I'm tired of the gun argument. So how can a forum that generates 22 pages on the Carbon Flame war fail to mention Climategate? Are some people too emotionally invested to admit the possibility of data manipulation to achieve a political end? Shouldn't science be subject to honest peer review?

No.

Where did I put my beer?

Here's my opinion on it all (since you asked!):
An Inconvenient Truth helped to put global warming on the map amongst the mainstream. In subsequent years, it's been used as the rallying cry for much of the mainstream environmental movement.

I don't think it matters, at all, one way or the other.
I'm not a climatologist. I have no numbers or data to debate or throw out there (like so many of the internet forum "experts" out there). Many scientists/organizations say this...many say that- I'll find a "science" group or government agency that will "prove" or "disprove" anything with their data.

But what drives me absolutely insane is an attitude I see out there quite a bit:
The attitude that if global warming is somehow "proven" false, then the environmental movement as a whole is somehow debunked.

As I've said in another thread, I've still got 999,999
reasons to support environmental justice.
And I could really care less about the global warming debate. Maybe it's real, maybe it's not. Who cares.

There's so much work to be done regardless.

.

Edited by ChrisMorgan on 10/02/2010 20:29:00 MDT.

Wait until Goldman Sachs gets ahold of the cap and trade exchange....

"Wait until Goldman Sachs gets ahold of the cap and trade exchange...."

Seriously.

And just to clarify my position a bit better...I do have an opinion concerning the legitimacy (or not) of global warming and I do have people/data/studies I tend to believe.

But I'm not going there in some internet debate...it'll take two seconds before someone cites something I've never seen and the data/sources war begins...which I simply don't care to get involved in.

So I'll keep my mouth shut as to whether or not global warming is real and let everyone with the "real facts" scream at each other about it. At the end of the day, this is not a productive place for it...I'd rather channel my energy/stress towards something useful.

For some 6 years Bush followed the lead of the right and said we need to study it more. Finally even he came around to admitting what is overwhelming obvious. Now here are people starting the same tactics to achieve their short term agendas, whether it be a philosopical hostility towards the scientific age, or the loss of possibilities to make money, short term.

If you follow science on a science oriented site or magazine you will see almost every day more evidence of what is happening. Just ask an Eskimo who is being forced relocate as the sea rises. Or maybe the fact that nearly every migrating bird species in the US has extended its range northward as things warm, same in Europe. Or that they are starting to grow champagne grapes in the UK. Or that almost all of this is happening faster than almost anyone predicted.

As for the emails, much of it is being spun to appear to be what it is not. Sort of like Palin interpreting the consoling sessions for elders (she supported this when the Republicans proposed it) as death panels. Truth, it just gets in the way.

But there is some legitimate complaint. No scientist should ever deliberately conceal and or worse, deceive. That runs totally counter to the principles of science. There should be managers removed from their posts for this. I am afraid that a few scientists showed that they are indeed human, and gave in to the temptation to deceive.

But from everything I have read this is all just a whisper in the midst of a hurricane. It makes no difference. The rising seas, the receding glaciers, the near complete loss of permanent sea ice in the Artic, the movement of plants and animals towards the poles, the acidification of the oceans, it is all there for anyone willing to open their eyes.

"Wait until Goldman Sachs gets ahold of the cap and trade exchange...."

"Seriously. "

Seriously.

The really great part of this hoax is that they have created the illusion of actual alterations to the planet to help convince people of their lies.

From the hole in the Ozone layer, to the displacement of Arctic sea ice, this has been one incredibly well done hoax.

It's almost like the planet is really changing.

Edited by redmonk on 12/03/2009 15:22:01 MST.

"The really great part of this hoax is that they have created the illusion of actual alterations to the planet to help convince people of their lies."

I know exactly what you mean! They've even gotten to my thermometers to ensure they give false readings. The bast#^ds!

It's funny that the skeptics claim a vast conspiracy to perpetuate the "myth" of global warming.

The reality is that Corporate America has billions of dollars ready to give to any scientist who can come up with a plausible refutation of global warming and it hasn't happened yet.

I didn't want to continue the carbon flame war thread here, but to address the above:

Regarding the irrefutable evidence for global warming:
The arguments for global warming should be treated separately from those addressing anthropogenic global warming. Yes, the data points to a warming trend, I think almost all "skeptics" agree on that, but the points about polar bears and rising sea levels are moot, as what is really at stake is whether or not we are causing GW. If one is to argue AGW, first they need to address the anthropogenic causal relationship, not the actual warming trend.

Regarding corporate funding:
Corporations (coal companies and the like) may have a motivation to disprove AGW, but the legitimacy of any report they might produce is hampered by the fact that it is not produced by an "independent" scientific organization. Perhaps upon thorough analysis of these emails, AGWists may realize that the "independent" scientists are too, not so independent.

Edited by ChrisMorgan on 12/03/2009 16:24:04 MST.

And here I thought you were talking about some new
synthetic insulation for jackets and bags.

All business with you, huh!

I just figure I can pack lighter and lighter for the winter as I get older.

This calls into question the data from the CRU, but there is separate data from NOAA and NASA that would have to be determined as incorrect in order to conclusively determine that this is a hoax.

Even if the Earth's temperature is not rising, we humans are still going to have to deal with how the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is changing the acidity of the ocean and its effects on ocean life. Particularly in how it could affect habitat loss in the Great Barrier Reef, and how major changes could will affect food availability and pricing.

>>> "to admit the possibility of data manipulation to achieve a political end"

Don't rule out economic ends either. If one side was to legitimately lose the debate, big business stands to lose a lot more than the scientists, so it's possible that big business has more of an interest in adding to the confusion so that they can postpone the changes that the scientists are calling for.

"From the hole in the Ozone layer, to the displacement of Arctic sea ice, this has been one incredibly well done hoax."

No - those things are happening. The issue is whether a global warming is doing it as defined in the media and / or whether we are causing it.

This was an interesting read:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/

"Shouldn't science be subject to honest peer review?"

Absolutely! The best peer review money can buy. ;}

Let's all chill and have a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8