Can someone familiar with the thinking at Uncommon Descent explain why there is such opposition to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming? There’s this today, following several long commentaries by VJ Torley on the pope’s encyclical, mostly negative. I don’t get the connection. Is it general distrust of science? Or of the “Academy”? Or is there something about the idea that we may be provoking a major extinction event that is antithetical to ID? Or is it, possibly, that the evidence for major extinction events in the past is explains the various “explosions” that are adduced as evidence, if not for ID, then against “Darwinism”?
I’m honestly curious. Personally, I’m really concerned about global warming, and about the more general impact the human species is having on the rest of the world’s ecology, not because I think that major extinctions are inherently tragic (I know Earth will become lifeless one day, and that major extinctions are inevitable) but because human beings evolved to live in one ecosystem, and are unlikely to be fit for a very different one. So we are on the list of potential extinctees. And a hell of a lot of human suffering will occur if our climate changes too rapidly. If there’s anything we can do to slow things down, surely we should?
petrushka,
Even without hydrogen, fuel cells just aren’t especially efficient, about 60% tops, more like 40% for the ones that might be closest to practical in cars. Batteries are often at 90% or more.
Fuel cells might still be okay if we were talking about cheap, abundant fuels (40% is way above the 18% or so efficiency of gasoline engines in cars), but unfortunately neither methanol nor hydrogen is at all close to being cheap or abundant.
Glen Davidson
Methanol might be an environmentally friendly alternative to batteries for tablets and phones. But there might be environmentally friendly batteries available in ten years or so.
petrushka,
True, but I don’t think that lithium batteries are very bad for the environment. Lithium’s toxic, but not much worry at very low levels, and manganese along with the other materials used in the batteries are also minimally troublesome to the environment.
I guess, too, that I never quite understood how something as flammable as methanol would be allowed on planes (post 9/11, esp.), and, if not, how many would want it to fuel their phones, laptops, etc.?
Glen Davidson
I too am tempted by a Tesla: http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/advanced-cars/will-new-firmware-kick-teslas-060-down-to-28-seconds
There’s enough trouble caused by ethanol on planes …
Lithium batteries can ignight pretty much spontaneously and are considered hazardous cargo, I’ll pass on having any sizeable ones on airplanes. Lithium battery fires are the devil to extinguish.
I have always felt that ethanol acted like a time machine on a plane. The longer the flight, and the availability of free ethanol = a shorter flight.
William J. Murray,
Hmmm. A ‘tu quoque’ comes to mind at this point, but I’ll let it pass. Still, you rather set your stall out with your first comment in this thread:
.
Then there’s the fact that you reference excerpts from private emails as evidence that the scientists are dishonest and the whole thing is a scam … oh, sorry, you don’t think scientists are dishonest and the whole thing is a scam? And there’s the discredited ’18 year cooling’ trope. Sorry if I leapt to a conclusion, but it’s the preference for an aquatic habit, the quacking, the waddling gait on land and the beak.
What, like “The Gullible Consensus-Conformist Atheist Zone“?
CharlieM,
While there is a bit of truth in that, any increase in temperature due to CO2 is likely to increase the water vapour. That water vapour adds to the warming of the CO2, it does not counterbalance or mask it.
I think you’d have to build a bigger picture. CO2 is added to by outgassing from volcanoes (largely from releasing stores in biogenic mud), by respiration and by organic decay. It is removed by plants, by organismal biomass and by deposition of carbonates. Still, on the assumption (how good, I don’t know) that a non-industrial earth would be in equilibrium wrt CO2, the concern is that fossil fuels are additive. The carbon in these was in the atmosphere many years ago (historic CO2 levels were higher – much higher if you go back far enough).
William J. Murray,
What’s wrong with that? It’s an exhortation to do better – better observations, better models.
What ‘decline’ do you think he is hiding, here? And what kind of ‘trick’ is it? Dividing both sides of an equation is a ‘trick’, a perfectly valid one.
“The end effects?” What are they? Is this the end of a moving average?
This is not scandalous, nor dishonest, and certainly does not suggest this is someone who thinks climate change is unreal.
And?
No-one wants their personal papers to be forced out of their hands. A libertarian like you would surely approve?
Solutions 2, 3 4 were … You think his tongue was not anywhere near his cheek?
????
So we should instead giving an unscrupulous editor a free ride? He’s not saying that anti-greenhouse science should be automatically rejected, but that it should be subject to proper peer review. But, hey how can anyone call anti-greenhouse activists unscrupulous? They only try to make capital out of stolen emails, after all. I, of course, lacking an objective moral standard, cannot possibly say that is ‘wrong’.
A degree of skepticism is entirely appropriate, without needing any of those rather weak quotes. Where is the skepticism about the ‘denialist’ interpretation of the quotes themselves? One becomes skeptical about other things when someone chooses the ‘smear’ path rather than arguing on the science. And they were completely exonerated
That’s evidence. William does not need evidence.
Allan,
The huge disparity in the way you interpret my comments here, and they way you interpret the comments in those emails, IMO makes exactly the actual case that I’ve been making here. Anyone you perceive/template as “anti-AGW”, you appear to attack and interpret negatively. Anyone you perceive/template as pro-AGW, you interpret favorably and give them a pass.
I’m skeptical that those involved in AGW research are unbiased and unaffected by the serious politics and other weighty influences involved. That goes for both sides.
Well, not really. Have you actually looked at those emails? What about them do you find concerning?
ETA: I see Allan has posted some extracts.
What William doesn’t know, which is not surprising as he doesn’t claim to know it, is anything about the methodological hinterland for these comments.
His allegation is that scientists actually fraudulently altered the raw data to make their models fit. Nothing in these emails suggests any such thing. Obviously scientists want their models to be correct – it’s why we build models. But there’s no satisfaction in pretending a model is correct when it isn’t. No future, either. Career death, to be precise.
Of course they are biased. They would like their models to be correct.
There is a huge difference between wanting your model to be correct, and altering your data to make it appear that your model fits it when it doesn’t.
That’s why I kept asking you how you thought scientists would benefit from altering the data. It just doesn’t work like that, unless you are a lone operator with no collaborators. It certainly won’t work like that if you have already published the data
ETA: or, as the report points out: if the raw station data are freely available for anyone to check.
William J. Murray,
Perhaps you could point out where I have misinterpreted your views. It is my opinion that you are a ‘denialist’, because you exhibit the behaviours of a denialist. You cherry-pick data and consider it sufficient to post, without commentary, rather vague excerpts that have been doing the rounds among denialists. Of course it’s a bit lazy of me to paint you as such – see also ‘Darwinist’, ‘materialist’, ‘atheist’ (when used as something other than purely descriptive, which is quite rare). But you don’t seem to be much else. Your skepticism is not balanced. Believe it or not, I would only describe myself as about 70% convinced of the AGW case. But I see a lot of bad science on the ‘anti’ side. Because the one conducts its case through peer-reviewed research and publication, and the other largely on the internet, I am inclined to be more skeptical of claims made by the latter.
I admit it, I cut the scientists more slack than I do you. But then, it is hardly a level playing field. Those emails were not making a case, but were stolen and scoured for anything remotely damning, which was then cut out of context. The authors are not here to defend their views. You, however, are.
Well, this gets us back to That Question again. I know you gave an answer, but it is a genuine concern to me. If scientists are deliberately manipulating findings (against the findings of the Review, for example), I’d like to know what reason they might have for doing that. ‘People just do’ is not really it.
This is why I believe that William would have adjusted the data fraudulently in favour of his desired outcome, as he believes that others did so. He thinks they would have done what he would have done in their position, so he thinks they did do that. He can’t imagine that people have integrity.
I think rather, that William thinks that unless people posit that there is an objective morality (which he does), there’s nothing to stop them doing so.
However, even if we accept that (which I don’t), the self-interest argument still kicks in: there is no benefit, and collossal risk, to a scientist who fabricates data. Not that it never happens, but the risk is so great, and the machinery for detecting it so brutal, that the chances of a collaborative effort to do so are tiny. The more people you have to posit as part of a conspiracy, the more likely it is that such a conspiracy will be found out.
The prizes for demonstrating that other scientists are wrong are far greater than the prizes for confirming that they are right, and nobody benefits from someone else falsifying data.
Which is not to say that the AGW models are correct. But I do not regard the evidence with complacency. Global surface temperatures may have “paused” (and there are hypotheses about why this might be the case) but ice melt and sea level continue to rise at the upper end of predictions.
And I don’t see any reason to think these data are fabricated. Hard to fabricate ice-melt, for a start. Either you can use a skidoo to get across the inlet or you can’t.
In the other thread a few commentators linked moral realism directly to Biblical literalism. I happen to support the AGW cause for moral reasons along with the scientific. The moral reason is straightforward: Industry and other human activity has obvious adverse effects on nature. We should clean up after ourselves and do our best to minimise the adverse effects.
There are only two things I’d like to question about AGW: The name (global warming, as if it were about warming) and the politics. But neither is a scientific question, so let’s move on.
Global climate is modelled on the analogy of greenhouse. This model dates from 1824 (!). The name “greenhouse gases” should make it clear to people interested in the topic that the whole issue is about greenhouse effect, not about warming. The greenhouse model implies other well-studied phenomena like smog, acid rains and ozone depletion. These are not scientifically questioned. So the model works. Nothing to argue.
That is a meaningless statement. Nobody is claiming that anthropogenic warming will make all life extinct.
The case for “doing something about global warming” does not hinge on an argument that not doing so will cause the extinction of all, or even most of the life on the planet. It will have consequences, and yes there will be extinctions of some species (the polar bear habitat for example is threatened). And there will be dire economic and social/political consequences because of changes in where crops can be grown etc. etc.
But it’s not a biblical apocalypse. Only cranks think that it is.
Post moved to correct thread.
Which is one of the reasons I am a bit squeamish about those “think of the Planet!” type slogans. A mass exctinction event on Earth would be pretty horrific, but no worse than in the past probably, except for the fact that this one could involve mass misery for human beings who, unlike most (all?) other creatures have the added burden of being able to foresee their own demise, and the demise of their offspring, and fellow humans, and care about it.
The reasons we should try not to accelerate global warming morally, is, in my view, that it would make the planet uninhabitable for many or all of us and thus be a massive human tragedy.
The biosphere itself will recover, and the surviving species will radiate to occupy the new niches, as well as old ones vacated by species that didn’t make the cut.
There are of course many good reasons to curb fossil fuel usage. The ‘antis’ want to focus on global warming because it is one of the more technical areas, and a plausible anti case can be made which those without technical expertise in the sciences might find harder to spot. But …
– Oil is running out. Why make it run out faster?
– The main causes of acid rain are Nitrous Oxide, Sulphur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide. The first two are proportionately more significant, even though of lesser concentration, but ‘carbon reduction’ is a useful proxy for all three. Because the principal source of elevation of all 3 is … ?
– Asthma levels are on the increase. It is certainly not impossible that this is in part due to fossil fuel pollutants – the above-mentioned, plus particulates, ozone etc.
– Fewer tankers and rigs (than a what-the-hell-fuelled maximum) means a lesser incidence of distressed sea life.
– You can save money!
Of course the antis may well deny all these as well, the way it took years before lung cancer and tobacco were agreed to be linked by almost all. I’m inclined to think action on global warming may be too late anyway. But let’s have a go anyway! Because what’s the downside?
EL said:
No, it isn’t, as I already explained to OMagain in this thread. But it’s not like I expect any of you to be able to get past your bias and actually comprehend and remember the things I’ve explained over and over and over.
Allan Miller said:
The downside is trillions of dollars in debt, corruption, waste, increased government control over lives and fraudulent crony capitalist ventures.
But, that doesn’t really matter to those that are in need of some kind of secular grand purpose gestalt. As long as we “feel good” about the intention, then if it all goes down the drain and actually makes life worse, who cares? We’ll have our state-sponsored marching orders and guidelines to keep a sense of order and purpose. We’ll have a moralistic narrative! We’ll feel really good about ourselves!
William J. Murray,
Do you have a shred of evidence for this scattergun list? Properly audited costings, that kind of thing? Take them one by one, and back up your claims like a ‘true skeptic’ should.
You’ve really drunk the kool-aid. Creating rules limiting emissions demonstrably encourages innovation, creating new jobs in new industries that are not polluting industries.
Of course, if you’d prefer to be rich, cancerous and on an island where the sea get’s higher every year then I can understand that, given where you get your news.
It’s hilarious. I upgraded the insulation on my home last year, prepatory to going the whole tree-hugging hog and investing in new heating technology. My bills have appreciably gone down even before taking those more costly steps. So: I’ve bought some stuff, I’m about to invest some more in new technologies, and air will be, however marginally, cleaner the less I burn. And I’ve saved some money.
Fucking interfering government bastards!
OMagain said:
I guess in your world, being skeptical means having drunk the kool-aid.
When someone asks me if I have any evidence that the government is rife with fraud, corruption, crony capitalism, etc., I tend not to take them seriously. Sort of like when people ask me why scientists would lie or do bad things. There is no evidence or argument that can get past that degree of naive idealism.
If you think this is being skeptical
then there’s really no need to continue. I know the sort of venue I can go to to read this sort of thing direct from the source. Your regurgitation of it is simply more evidence of precisely how skeptical you are.
Finally, something we both agree on.
William J. Murray,
So that’s a ‘no’ then.
For someone who complains a lot about misrepresentation, you are pretty good at it. I don’t know how you can read me as asking if you “have any evidence that the government is rife with fraud, corruption, crony capitalism”. It is not disputed that governments and corporations can be corrupt. But you are saying more – that the downside of action on fossil fuel burning is … [lemme see, scroll scroll scroll] “The downside is trillions of dollars in debt, corruption, waste, increased government control over lives and fraudulent crony capitalist ventures.”.
That is a significantly different position – that those things will be a consequence of curbing fossil fuel burning. That, whatever level they have now, it will increase. But I honestly don’t see it. I don’t know who will be in debt to whom. I don’t see how having something novel to sell can of itself damage an economy. I don’t see how government interference in daily life will increase, beyond making some things more expensive at the expense of others, and offering grants and incentives. I don’t see how ‘crony capitalism’ automatically follows from people shifting to alternative technologies, any more than people suddenly discovering they can’t live without the various previously-dispensible products of the Apple Corporation. People buy things for many reasons, but ultimately they choose to. I have crunched the numbers, and I will save money if I survive long enough. So forget ‘idealism’, there’s cold hard cash involved.
The antis really get my goat sometimes. They display such a deeply-ingrained hatred for all environmental concern that they seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There was a recent Private Members’ Bill to push the UK one hour ahead year-round, to better align the waking day with daylight. For the majority of the country, this would be a positive move. It had strong cross-party support, RoSPA estimated that a net 100 accidental deaths a year could be saved, many organisations gave their support, and a substantial majority polled were in favour. But it got talked out by a couple of anti-Europe fuckwits***. For two principal reasons: first that it would put us on ‘Berlin time’ (and Madrid, and Paris, and Oslo, but never mind that – BERLIN!!!), and the second, less overt, that it was sponsored by environmentalists (spit) because of the positive impact on energy use. Such narrow-minded thinking is sadly typical of the breed.
[eta: *** designated as such due to their actions rather than their political view]
Except that you consistently misrepresent the people asking. I for one, have freely conceded that scientists lie and do bad things. I have asked, specifically, why they would alter already published data, or collaborate with others to do so.
Rather than address this question, you imply that my very question indicates “naive idealism”. There is nothing either naive or idealistic about my question. I am asking you how you think such an act would benefit the perpetrator.
I am still waiting for an answer.
Nobody is arguing or acting flabbergasted at the suggestion that a scientist might lie or engage in fraud. It has happened many times. But this isn’t about any particular scientist, or a small reasearch group at some university. It is about the entire climatology community in the world.
It takes more than the mere suggestion that fraud is POSSIBLE to establish that fraud is a FACT. Now you have made the suggestion, it is time to bring the FACTS.
Of course, I already wrote as much in this thread before, but it was ignored:
Rumraket said :
Then someone else made it about that. I certainly didn’t.
You are conflating two different points I’ve made in this thread. One was about altering/adjusting data – both sides agree that data is altered/adjusted. Both sides agree that before the data is altered/adjusted, it doesn’t fit the model/predictions. My question was if there was any data that, unaltered/unadjusted, fit the model/predictions – as I explained to Omagain.
The other point was about my general skepticism about the institutions of science. I expect that scientists are people like anyone else; they lie, fudge, bow to various sorts of pressure, and commit fraud for all sorts of reasons and for no apparent rational reason. When EL asks me to explain why a scientist would risk their career and lie, the same could be asked about anyone in any field. Why would they? Why do people do the stupid and corrupt things they do?
EL:
Then you should ask them why they did what they did. The fact that scientists do such things and you admit it proves that point – that scientists do such things. Which is one reason for skepticsim. Why you think I should speculate on their motivations, I have no idea.
William J. Murray,
It is a pertinent question. You advance the hypothesis that – specifically in the world of climate science – scientists are lying and manipulating data to serve some end. So people are entitled to ask what end you might have in mind. But apparently you don’t. It’s like a detective saying “Him over there – he did it”. “But what was his motivation – he’s just a random passerby?”. “Yeah, well, people can be bad”.
Similarly, you advance multiple economic and political woes contingent on attempting to reduce fossil fuel burning. When asked to explain the specific attachment of these things to climate change legislation, you respond again with the bare fact that corruption and economic ills occur.
So in summary, it has been decided (somehow) that there is a narrative needing advancing (for some reason) that man is affecting the climate of the planet due to fossil fuel burning. Therefore scientists have (somehow) managed to manipulate models and results (for some reason) on a global scale, with interdisciplinary collusion, to bolster this narrative. The peer review process has (somehow) been subverted to this end, and whistle-blowers have (somehow) been silenced.
World governments of all political stripes and multiple changes of administration have (somehow) been persuaded by their scientific advisors to take action. Such action is to be resisted despite many fringe benefits because (somehow) there will be a massive increase in debt (from a party unspecified to another party unspecified), and (somehow) an increase in corruption and ‘crony capitalism’ over the level which would pertain if we did nothing.
The scales have fallen from my naively idealistic eyes!
Why do *you* do the stupid and corrupt things you do?
Given that you don’t have any direct personal experience of such data manipulation on what grounds do you claim it has happened at all?
Citation please.
That’s because you are still missing my point.
In the cases where scientists have been found to have fabricated data, they did so covertly, and singly. The benefit there is obvious – to get a paper published that shows that their pet theory is confirmed by evidence (probably a theory they believed anyway).
But your allegation is that scientists collectively, and openly, but dishonestly, adjusted data that had been previously published. I can see no benefit there for the scientists, and a huge personal risk.
And the reason I am asking you to speculate on why this should have been is that while I have no reason to think that scientists are any less, or more, prone to cupidity and turpitude than anyone else, I have every reason to think that they are also no more, or less, likely to do something that goes so directly against their own interests.
But I also note that you have expressed no skepticism regarding the source of your allegation (in other than general terms); you have declined to comment on the obvious flaw in your source’s argument (namely, that errors can NOT be assumed to be symmetrical about the mean – many error types are not, and it’s something you have to check, not assume), nor provide any evidence apart from that (flawed) source that the “data” were adjusted at all, let alone dishonestly.
Adjusting estimates is, on the other hand, routine. It’s part of the methodology of model fitting i.e. NOT “data fitting”.
EL said:
For the second time now, no, I have made no such allegation. It’s like talking to brick walls here.
EL said:
I’ve expressed the same general skepticism regarding both sides. When asked why I’m skeptical of the pro-AGW side, I’ve listed my reasons. I’m skeptical of the other side for various reasons – for one, I think a lot of people are simply anti-consensus biased, and for another, they do have what appears to be little “counter-consensus” support for their view. They seem to me to be too quick to attribute nefarious motivations when it’s not called for (for instance, I think their interpretation of the emails in many cases is simply reaching for a negative characterization).
However, that said, I think we should all be highly skeptical when there is so much money, power, and politics involved. There’s no reason why scientists should be more trusted than anyone else in this kind of situation – they’re just people, as prone to being influenced, personal bias and corruption as anyone else.
IMO, there are good reasons to be skeptical – as far as I can tell, **none** of the predictions of earlier AGW models have come true – there has not been an increase in severe weather, the polar bears are not extinct, winter hasn’t disappeared in the northeast USA or England; New York isn’t under water, and mountain snow/ice hasn’t evaporated where they said it would. There has been no massive AGW refugee movement from AGW-affected geographical areas.
Even if AGW is true, it seems to me that the alarmism associated with it is just not based on good science – otherwise, some of these extreme predictions would have occurred by now as predicted.
Additionally, prominent members of the AGW community have had their scandals, and then there’s what the emails actually say.
I think that if the so called “skeptical” zone members here applied just half the skepticism they apply to ID and applied it to AGW claims, they’d be asking the same things – where are the accurate predictions? Look at the scandals! They would have excoriated any IDists exchanging emails like we see being exchanged between the high-profile AGW proponents.
But, like so many other things here, it appears the skepticism only goes one way – against that which you disagree with; any time someone is skeptical of that which you people agree with, it’s immediately painted as something extreme – denialism.
I haven’t denied anything. I’ve expressed skepticism about both sides and have explained my skepticism about the pro-AGW side. Apparently, here, no AGW skepticism is allowed. I didn’t realize it was a religious issue here. Your faith is duly noted. I’ll take my skeptical shoes off next time I enter the temple and put on the “blasphemer” robes.
Anyway, here‘s the “smoking gun”: the methodology by which the data that William’s source is suspicious of is adjusted. Note that there is nothing underhand or surreptious about this, as even William’s source acknowledges. The allegation, rather, is that the adjustments always make the warming trend greater, not less.
All that is advanced in support of this is anecdotal allegations. that adjustments always increase the warming trend) and the assertion that:
As I’ve pointed out, this is nonsense. Errors in data measurement do necessarily cancel out. Some error sources do; others don’t. Some error sources result in consistent under measurement (for example, if some of the recording stations were recording at an earlier time of day).
But there is another really important issue: IF there is a real warming trend, then the less noisy (i.e. the less the total error in the data), the more pronounced will be the trend.
So under both the assumption of fraud (scientists dishonestly adjust the estimates from the raw data so that it fits their preferred GW hypothesis) and under the assumption that GW is real (the scientists’ adjustments reflect better estimates of the true values), the adjustments will tend to give more pronounced GW trend. The only scenario under which honest adjustments will reduce the GW tend is if GW isn’t real..
In other words, the allegation by your source is entirely baseless:
In other words there’s nothing there.
You actually posted a link to a source that made that actual allegation!
Here is your post:
You specifically said that you were “skeptical of the idea that humans are catastrophically adding to the current warming pattern” and cited, in support of this skepticism, a link to those allegations.You cite it, you own it, William.
And yet when your source for skepticism is challenged, you back off – “not me, guv”.
Yes there has
They are vulnerable, and their sea ice habitat is visibly disappearing
Which isn’t a prediction of GW
Was in 2012
Has too.
Yeah, there’s no drought in the Sahel. No migration to Europe. Drought-related poverty plays no part in the political instability of Eritrea. There are no desperate migrants drowning in the Mediterranean. Nothing to see here, folks, move on.
Yes, some of this is cyclical, not anthropogenic. But the evidence for Global warming is huge. How much is anthropogenic may be in a little more doubt, but both theory and evidence suggest that we may be hastening it, possibly catastrophically.
Post was getting too long, so I continue here:
Many have, but you have, on your own admission, no expertise for evaluating the science.
Which is NOT that anyone falsified data.
The prediction of AGW is that global temperatures will rise as human greenhouse gas emissions increase. What that means, specifically, is, unfortunately, hard to predict, as we cannot know what the feedback loops are, positive and negative. We can hope that there are negative (homeostatic) loops that will kick in. But many of the known feedback loops are, unfortunately, positive (albedo for instance).
It is when the person in question refuses even to examine the actual sources they present in support of the Not Warming case. My skepticism is directed at arguments presented with absent or dodgy support. You make a good case and I’ll hear it.
It isn’t a religious issue, and you haven’t expressed skepticism of both sides, except in hand-waving terms. You specifically cited a source that you seem not to want to acknowledge now, in support of the Not Warming side, which made a specific allegation about scientific dishonesty.
When challenged on this, you stick with your scientific dishonesty claims, but do not address the problems with your source.
That doesn’t look like equal ops skepticism to me.
William J. Murray,
This begins to look like whining. “Applies insufficient skepticism” does not mean “fails to agree with me”. You seem disinclined to support any claim you make. Me, I’m only about 70% convinced as I said. But the fringe benefits swing it.
I could not see anything particularly untoward in the emails as presented, and would require fuller context to form a proper judgement. This you declined to do, not taking opportunity to provide your own analysis beyond pasting the bald words in excerpt. It looks for all the world like a smear tactic. You can find that on denialist sites worldwide. I’m sure they prefer the term ‘skeptic’ too, but they seem unaware of what scientific skepticism actually means.
Meanwhile, the emails were investigated not once but EIGHT TIMES and neither wrong-doing nor doubt over the validity of climate research were uncovered by any of these reports.
It’s a whole lot like ID, in fact, because we have the predictions of the trends that actually exist (rising temps, cladistic patterning based upon derivation), and then we’re supposed to fulfill some other predictions. Meanwhile, ID and anti-AGW manage to make no legitimate predictions that are fulfilled, somehow feeling exempt from their own demands, without crediting the fulfilled predictions of the opposition (nitpicking them to death seems to be the strategy).
That said, I myself am not so convinced that responding to global warming and ocean acidification would be much of anything but a large and costly imposition if neither turned out to be much of a problem. Conservation has often paid well enough, but the low-hanging fruit has the best return (we’ve insulated too, mostly for pocketbook reasons, but there’s not a whole lot more to do with a good return), and many of the impacts of fossil fuels can be reduced a good deal without large reductions in fossil fuel use (in fact, nitrogen oxide reduction has generally led to reduced gasoline engine efficiency).
We do need to address the problems of climate change and ocean acidification because of the problems these have caused–and are likely cause in the future, especially.
VJ Torley’s set of expectations for his Designer really does show the problems that thinking that the world is designed can cause, The thermostat of the world seems to be CO2 to a great degree, and, rather than being a negative feedback against temperature changes, often it appears to accentuate changes, with CO2 reductions feeding into glacial periods, and with warming tending to release more CO2.
Glen Davidson