Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

[BOBO]

In 89' my physical geography instructor at EWU gave our 101 class two thrillers... the main island of Japan is being eroded underneath like a sand clock by swift currents, & that Island some day will simply slide into the ocean. The other thriller was he & a team was hired by the US Geological dept in the mid 80's to perform core sampling in the 6/8/10(? can't remember now)) major climate areas of the planet.
Their findings from the core sampling was that we were ending a warming trend & heading into an ice age. The problem tho was they did not know if it could be termed a "mini" ice age or a major ice age. He PREDICTED that we would see cooling come upon us gradually over the next 20 years or so with unusual weather patterns... this has already happened, 89' + 20 yrs = 2009. He said within 40 or so years we could start experiencing crop losses to include various grain crops, vegetables & fruits to cold weather, 89' + 40 = 2029.
He gave no prediction after that at how long it would take for the full effect of an ice age to engulf the planet or part(s) of the planet, but said that 100+ years would be in the ballpark.
He gave several possibilities for the former ice ages to include, decreased solar activity with our sun(most likely in his opinion), volcanic activity, meteor strike(s) & natural phenomenon. The global cooling scare of the 70's...

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...may well have been on target, but just out of synch. Where global warming helps survival of mankind, global cooling would certainly lead to catastrophic food shortages & global famine. Scary stuff!

Forbes magazine has commented on the newest data in the Climategate scandal:

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

More here:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

I wonder how our AGW supporting friends will handle this new information?

 

[code1211]

You want me to explain how my claim that I understand it is related to your claim that I don't? What are you, a fuckin imbecile?

No, but clearly you are. I made the statement that all weather "events" as defined by your high priests, have occured in the past absent mans influence. Your response was "so what".
Now, based on Occams Razor, tell the class the relevence of my statement.

You tell us the relevance of your statement. That's why I said "so what". You seem to be assuming that because climate was influenced only by nature in the past, it is therefore some physical law of nature that it is impossible for man to ever influence it in the present or future. Is that not what you are saying?

I cannot speak for him, but obviously, these things have happened in the past. YOU are asserting that the cause of these things occurring today is the activities of Man.

Since they happened with no help from man before and they are happening today, it is reasonable to assume that they would happen, again, with no help from man.

YOU are saying that Man's activities are the cause of the same occurrence now. It is up to you to prove that assertion. Lacking that proof, your case is empty.

What is your proof that these natural effects now have causes different from those present throughout history?

 

[code1211]

Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.

When you accept something on faith rather than on proof, that requires a surrender of reason and therefore is a religion.

Demanding proof of the existence of God or of AGW for a true believer is not only unneeded, it is an insult.

When proof of your assertions is demanded, you are without recourse and can only require a recommitment to your faith.

That, my friend, is a religion. If you do not see it, you are only confirming it.

 

[Foxfyre]

In 89' my physical geography instructor at EWU gave our 101 class two thrillers... the main island of Japan is being eroded underneath like a sand clock by swift currents, & that Island some day will simply slide into the ocean. The other thriller was he & a team was hired by the US Geological dept in the mid 80's to perform core sampling in the 6/8/10(? can't remember now)) major climate areas of the planet.
Their findings from the core sampling was that we were ending a warming trend & heading into an ice age. The problem tho was they did not know if it could be termed a "mini" ice age or a major ice age. He PREDICTED that we would see cooling come upon us gradually over the next 20 years or so with unusual weather patterns... this has already happened, 89' + 20 yrs = 2009. He said within 40 or so years we could start experiencing crop losses to include various grain crops, vegetables & fruits to cold weather, 89' + 40 = 2029.
He gave no prediction after that at how long it would take for the full effect of an ice age to engulf the planet or part(s) of the planet, but said that 100+ years would be in the ballpark.
He gave several possibilities for the former ice ages to include, decreased solar activity with our sun(most likely in his opinion), volcanic activity, meteor strike(s) & natural phenomenon. The global cooling scare of the 70's...

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...may well have been on target, but just out of synch. Where global warming helps survival of mankind, global cooling would certainly lead to catastrophic food shortages & global famine. Scary stuff!

Forbes magazine has commented on the newest data in the Climategate scandal:

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

More here:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

I wonder how our AGW supporting friends will handle this new information?

You've touched on a component of the debate that the warmers really REALLY don't want to get into. Let's set aside the possibility of an impending ice age for a minute and focus on the warming.

Others have already pointed out the tiny percentage of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by human activity as compared to that which occurs naturally. But let's accept for a minute that this tiny percentage is actually having a noticable and serious effect of global warming. And let's assume that it is accelerating global warming that is naturally occurring at the same time. (I wonder, would that make the AGW and GW religionists happy? But I digress.)

Then let's look at the known history of humankind that we are able to analyze. During colder periods on Earth humankind has suffered widespread famine. Crop failures and inadequate shelter and fuel have certainly contributed to countless millions of deaths over the millenia. Paleohistory also indicates periods on Earth far warmer than it is now and fossil records show that life thrived during those times. Also humans have thrived in warmer periods much more efficiently than they do in colder periods.

People in places like Iceland, Greenland, Canada, Russia (Siberia) have been most interested in longer growing seasons and anticipate a changing climate that could shift the breadbasket of the world to those areas.

Hence the statement in the poll re adapting to changing climate. It is obvious, at least to most of us, that humankind is not going to be able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere enough to make a difference. Certainly it is a fool's errands to continue to punish nations that do a good job already in environmental quality control and continue to give a pass to those nations that do not.

Why shouldn't the scientific effort be shifted to focus on helping humankind adapt and adjust to climate change. If they know what areas will be flooded, start a continency plan for that now. If they know what areas will become desert, make plans for that now too.

It would be far more effective than feathering their own nests by continuing in what appears to many of us to be a horrendous exercise in futility.