NTSA
I am inherently skeptical of the coming ice age, err global warming, err climate change. It’s a little too convenient for social engineering for my tastes. And there’s been a few, uhm, questionable things coming out of the climate scientists. The climate is changing and it always has changed. If that makes sense to you, congrats, you’re reasonable. If your first thought is to call me a flat-earther or creationist or something, then you’re exactly what’s wrong with the climate change crowd. And then I’ll remove a catalytic converter from a car and burn a tire just to annoy you. But Climategate II – Longer, Harder, Uncut Emails.
November 23rd, 2011 at 10:49 am
Exactly. Even IF global warming is happening, and IF it’s caused by civilization, and IF it actually presents a problem (lots more arable land in Canada and Siberia sounds good to me!), there is NO WAY that the best solution is to hand over control of the global economy to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.
Funny how no matter the problem, the answer from the pinheads who can’t find a job in the productive economy, is to put those pinheads in charge of the productive economy.
November 23rd, 2011 at 12:02 pm
In some ways it is more rational to realize that the climate is not really changing. Being variable, and seemingly in cyclical sorts of ways is what it does. Change in the behavior of the climate would be for it to stop changing. If we end up actually changing something as little understood as the climate through some of these really scary stupid ideas (increase particulate matter in the atmosphere, paint everything white, etc) then we’ll be pretty much doomed.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
As though your version of “skepticism” (skepticism refers to holding claims outside the scientific mainstream to a higher standard–what you’re doing isn’t that, it’s denial) isn’t a little too convenient too.
Your denial is convenient for people who don’t want to have to take responsibility for their actions and is convenient for people who want to consider that some problems might require nations to work together and that the US can’t behave unilaterally.
So far there’s very, very little grist for the denialist mill in this email dump, which appears to be the leftover from the first attempt at climate gate.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:02 pm
(And my first thought isn’t to call you any of those things. It’s just to remind you that you’re willfully misinformed).
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:04 pm
yes it was. you used denialist.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
If the shoe fits.
Not sure why it’s my problem that A) you don’t use the word skepticism properly or B) are engaged in that behavior.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Most people realize that the climate is changing. What most of us that are labeled “denialists” actually deny is not that climate is changing, but rather that the change is something caused by man and that the changes we do see are actually a net harm. Most people who buy into the climate change rhetoric believe that the change involves catastrophe and must be averted. They forget that the earth has been at the predicted temperatures before, and in recent history. As pointed out above, it isn’t at all clear that going back to the climate of the 1400’s would actually be a bad thing. It’s likely to increase the amount of arable soil and fresh water available.
As for the anthropogenic nature of climate change, the current trends are easily traceable back into the 1700s, well before the CO2 emissions often blamed for causing the warming trend emerged. The same warming cycle over the same periods of time is evident in history, lending further credence to the natural genesis of this cycle, and the fact that the same cycle is being recorded on other planets pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of man-made global warming.
All that said, you will also find that most of us are rational human beings who see value in preserving the aesthetic and healthful qualities of a clean environment. We are not proposing that since AGW is a myth, we should all go start burning tires in our backyards, dumping solvents into our water systems, and clear-cutting forests for paper mills. We see value in recycling, conservation, and management of our natural resources. However, we do not see UNLIMITED value. Everything that is done should be analyzed from a cost-benefit point of view. Overall, a lot of green technology fails that test miserably. Solar power, ethanol, and high-speed rail are excellent examples. Each of these boondoggles costs far more than the benefits are worth, and in each case, similar results may be had through less expensive means if we remove the government mandates preferring one solution over others from the mix.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Sebastian, the of cause Science is not advanced by hiding data, changing data, treating people skeptical of a hypothesis like heretics (is it science you’re defending or religion?), fudging data or otherwise proceeding in an unverified, closed door, consensus determined path.
Science and it’s data must be checked, re-checked, proofed, criticized, taken apart, put back together and it must stand on it’s own validity and NOT on the fervor of it’s supporters. If that’s how you handle it, then it’s not science you’re defending.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Montieth: nobody’s doing any of that on the climate science side.
But if Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre wanna turn over their emails…some funny stuff will probably turn up :).
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I don’t see how anyone who’s read some of the emails and participated in the denialist name calling can say nobody’s doing any of that on the climate science side with a remotely straight face. Religion, indeed.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Sooo…let me get this straight.
IF the globe is warming (not settled) and the change matches computer models (hasn’t happened) and observed changes match predictions (not yet)and we enact the Kyoto Protocols over all the world (Fat chance) and it works…..per the Kyoto people….humans will drop the temperature of the earth’s projected increase by, at most, 2 degrees.
Ok then.
In the mean time….please tell me again how this is all settled science when I see scientist admitting that they don’t know how cloud cover affect global warming, how to accurately separate man’s contribution of CO2 out of the “naturally” occuring emissions, or that scientists agree that CO2 is even a forcing gas.
Because we all know that science can be settled….just ask Einstein…..oh. Wait…..
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
That’s fine, but the empirical evidence is decidedly to the contrary. That’s where the denial comes in. Your position is a political one, but not one that the scientists who, you know, actually work on this stuff (to include thousands of folks not implicated at all in any of these emails) actually would find scientifically viable.
As for it being no big deal…a great majority, something like 80% of the world’s population, lives in or near cities that’ll be under water. Couple that with loss of protein sources from loss of arable land and ocean acidification, and the “it’s no big deal” defense seems decidedly uncompelling.
Not to mention an admission that something really is happening.
Your analysis of CO2 trends is decidedly inaccurate–the accelerated warming signal neatly coincides with the Industrial Revolution and the use of fossil fuels and deforestation associated with human activity. Nice try.
That solar panels and biofuels and liquid thorium reactors and cold fusion haven’t as yet supplanted oil and coal (very, very heavily subsidized industries, you’ll note) is irrelevant to the science.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Why?
They don’t mean what you think they mean. If you have some specific examples, my guess is you’ll find folks involved have probably already addressed them and put them in context.
Given how poorly the previous Climategate, upon examination, turned out for you guys…I’d think you’d be less smug.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Squid: you’re an idiot. Climate scientists aren’t the ones discussing “settled science”.
Enjoy the smell of burning strawman.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Why, when we can enjoy the sound of you slurping the state, sebastian?
I mean, the idea that the sun could change the climate is just ridiculous, right?
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“Not sure why it’s my problem that A) you don’t use the word skepticism properly”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Skepticism-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism
Definition of SKEPTICISM
1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
Examples of SKEPTICISM
She regarded the researcher’s claims with skepticism.
—————————
I think all of his uses work here. #3 is a bonus!
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Amazing. Does anything that anyone writes mean what it says?
If Mann wrote “The sky is blue” you would come back and tell us that while he said the sky is blue, what he meant was that is an obscure shade of red and if any of us bothered to do research we’d know that. We’re all just a bunch of deniers for taking what he wrote to have the common English meaning.
Have I got that right?
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Wow. Who’s the “denialist” now?
November 27th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Sebastian’s definition of skepticism is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen. After that, it’s hard to take his comments seriously. And it’s not as if the emails needed context: the full emails were released. They specifically talk about leaving evidence out in order to make the case stronger: in response to political pressure.
There’s no context that can be added to explain this. It’s damning.