=anthropogenic+climate+change 191,000 articles, almost 100% of which are peer reviewed (scholar still grabs the odd wrong'un. See how far you have to go to find one that supports the climate sceptics view point.
Find me these opposed to climate change journal articles please. And then tell me how many there are. And then tell me how many are pro human climate change influence. I've got a pretty good idea what the answer is already, but you have some homework to do it appears. Damn, I got beaten to it. This is what happens when you get old. Get off my lawn!
Hmm, well in that nice set of search results kindly put forward by Slindsay you'll notice a number of the papers are about quantifying the uncertainty in climate change models, and pointing out that it's an inexact science - even more so when based on simulation and modelling. But I like the way the hostility has jumped up instantly. It pretty much highlights the issue. It's too emotive to even be allowed to question. Just to point out - I'm not disputing that climate change occurs, I'm not disputing that human actions have some measurable impact. What I'm questioning is how severe that impact is, whether the commonly accepted guidance (heavily pushed by certain industries, just as much as the skeptic's viewpoint is pushed by others) is useful, proportionate or a realistic response, and so forth. But it's okay - feel free to pat yourselves on the back over how well you've outsmarted me, since I must be part of the evil sceptical group. Moderates who simply want to be absolutely certain the approach is right, that the models are accurate (they're not so far - actual events are not matching up with predictions made by these models), and that any particular action we take will not worsen the situation don't exist - there are only the sceptics and those who see the truth after all. Kneejerk reactions are far more effective than cautious consideration.
Isn't there some research into fluctuating solar output may be a major cause of climate change in the past? Just something I am digging up from my mental basement so I may be well off target.
Yep - there's quite a few indicators that solar activity may (or may not) be a significant influence in past climate change. New possibilities, influences and complexities are constantly being thrown up by further research, both in favour and against the two extreme viewpoints. This is exactly why we can't simply declare it a done deal and go with the knee-jerk fix that's so popular.
We all can't be the wise skeptic that you are, but you're making misleading statements. There isn't an equal playing field of support in the science community on each side of the non-human influence vs. human influence poles. It's about 99.9% vs. 0.01% (actually it was greater when I researched this subject in academics seven years ago). The only way you'll learn this yourself is to read the journals. Not terribly exciting, but you can easily find your answer just trying to locate plausible journals in the against human factors camp and see that there aren't really any (or weren't anyway). Yes, all of the scientists who are serious on the topic question precisely how much influence our influence is, and wonder about the model accuracy. However, 99% of scientists on the planet (who all have an opinion on this subject) aren't qualified to analyze our climate models and discuss their efficacy intelligently. I know I'm not and I'm quite confident you aren't either.
Seven years ago there was zero journal data in support of this theory. It was only put out by fake scientist think tanks, like the bulk of these arguments, paid for largely by EXXON.
Sorry, when exactly did I dispute that humans have an impact? I'm just cautioning against a knee-jerk reaction to something, when we have very little knowledge of the situation - other than knowing that our models have a large degree of uncertainty and that there are interests on both sides trying to influence the debate in their favour. Knee-jerk reactions are why we still have measles. After all, there was supposedly mounds of evidence that the MMR vaccine caused autism. This is potentially a bigger issue - and neither side in the debate has exactly covered themselves with glory.
Well, you did post this: Which implies that you're this wise scientist capable of taking a moderate approach on the issue because of, "educational documents," when you should know as well as I do that journal articles are the only thing worth discussing when you represent yourself as a science guru on Internet forums full of people who largely don't have our science training. It's a very fashionable point-of-view with some scientists in non-climate related fields who can't be bothered to read the literature, so I'm not unfamiliar with this by any means. However, it's also bad science and ego-driven. You know as well as I do that neither of us is qualified to analyze those climate models, so either post a journal article that effectively invalidates them, or stop pretending this is some moderate issue where all the data isn't stacked on one side.
There's a problem here with the different standards of proof in science and politics. Science generally has high standards of proof, in fact to a scientist you could say nothing is ever definitively proven, whereas politics doesn't and any old nonsense will do. What the heartland institute is clearly doing is trying to force an ideological disbelief in global warming onto science. I actually find myself forced to agree with bunny- what we need in this situation is level heads and caution. I'm fairly satisfied in my own mind that climate change is both real and man made, though. The problem is what precisely we are going to do about it- I for one don't want to go back to a medieval existence where we don't have plastic or computers. That would really suck.
That was intended to address the specific issue of the 'think tank' in question, not as a general point of principle. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I make no attempt to represent myself as a science guru. I can't remember mentioning any scientific training anywhere, nor claiming any particular expertise in this or any other area. I generally don't mention my job, my education, or anything else as I don't try to speak from a position of authority. People are free to take or leave my posts however they wish, and I don't claim to have any priviliged knowledge or expertise. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...ract?sid=761eb3a2-af60-4ee5-bf22-ae756f78a8d4 http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7u68100317123r2/ - looking at whether the models in use are the best way to judge http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html - glacier data corrections http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html - antarctic ice http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261 - CO2 during glaciation They're just a handful - and again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that climate change isn't happening (it's pretty much inevitable, with or without humans) but about the predicted results and whether the headlines we're all being given are accurate. More importantly it's trying to get people to actually look at these reports for themselves, and draw their own conclusions, instead of relying on reporters to do their thinking for them. It's about the fact that the models are still being refined, and we should make sure that our information is complete as possible before trying to react.
John, so your hypothesis is that there is no fluctuation of solar output or if there is it has no impact on our climate? I'm not sure I'm following what your saying. Exxon may well have published opinion rather than data on something like that but that doesn't mean solar activity doesn't have and impact on climate. BTW, aren't we currently in an interglacine period right now? Edit: I seemed to have forgotten how to type.
Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools? Just questions the validity of the current models and offers suggestions for "better" ones, but certainly doesn't invalidate the ones being used presently. Timing of climate variability and grassland productivity Just states, "...predictions of ecosystem response to climate change will have to account not only for the magnitude of climate variability but also for its timing." Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise This article doesn't even attempt to dispute anything about present models. What's Holding Antarctic Sea Ice Back From Melting? Is not a journal article, but a NASA information piece. It discusses the fact that one pole has melting ice and another growing. I believe I've read discussion that this is believed to be caused by the disproportionate release of carbon on the Northern Hemisphere of Earth, but don't quote me on it, as it was many years ago. The Role of Carbon Dioxide During the Onset of Antarctic Glaciation This article states, "Here, we further investigate alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds." So for the only truly relevant thing you've posted to my request, but unfortunately it doesn't allow me to view it full text without subscription. I'll need to PubMed this sucka and see who has cited it and how valid it is regarded. If you'd like to discuss this and allow me to have the free time necessary to respond, please only post relevant data you've actually read. I don't have a hypothesis about that subject. I simply explained there is no journal data in support of it, and the "hypothesis" you're referring to is propaganda.
i think that once you really start looking into the science behind man-made global climate change, there really is a lot of evidence across disciplines that a.) global warming is happening and b.) it's man-made. it's denial to dispute it. unfortunately, a few still make a lot of money by obfuscating the fact that this is happening and that we need to do something about it.
