Global Warming, eh?

[eyeno]

Jones could have at least said something similar to "hey gang, the latest data looks more promising, perhaps we are not doomed but the jury is still out, we will keep you informed."

[Simulist]

Ben, you've already stated that I'm one of "them" — and you've emphasized your silly remark to me with actual quotation marks around the word.

You seem quite convinced of a conspiracy among climate scientists and other "questionable" types; therefore, one of "them" is unlikely to convince you of your error, even if the delivery were somehow flawless and the logic unassailable.

For others who are interested, they can simply read the content of the emails themselves, and draw their own conclusions. By now, most probably have already.

[Ben D]

Jones could have at least said something similar to "hey gang, the latest data looks more promising, perhaps we are not doomed but the jury is still out, we will keep you informed."

Yes exactly...

[Simulist]

Jones could have at least said something similar to "hey gang, the latest data looks more promising, perhaps we are not doomed but the jury is still out, we will keep you informed."

Well, yeah; he "could" have said that — if he really thought "the jury is still out."

[Nordic]

There ya go.

Doesn't get much more clear than that.

[Ben D]

Ben, you've already stated that I'm one of "them" — and you've emphasized your silly remark to me with actual quotation marks around the word.

Yes, and you've already commented of my use of 'them' for yourself in your last post, got it then,..so why are you still going on about it while offering no response to my questioning of your curious interpretation of the Jones comments in the email.

Look Simulist, it doesn't matter to me in the least what you want to believe about AGW, but don't try and waste my time. Either address me on the basis of genuine interest and context of my posts, or just babble on concerning your own personal views about AGW without me.

[Ben D]

There ya go.

Doesn't get much more clear than that.

Here they come,..

[Simulist]

Ben, you've already stated that I'm one of "them" — and you've emphasized your silly remark to me with actual quotation marks around the word.

Yes, and you've already commented of my use of 'them' for yourself in your last post, got it then,..so why are you still going on about it while offering no response to my questioning of your curious interpretation of the Jones comments in the email.

Look Simulist, it doesn't matter to me in the least what you want to believe about AGW, but don't try and waste my time. Either address me on the basis of genuine interest and context of my posts, or just babble on concerning your own personal views about AGW without me.

No, you look. One of the geniuses of Jeff's board here is that he prohibits the slinging of "disinfo agent" at other posters — because nothing productive ever comes from that appellation, even in the rare instances when it's probably accurate and deserved.

So, in view of that, my answer to your question about why I'm not responding too much further to you must be limited by the fact that I consider you, Ben, to be a unique and absolute waste of my time and energies.

_________
Edited: for typo, to change "an" to "and."

[eyeno]

Jones could have at least said something similar to "hey gang, the latest data looks more promising, perhaps we are not doomed but the jury is still out, we will keep you informed."

Well, yeah; he "could" have said that — if he really thought "the jury is still out."

I've already designated myself as a person that has no passionate obsessive interest in this subject so perhaps my comments are not welcome and I should just butt out. Butt, when it comes to science and models, science being the inexact science that it is, for me the jury is usually out until the model or theory has proven itself by a realization of the model and conjectures of those who participate in science.

The very phrase "peer review" means absolutely nothing to me because "peers" are a group that does not include all data from all people that may be applicable. In this day and age "peer review" often includes only those allowed into the accepted peer group and only those peer opinions are accepted as science, which is not at all science.

There was a time in history when people thought the earth was flat and that all revolved around the earth. After it was discovered that the earth was round and that the earth revolved around the sun those who divulged this fact were considered heretics.

Considering the huge financial stakes involved in this issue, and the ability of technology to manipulate perception, the jury is still out for me. I have some background with charts and models. I know how easy it is to simply change time frames in charting and modeling software and produce a reverse perception of reality which is what makes this game so complicated to people that do not understand this. I can take a 200 year chart that shows an obvious down trend, change the time frame to 100 years, and show an obvious uptrend. Those who do not have experience with this will not know this is possible.

Then when you take "smoothing factors" that average out the data to create smooth trend lines from jagged data it become yet another animal. By tweaking these smoothing factors a chart can become what it is or its opposite. Data input stations also have to be considered. From where do the data come from and how accurate is it? Who controls the data collection stations?

There are many variables in this equation and only those who control the variables know the truth. If I am not allowed to know all the details behind the data collection and how the data is manipulated I have no idea what it has become from its collection to its distribution as presented fact.

Climate change data, some of it anyway, has been kept out of the public domain. Therefore I am only left asking the obvious question "why?" I can make no firm conclusion from what I cannot see, and only question the motives behind secrecy. This attitude has served me well over time.

For me, the jury is out of the building.

[Nordic]

Well the jury is indeed NOT out as to whether global warming is happening -- the data proves that it is -- the only thing you can argue about is whether or not its being caused by man, or whether its part of a naturally occurring cycle.

I've seen data that suggests its part of a naturally occurring cycle, at the same time its difficult to believe that 300 years of burning everything we could get our hands on would not have an affect.

You do realize that burning a couple pounds of gasoline produced something like 20 pounds of CO2? Just dwell on that for a while.

[brainpanhandler]

If General Electric came out with the miracle energy system tomorrow, and made this available, the planet would collapse due to resource overconsumption, even more quickly than before. It would act as an accelerant

That's an interesting thought. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree.

[Elihu]

I've already designated myself as a person that has no passionate obsessive interest in this subject so perhaps my comments are not welcome and I should just butt out. Butt, when it comes to science and models, science being the inexact science that it is, for me the jury is usually out until the model or theory has proven itself by a realization of the model and conjectures of those who participate in science.

The very phrase "peer review" means absolutely nothing to me because "peers" are a group that does not include all data from all people that may be applicable. In this day and age "peer review" often includes only those allowed into the accepted peer group and only those peer opinions are accepted as science, which is not at all science.

There was a time in history when people thought the earth was flat and that all revolved around the earth. After it was discovered that the earth was round and that the earth revolved around the sun those who divulged this fact were considered heretics.

Considering the huge financial stakes involved in this issue, and the ability of technology to manipulate perception, the jury is still out for me. I have some background with charts and models. I know how easy it is to simply change time frames in charting and modeling software and produce a reverse perception of reality which is what makes this game so complicated to people that do not understand this. I can take a 200 year chart that shows an obvious down trend, change the time frame to 100 years, and show an obvious uptrend. Those who do not have experience with this will not know this is possible.

Then when you take "smoothing factors" that average out the data to create smooth trend lines from jagged data it become yet another animal. By tweaking these smoothing factors a chart can become what it is or its opposite. Data input stations also have to be considered. From where do the data come from and how accurate is it? Who controls the data collection stations?

There are many variables in this equation and only those who control the variables know the truth. If I am not allowed to know all the details behind the data collection and how the data is manipulated I have no idea what it has become from its collection to its distribution as presented fact.

Climate change data, some of it anyway, has been kept out of the public domain. Therefore I am only left asking the obvious question "why?" I can make no firm conclusion from what I cannot see, and only question the motives behind secrecy. This attitude has served me well over time.

For me, the jury is out of the building.

excellent comments eyeno. is this the first scientific debate in history that comes with a law at the end of it? and not just a local law. a global law? this is why the "scientific" debate is a diversion from the real issue imo. all things being equal, given economic development over time, what are the odds that the people in miami would commute to work an average of say 50 miles a day with a single occupant in a vehicle to work for the same employers as the people in seattle? with the same migration patterns? san diego to bangor? dallas to minneapolis? the point being, IF you accept that the burning of "fossil" fuels is the cause of this impending climactic disaster, what possible cure could there be for the problem other than to address the cause? it's that centralized economic model i have referred to. these giant employers (gov & corporations) are like pyramids dotting our land. since they're the only game in town, people have to commute to their central locations to work, and to shop in company stores and live in company towns. and the means of economic production being centralized naturally requires long long supply and distribution lines. notice the uniformity of fashion and customs from coast to coast. we're all consuming the same centrally-produced junk.

even if everything they're saying is true, they're in denial about the truth of the solution. no one is going to deny that any gov program of this magnitude (and this will be a doozy) doesn't bring with it massive fraud and graft not to mention the un-accountable power it would wield. and they always run over budget using inadequate funding as the excuse for failing to realize the ideals of its founding. it's a very old script.

with a prize like that on the table, who is the fool for thinking that today's shape-shifting, multi-dimensional ritualized tricksters lack the stones to try to pull something like this off?

do i think that tons of gaseous waste and pollution are being dumed into the environment un-necessarily? hell yes i do. the vectors of poisoning (physical, mental, spiritual) are legion. it's so ironic, we are in much greater danger from this type of living than a run-away greenhouse effect.

besides, with the debate so contentious, has anyone put any figures of likely success of a global carbon tax on the table? it's like the war, will someone please define success? how will we know we got a good deal? well the planet didn't blow up, so it was the right thing? parts ber billion and all. c'mon man. i likely don't have that long to be here but i feel for the customers that have that ordeal to live through for 75 or 100 years.

our conceptual, economic and political subjugation is the problem. rectifying that is the solution. it's the only way that 50 mile commute will ever end. just know that the global carbon tax is wanted by the same people that built the pyramids in the first place. that's all you really need to know.... imho....

[Nordic]

Justy because the PTB want to profit from every event on earth doesn't mean that they are creating every event, whether they literally create it or create the fiction that it exists. IOW I doubt climate scientists dreamed up the idea of a carbon tax. That's not exactly their area of expertise.

My take on the hysteria we see on thgis issue is that if, say, the Pentagon's globval warming scenario turns out to be what's really gonna happen, we are so incredibly fucked that there is literally nowhere you can go, and nothing you can do, to escape it. That freaks people out to the point where a hysterical level of denial kicks in. Thus we have people who are complete dilletants presuming to draw conclusions based on what thety want to see.

Really the only thing to do is to zen out and see what happens. We're all utterly powerless to change anything -- just try changing one person, then wonder why tyou can't change society or culture. We're all along for the ride here, and only history will know.

[Elihu]

Justy because the PTB want to profit from every event on earth doesn't mean that they are creating every event, whether they literally create it or create the fiction that it exists. IOW I doubt climate scientists dreamed up the idea of a carbon tax. That's not exactly their area of expertise.

My take on the hysteria we see on thgis issue is that if, say, the Pentagon's globval warming scenario turns out to be what's really gonna happen, we are so incredibly fucked that there is literally nowhere you can go, and nothing you can do, to escape it. That freaks people out to the point where a hysterical level of denial kicks in. Thus we have people who are complete dilletants presuming to draw conclusions based on what thety want to see.

Really the only thing to do is to zen out and see what happens. We're all utterly powerless to change anything -- just try changing one person, then wonder why tyou can't change society or culture. We're all along for the ride here, and only history will know.

i think anything the pentagon says is designed to freak people out. yeah, i just got the feeling that it's very easy to take something a little too seriously on the internet. maybe to the point of hysteria. especially when you interact with people passionate on a subject. nite all : )

[Ben D]

Well the jury is indeed NOT out as to whether global warming is happening -- the data proves that it is -- the only thing you can argue about is whether or not its being caused by man, or whether its part of a naturally occurring cycle.

I've seen data that suggests its part of a naturally occurring cycle, at the same time its difficult to believe that 300 years of burning everything we could get our hands on would not have an affect.

You do realize that burning a couple pounds of gasoline produced something like 20 pounds of CO2? Just dwell on that for a while.

Yes, it's the A in AGW that we are discussing, and that's the significance and relevance of the Prof. Jones email,...and why he and the AGW team were hiding from the public and skeptical (about the A of GW) scientists alike, from knowing that there had been a lack of warming for the last ten years. Now the climate team that consisted of Tim Johns, and Chris Folland, to whom the email was addressed must have run the data through their computer model and came up with a prediction of continued lack of warming until 2020 which obviously worried Prof. Jones and prompted the email.

If it does in fact work out that way, then certainly the A of AGW will be formally dead, and the GW will be considered as having taken a rest or something. For if CO2 is the main contributing factor of global warming as they say, then there should be an incremental acceleration of the warming trend over time as the man made CO2 continues to be pumped into the atmosphere at about 2PPM per year according to some experts, and if this doesn't happen, then its clear they over estimated the CO2 contribution and its curtains for those scientists whose climate models are based on it.

Btw, I think it important to avoid as much unnecessary confusion as possible going on, so it's hoped that everyone has a clear idea of the GW (Global Warming) so far, regardless of what are the main drivers of it.

Can we all agree that the planet has warmed a total of about 0.8 of a degree C since records began in 1880, ie. 130 years, or as a trend over that time, 0.006 of a degree C per year.

If anyone disputes this figure, please speak up!