ABCDiamond

Easily fixed for a politician...

Take our results

• 32.69% Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
• 51.92% Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible

This adds up to 84.5% that say that with Global warming, although partly a natural process, human activity is definitely also responsible...

GarryP

But they HAVEN'T been found falsifying data.

That's the point.

The bit everyone points to, about 'trick' and 'decline' is a scientist putting together a diagram for a paper. He's got some tree ring data (IIRC) going back hundreds of years showing a proxy temperature record. However tree ring data isn't too good close to the present day - the tree rings are close to the bark, there's still sap in them, they aren't accurate - everyone in the biz knows they aren't accurate. He knows that if he presents a graph of this data the last little bit will trend downwards with this duff data - and a hundred deniers will be on his back with 'ahhh ... but' type comments. He doesn't need the hassle.

So what does he do?

He uses an approach he's seen Mann use to take temperature data over the past 30 years, bolting that onto the end of the graph, annotated appropriately, so that the graph goes up at the end. There's no great problem with this, the data is unquestionably accurate and its not the part of the temperature record that's interesting anyway. That's down in medieval times. Its not falsifying anything (its more accurate) and provided he makes it clear what he's doing its not even misrepresenting data.

He emails a colleague about it.

Skip forward 8 years and some deniers steal a bunch of these workaday emails, pawing over them for anything that they can use. They come to words like 'trick' and 'decline', put two and two together and in their ignorance make 362, and start shouting their heads off - convincing others via this pretty obviously stupidity on their part. They aren't interested in the truth, they are interested in trying to find dirt - and in their haste to publish they didn't ask if maybe they were wrong. They didn't care.

The lie goes around the world before the truth has got its boots on.

A whole bunch of people don't want to have to recognise that climate change is real. They don't want the change to their existing standard of living, the effort, etc. Most of all they don't want to think that what they have done could kill their children. The lie sounds good, allows them to go back to ignoring what the evidence is telling them - they take it onboard without question, parroting one liners like 'faking data' in the same way they would talk about Richard Gere and gerbils.

The next time someone asks why children need to learn science at school, and "how would you ever use this in your everyday life" - this is what you should think about. 79% of individuals not understanding science enough, therefore not trusting scientists enough, to understand what the data is saying and how they can save their own skins.

paulry

What's interesting about this thread is watching the polls sway according to the alternating prevailing opinions.

Wol

I have to declare an interest: I have no children so, in some ways I suppose I have no vested interest in "saving the planet".

However, I do think that, despite all the myriad ways that we've managed to f**k it up, it's still quite a nice planet and in any case the only one we've got. So if hundreds of scientists, expert in their own fields, after decades of research come to a 90% conclusion I reckon it would be foolish to dismiss them the way that so many deniers do.

Wol

>> Facts are not the exclusive property of experts, nor, in this instance, are experts in possession of all the facts. <<

As they themselves say.

>> If people are to bear the cost of prevention, they have a right to ask questions. <<

Absolutely.

>> Water vapour is a more potent green house gas than carbon dioxide, largely because there is more of it. <<

Here we start to enter the expert field! It's said that methane is "more potent" than CO2, and it may be. But methane stays in the atmosphere for decades before being broken down, and some of the effect is due to the longevity. Water vapour is self regulating: more of it and the RH rises and precipitation increases, causing a negative feedback. CO2 builds up, and absorbtion by the oceans, vegetation etc is a much more delayed effect. And the positive feedback from release of methane etc from melting tundra, according to the climatologists, doesn't help.

>> I have not seen, and would like to, proof that man made changes in carbon dioxide is more significant than natural or man made changes in water vapour. <<

I'm not sure that it is - but remember it's in addition to the natural changes, not *instead* of them.

>> I'd like the experts to communicate clearly instead of preaching. <<

Agreed - the problem is that, even if couched in everyday language, half the population (a) won't listen and (b) still won't understand. I don't begin to understand quantum mechanics, but I believe those who use their knowledge of the subject to make computer chips and TVs, because these things work. (well, TVs do, anyway <g>) I suppose we could wait and see - if a runaway global warming takes place we can confidently say the IPCC were right?

Wol

Cranston:

>>Skeptics is a better word. 'Denier' suggests a definitiveness that may not be there. We don't 100% know. You may want to accept the findings of the CRU as they stand but I and many others want a full and thorough investigation.<<

In many cases you are right - but I selected the word deliberately. You can surf the web all night and read post after post from people who actively and passionately DENY AGW. They are not sceptical, they KNOW.

*I* certainly do not KNOW the facts about AGW, but I am more inclined to accept the IPCC research than much of the other side's arguments, a lot of which shows a marked lack of scientific nous.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

That's not necessarily the case. What if we decide to reduce emissions by going nuclear?. How about if come up with hydrogen technology that has a by-product of increased water vapour, supposedly worse than CO2?


Don't get me wrong, I would agree that every attempt should be made to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions, if only because it should have, in the short term at least, environmental benefits.... but as I think we can see from this thread, there are no simply answers to this question.

Alfresco

Not believing in AGW is the default position. The burden of proof rests with the one(s) making the claim (of AGW). It's not the 'deniers' or 'skeptics' obligation to disprove it.

I personally believe that it is a natural cycle we are going through and that although we contribute a bit, we are not the primary/sole cause.

I have spent about £20k in the last few years on double glazing, cavity wall insulation, new high efficiency combi boiler and associated radiators, loft insulation etc...

Our house is now so energy efficient and draft free that we have to leave windows (fanlights) open so we can breathe.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

I'm not dismissing their research, or trying to deny the fact that the climate does seem to be changing, I saw enough Winters in the UK to see that they were getting milder. What I'm not totally convinced about is just how much influence we have had on that change. 'Climate change' has existed since the birth of the planet, and will continue long after we are gone. The planet has been much warmer than it is now in the past and also a great deal colder... all that happened without our input.

WillBlack

This graph seems to show persistant trend increases in water vapour measured over Boulder, Colorado at all altitudes since at 1980 at the latest in a background of substantial natural variability. Satellite measurements of water vapor, although not of adequate length for accurate trend determination, suggest that the increase may extend to other latitudes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BA...vapor_2002.png

WillBlack

If the skeptics don't have proof that their theory models reality more accurately then they are merely expressing an insubstantial and unsubstantiable opinion.

elfman

Alfresco

They are not obligated to have 'a theory that models reality more accurately', since they are not making a fresh claim. They are merely disputing the claim made by AGW proponents.

Scuba Steve

Trying SO hard not to bite too much on this! I'm of the opinion that its happening, with SOME effect by us.

But I take the stance of "you wouldn't shit on your own doorstep." It makes sense for us to reduce emissions, waste and destruction of natural resources because pumping crap into our own water and atmosphere is a retarded thing to do. This is my motivation for restricting car use, recycling, composting etc. But I do think various governments are using "green taxes" as revenue makers, not as tools as they should be.

Oh, and another thing. Whenever there's a flood in the UK, climate change gets plastered all over the news. Government policy of allowing building on flood plains is a far bigger cause IMO.

paulry

I agree. Lets give our planet the benefit of the doubt.