Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming

[pottyprof]

Well put BF..

I can't see the need to fiddle figures to make them fit. Why adjust some up and others down? Why not just tell it as it is? There would be no suspicions then and the real issues could be addressed.

[Devonian]

Well put BF..

I can't see the need to fiddle figures to make them fit.

Neither can I. Has it been shown or just alleged? Indeed, might it have been a mistake?

Why adjust some up and others down? Why not just tell it as it is? There would be no suspicions then and the real issues could be addressed.

But this only follows if it's shown. Is it?

Worth reading.

[pottyprof]

Neither can I. Has it been shown or just alleged? Indeed, might it have been a mistake?

Fair point Dev. But if it was a mistake then why not come completely clean instead of saying nothing, unless the mistake works in their favour?

But this only follows if it's shown. Is it?

Worth reading.

Some good points there too. I'll read through the replies later if my thick head allows..

[Stratos Ferric]

And an awful lot of the pro side seem to be working from an in-built guilt complex brought on by their consumerism. There's often an element of "I've seen the error of my ways, let me lead you to the light". Come on GW, let's not drag yet another thread down to them and us eh? Do you accept the UN and the IPCC are political bodies and as such, really have no place in science? Do you accept that being political bodies, the science can, and will be presented in the light they choose, rather than present science after it has stood up to the cold light of several lab lamps shone upon it?

Speak for yourself. I couldn't give a toss about the economics or the consequences. As I keep on saying, whilst many on here argue (for either side) from positions often based - it seems to me - on self interest (why should I pay) or whimsy (I can't imagine a world without snow), the world around us continues to display all but one way traffic re warming.

C-B rather threw his toys out of the pram when I made the point the other day, and I have asked the question many times on here before. At what point will people accept that we are actually warming, and doing so - for now - unstoppably. I've posted the analysis up in the winter thread tracking the temperatures for now and my line re what it would take to convince me that we're cooling, not warming. I'm intrigued where those who doubt AGW would put the line in the melting snow.

Thanks CB. I will read them and reply shortly.

This debate has raged for quite some time, indeed when I first joined NW now three years ago, there was an AGW thread that regularly ran to hundreds of posts, lengthy tomes, more references than an IPCC report and with a 10,000+ hit count. Stratospheric will remember it as will Penguin, John Holmes, Paul, Roo and several others I'm sure.

....

So exactly who can we trust? Which is precisely why we cannot agree until that question is resolved.

...

Indeed, since which time things haven't exactly cooled have they? I do rather fancy that we'll still be here in five years' time, and that the temperature trend curve will have continued to rise.

[Devonian]

Fair point Dev. But if it was a mistake then why not come completely clean instead of saying nothing, unless the mistake works in their favour?

Again, is that shown or another allegation? I think it's the latter, again...

[jethro]

Speak for yourself. I couldn't give a toss about the economics or the consequences. As I keep on saying, whilst many on here argue (for either side) from positions often based - it seems to me - on self interest (why should I pay) or whimsy (I can't imagine a world without snow), the world around us continues to display all but one way traffic re warming.

C-B rather threw his toys out of the pram when I made the point the other day, and I have asked the question many times on here before. At what point will people accept that we are actually warming, and doing so - for now - unstoppably. I've posted the analysis up in the winter thread tracking the temperatures for now and my line re what it would take to convince me that we're cooling, not warming. I'm intrigued where those who doubt AGW would put the line in the melting snow.

Indeed, since which time things haven't exactly cooled have they? I do rather fancy that we'll still be here in five years' time, and that the temperature trend curve will have continued to rise.

Doesn't really work SF when you take my post out of context; it was clearly made to GW.

I find it a little odd for one who argues so vociferously in favour of AGW that you then declare "you don't give a toss about the economics or the consequences"; so what is the point of you arguing then? Is all this just a game to you? I'm placed firmly in the sceptic camp by you and others for merely asking questions, denigrated like there's no tomorrrow, face a constant deluge of inferences that being a sceptic means I don't care about the planet and yet, hand on heart it is precisely because of the economics and consequences, that I ask questions and seek to understand this topic. Funny old world eh...

[Stratos Ferric]

Doesn't really work SF when you take my post out of context; it was clearly made to GW.

I find it a little odd for one who argues so vociferously in favour of AGW that you then declare "you don't give a toss about the economics or the consequences"; so what is the point of you arguing then? Is all this just a game to you? I'm placed firmly in the sceptic camp by you and others for merely asking questions, denigrated like there's no tomorrrow, face a constant deluge of inferences that being a sceptic means I don't care about the planet and yet, hand on heart it is precisely because of the economics and consequences, that I ask questions and seek to understand this topic. Funny old world eh...

My point Jethro, and Laserguy rather aptly demonstrates this for me elsewhere this morning, is simple. Many on here seem to start from a prejudiced position of wanting it to snow, or thinking that they are going to have to pay for measures to counteract AGW, and therefore apply some reductive logic to get to a position of not accpeting AGW.

All I am saying is that I am absolutely dispassionate about what it means. I am simply, as I always do, presenting the facts regarding what is happening around us, and concluding that we are warming. I can further apply supporting evidence to suggest that this may well largely be driven by the secondary consequences of man's activity.

I don't denigrate you for being a sceptic. Scpetics have their place, but on a sinking boat there eventually comes a point where you can no longer deny that the boat IS sinking.

What continues to stagger me in the debates about tampering is the presupposition that all these politicians are stupid people. I have worked with many senior civil servants; they are not stupid, naive, ill informed individuals. There is a continuing theme amongst some posts on here that is almost to suggest that SOMEHOW, somehere on N-W, we have the individual or collective ability to have spotted something that none of these other thousands of bright people have.

The other point, which I've made elsewhere this morning, is that a purpose of the IPCC is to position to advise on policy. Like it or not policy decision require an assumption to be made re what is happening or what might happen. Do you not buy an insurance policy for your house and possessions next year because you haven't been burgled or suffered loss for any of the last ten? I'm sure all these politicians would far rather be spending money in the here and now than having to divert attention to future concerns, but if that is their decision based on the balance of advice then so be it.

Your last line seems to suggest that you are sceptical because of the cost involved. If we all made those decisions there would be no bins emptied, no street lights, no NHS, no public provision whatsoever. These things only happen because the Government legislates to take money off you to provide them. I see the overall husbandry of the planet in precisely the same light. Like it or not we authorise others to make decisions on our behalf. I may or may not agree with some of those decisions, and I may query the costs and the policies followed. However, I am always happy to go back to the facts to test the prima facae case at absolute value, rather than starting from a position of 'how can I justify my concern over having to pay for all of this'.

I think you miss the irony of your very last comment.

By the way, I have never said, implied, or inferred that you do not care about the planet. Interesting that you choose to extrapolate to that point.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[jethro]

Your last line seems to suggest that you are sceptical because of the cost involved. If we all made those decisions there would be no bins emptied, no street lights, no NHS, no public provision whatsoever. These things only happen because the Government legislates to take money off you to provide them. I see the overall husbandry of the planet in precisely the same light. Like it or not we authorise others to make decisions on our behalf. I may or may not agree with some of those decisions, and I may query the costs and the policies followed. However, I am always happy to go back to the facts to test the prima facae case at absolute value, rather than starting from a position of 'how can I justify my concern over having to pay for all of this'.

I think you miss the irony of your very last comment.

By the way, I have never said, implied, or inferred that you do not care about the planet. Interesting that you choose to extrapolate to that point.

No Stratos, I'm sceptical or rather have questions because there are questions in the science. Even you cannot deny that, surely? It isn't a matter of obtaining complete certainty either; it's more a matter of do we really have a clue what is happening. It's all well and good the whole world progressing as though we know what we're up to, if those actions do not cause further harm, but that is not the case. I haven't got it to hand right now so I cannot give you the exact figures, but in last weeks New Scientist there was an article about this point, raising concerns I've already made elsewhere on the forum. The article gave figures for the production of Bio Fuels, they actually produce more Co2 than they save - by a long way; I think the figures were something like it will take at least 150 years for the carbon they save to be off-set by the carbon release caused by their production. The worlds Rain Forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate to produce something which will cause far, far more harm than the piddling little amount of Co2 they will save. Lunacy!!

As for personal economical cost, doesn't enter into it for me. I am in the fortunate position of no longer having a mortgage, no credit cards or loans, hubby and I earn more than it costs us to live, we can afford luxuries. This hasn't always been the case, when the children were younger we struggled like everyone, at times really not knowing how we would get by. Our juggling the cash pales into insignificance when it is compared to folk raising a young family today, trying to afford a house, get onto the property ladder must be a nightmare, not to mention survive on a state pension if you're elderly. I'm lucky, very lucky but I'm also aware many, many others are not. Economics are a concern if it means those already struggling just to get by, have their financial burden dramatically increased because of a spurious connection between Co2 and climate change. Then you've got to consider the proposal to introduce carbon credits and the tariff system, explain to me just how this will help the Third World.

As to extrapolating to say I don't care about the planet, it is not an extrapolation made by myself, it has been a continued vein of comments on numerous threads, throughout the enviro section, made by many. If you have not then I apologise; as you find it hard to distinguish between those with questions and those who just desire snow, I also find it hard to distinguish individual styles of criticism from the more general disparagement towards sceptics and questioners.

[Stratos Ferric]

Jethro,

I don't disagree with any of the point re taking care that the benefit of action is not outweighed by the cost; biofuels and some early recycling are good examples, but then out of invention comes innovation and enhancement. The first successful heart transplant was not the first heart transplant attempted, and what was once a hugely expensive operation that scarcely prolonged life is now cheaper and highly effective.

Where I don't necessarily agree is re the second point, and this is why leaders lead. It is something of a curate's egg but IF warming is occurring, then at some point hard decisions have to be made that might have negative repercussions now but which reduce consequences downstream. You talk almost as if these decisions never have to be made, when in fact they are made all the time. Every day the NHS has to decide who lives and who dies. Businesses will lay people off in order to keep a head above water rather than take everyone down. As individuals we are facing the dilemma every time we use credit to purchase something.

In any case, the process of deciding WHAT to do is as distinct from the rationale that guides it.

I do agree, there are questions, but it is in the nature of a lot of my work to realise that life simply isn't often as clear cut as many would like it to be. Huge sums of money are committed all over the world often on the basis of probabilities, not because someone has a crystal ball and knows absolutely what the outcome is going to be.

The problem with AGW is akin to the man who has five seconds to defuse a bomb with a choice of two wires to cut, but time to cut only one. Do nothing and the bomb goes off, cut the wrong one and you just accelerate the issue, and that is the dilemma faced by policy makers. For sure, it MIGHT all be a waste of money, but say we didn't spend, and whilst we waited we got to a point at which either it's much more expensive to correct, or cannot be corrected. Where then our procrastination?

That's why the police always say 'if you're suspicious, call us' and why doctors would rather you bothered them with a lump rather than hope it isn't cancer. There are a lot of harmless lumps cut out in the search for the few that genuinely are cancerous, but extrapolating the 'how can we be sure' argument, you wouldn't want to be one of the people WITH a malignant tumour in that regime would you?

If we could be ABSOLUTELY certain that there was no risk to the future of life on the planet then I'd agree, any action is a waste, but we cannot, and more than that the scientific CONCENSUS is that we are warming and that at least some of that warming is man-made, so the dilemma is how long do we wait, given that the longer we wait the harder correction will be, and the less correctible the situation might have become.

[jethro]

Mmm, is it just me or does this read to you like someone who stands to make a great deal of money out of all this "green alternative" stuff?

"At an earlier hearing, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., confronted Stephen Johnson, administrator of the EPA, about a threatening e-mail from a group that includes the EPA. The e-mail from the American Council on Renewable Energy was addressed to Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and said, "It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319

[Gray-Wolf]

C'mon Jethro!

Think Global,act local!

It's up to you and me now kid, the whole chi-bang starts here and now.

No bigwig at City Hall is gonna stop us if we really mean it!

[Guest diessoli]

Mmm, is it just me or does this read to you like someone who stands to make a great deal of money out of all this "green alternative" stuff? <a href="http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319"'>http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319" target="_blank">http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319

Hi Jethro,

I'd be curious to know what else you have noticed in this article? I could go on and list what's wrong with it (i.e. where it is adding it's own spin) -and will if you want me to- but, since a lot of readers here are familiar with the topic, it might be obvious enough to them.What I find odd is that WorldNetDaily seems to feature mainly articles which "disprove" AGW, something which I find not very balanced. So I  picked one of those articles at random (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57895) and it is already clear from the summary that it is just plain spin

"A new peer-reviewed scientific study counters a major premise of globalwarming theory, concluding carbon dioxide did not end the last ice age"

As if anybody claims that CO2 is responsible for ending ice ages. It is quite well known that CO2 lags temperature in interglacials because it is a feedback and does not act as a forcing.

It is also not true that "... referenceto the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected inice core records ..." are used "as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change".

Coming back to the original topic: can you elaborate somewhat more on why you think that "the IPCC is a political body" and also maybe give some examples of "stone walled" scientists. I am not saying that you are wrong or anything, but I would like to judge for myself and see the "evidence".

Cheers

[jethro]

Hi Diessoli,

the part about the article which I found most disturbing was the bit I high-lighted.

By it's very nature, the IPCC is a political body, it is not a scientific institution. The final reports are edited to accomodate and be agreed by individual countries, each with their own representatives, chosen by their government. Some will say this means the reports are watered down, the expected impacts of AGW under-played. Some will say the expected impacts are over-stated in order to make countries comply.

I say the science should be presented in it's most accurate form; all of the science, not just that chosen by the IPCC as there is peer-reviewed science which contradicts some aspects and conclusions. No government or government body or representative should have the right to edit/select the science. Politics and politicians are not qualified to judge the merit of scientific research, scientists are.

The first post in this thread is a good starting point for a list of reputable scientists who disagree with the IPCC take on all this, many of whom were actually involved with compiling the reports.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi Jethro,

I'd be curious to know what else you have noticed in this article? I could go on and list what's wrong with it (i.e. where it is adding it's own spin) -and will if you want me to- but, since a lot of readers here are familiar with the topic, it might be obvious enough to them.What I find odd is that WorldNetDaily seems to feature mainly articles which "disprove" AGW, something which I find not very balanced. So I  picked one of those articles at random (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57895) and it is already clear from the summary that it is just plain spin

"A new peer-reviewed scientific study counters a major premise of globalwarming theory, concluding carbon dioxide did not end the last ice age"

As if anybody claims that CO2 is responsible for ending ice ages. It is quite well known that CO2 lags temperature in interglacials because it is a feedback and does not act as a forcing.

It is also not true that "... referenceto the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected inice core records ..." are used "as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change".

Coming back to the original topic: can you elaborate somewhat more on why you think that "the IPCC is a political body" and also maybe give some examples of "stone walled" scientists. I am not saying that you are wrong or anything, but I would like to judge for myself and see the "evidence".

Cheers

Indeed. Throughout my life I have tended to treat with suspicion pretty much anything or anyone who can only present one side of an argument. Singularities aside,life is rarely so cut and dried.

I also treat with more bemusement than many on here seem to do any article that starts off with an opening paragraph that debunks, followed by a second paaragraph saying something like "it would be folly given that we cannot be certain to speand a lot money and potentially risk harming our economic standing". Jeez, that's not even 'leakage': it's simple dogma.

There's a lot of people I think who deny AGW because they are not willing to take the risk now, whilst there's still time to make a difference. There might be several reasons for that stance, but the one I find most distasteful is the one fuelled most strongly by the US ultra-conservatives for whom protection of the US short-term interest seems to weigh more heavily than the long-term interests of the planet as a whole.

[jethro]

And there are those such as myself who question AGW because the science still has questions to be asked; any political spin from either side is a bad thing in my estimation.

[Guest diessoli]

Hi Jethro,

Hi Diessoli,

the part about the article which I found most disturbing was the bit I high-lighted.

Yes this is concerning that people resort to such threats. But you find bad tempered or vile people everywhere. So I am not sure what this has to do with political tampering with science.

The final reports are edited to accomodate and be agreed by individual countries, each with their own representatives, chosen by their government.

Some will say this means the reports are watered down, the expected impacts of AGW under-played. Some will say the expected impacts are over-stated in order to make countries comply.

I say the science should be presented in it's most accurate form; all of the science, not just that chosen by the IPCC as there is peer-reviewed science which contradicts some aspects and conclusions. No government or government body or representative should have the right to edit/select the science. Politics and politicians are not qualified to judge the merit of scientific research, scientists are.

If you are concerned that the science is tampered with, I suggest that you read the reviewers' comments and judge for yourself:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-...ntFrameset.html

You can clearly see which are government and which are expert reviewer's comments and also why they have or have not been accepted.

You will also see that the science is not edited or selected by government representative's but it's commented on. And it's the authors' decision to accept a change or not.

It might also be interesting to read the comments made by Vincent Gray (who is on the list mentioned below) and the reasons why a lot of them have been rejected. One example

Insert after "century". "A more accurate truly global record for the lower troposphere

found no evident temperature change between 1979 and 1999, and radiosondes in the

same region found no change between 1958 and 2004. There is evidence that a

comprehensive adjustment to the surface record, such as has been carried out for the

continental United States and for China, would remove most of the recent apparent

warming.in the surface record. A cooling period since 1999 is currently evident."

And he back this claim up with ... nothing. You will find that people like Gray are much more trying to influence the science than the government reviewers - at least that is how I see it.

The first post in this thread is a good starting point for a list of reputable scientists who disagree with the IPCC take on all this, many of whom were actually involved with compiling the reports.

I am not entirely sure what list you are talking about. The first post refers to an article by Christopher Monckton who is by no standards a reputable scientist. He touts himself as a contributer to the latest IPCC report, but since he is not in the list of authors, this means he at most was an "expert reviewer". Unfortunately the term "expert reviewer" implies some sort of authority or credential, but all it takes, to become one is to downlod a draft of the report and send a comment about it to the IPCC. Expert reviewers (other than the government ones) are not nominated by anybody.

OK. I just realised Monckton says himself that his contribution was to point out an error.

My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report's first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC's bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC's published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.

The error (a typo) he refers to was already pointed out to the IPCC in Feb 07 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-24730)

and you can also see a few comments about this table in the drafts. It was not just sneaked in without the authors' consent.

Yes there was a mistake. It was corrected and there is no need to see a sinister conspiracy behind it.

Monckton again about radiative forcing:

Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once. The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature.

The IPCC report is not a textbook about fundamental physics. So why would they mention it explicitly? Besides it does in no way impose a limit on the radiative forcing potential of greenhouse gases. It describes the energy radiated by a black body at a specific temperature.

And his calculations about the 1% increase in radiative forcing (RF) are also wrong. The difference in RF of CO2 is a logarithmic function of the ratio of old and new concentrations multiplied by a constant which is determined from radiative transfer calculations and observations. Thus

change in RF = 5.35 * ln(c/c0) or 5.35 * ln (379ppm / 360ppm). For a radiative forcing of 1.66 W/sqm in 2005 that is a 20% increase to the value we had in 1995.

The other list that is currently circulating (and maybe that's the one you meant) was compiled by the office of Senator Inhofe and released as a minority report. It's a very good example of political spin, just very badly done since it is so easy to shoot it down.

I urge you to actually go through the list and see how many reputable scientists are in there. Not just by checking their degrees or titles, but by looking at their actual contributions to science. There are nowhere near 400 people on that list who can claim to have expertise in climate science.

Please, if you are honestly interested in discussing the uncertainties and open questions relating to AGW, bring them up so that they can be addressed.

Monckton, Inhofe, Gray and Co. are not interested in the science, as is quite clearly evident from the language they are using, but even more so if you dig a bit deeper and look at their arguments.

[pottyprof]

Good read there diessoli..

Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention.

From here.. http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11659

This seems to be something missing from the AGW perspective and is one thing that I find interesting. The article agrees with the AGW argument. However, a natural cycle controls it..

Has someone forgot to tell us something?

[Guest diessoli]

Hi Pottyprof,

Thanks for reading.

Good read there diessoli..

From here.. http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11659

This seems to be something missing from the AGW perspective and is one thing that I find interesting. The article agrees with the AGW argument. However, a natural cycle controls it..

Has someone forgot to tell us something?

I do not see that the article does say that "AGW is controlled by natural cycles". Rather it is about debunking one of the arguments that sceptics sometimes raise. They (the scpetics) say that in historical records of CO2 and temperature we can see that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature. Therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature rise. And therefore the recent rise in CO2 cannot be responsible for the upward trend in global temperatures.

The article you refer to shows why this reasoning is wrong. CO2 content can be a feedback -for example when the climate warms up due to changes in orbital parameters (this is the natural cycle you refer to)- which is why it lags behind the change in temperature.

But this is not the situation we are in today. The CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) that we humans have added by burning fossil fuels, and other means, act as a forcing. This fact is not based on looking at graphs of historical CO2 concentrations and temperatures. It's based on our understanding of the "greenhouse effect".

Believe me this is not missing from the AGW perspective and no, it was not forgotten to tell us.

No sorry, I take that back. Don't believe me. Go and read the IPCC report (and reference material).

Just a quote to wet your appetite (from chapter 6 of the report), my emphasis

Variations in CO2 over the last 420 kyr broadly followed antarctic temperature, typically by several centuries to a millennium (Mudelsee,

2001). The sequence of climatic forcings and responses during deglaciations (transitions from full glacial conditions to warm interglacials) are well documented.

Cheers

[pottyprof]

You missed a comment on my quote, but thanks for the reply..

I agree with some of what you say because it could be an argument for either side of the coin and it's still too early to say it's natural/AGW.. The quote I made from the article is what I find interesting.. That is part of a natural cycle.. It's a maximum but a natural cycle non the less..

Edit.. I see what you are saying.. Point taken..

Once again though, it isn't proven either way at this moment in time.. Only best guesses..

[Guest diessoli]

Hi pottyprof,

You missed a comment on my quote, but thanks for the reply..

I agree with some of what you say because it could be an argument for either side of the coin and it's still too early to say it's natural/AGW.. The quote I made from the article is what I find interesting.. That is part of a natural cycle.. It's a maximum but a natural cycle non the less..

Edit.. I see what you are saying.. Point taken..

Once again though, it isn't proven either way at this moment in time.. Only best guesses..

Can you be a bit more specific, please. What is, in your opinion, not proven? The 'A' in AGW or the 'GW' bit? I find it hard to use a broad statement like "it isn't proven" as a basis for a discussion.

Anyway, I believe we're getting a bit off-topic here. After all this thread is about "tampering with science" and I have yet to see some evidence that this is happening (well, except on the denialist/ultra sceptics side, where it is pretty obvious).

[pottyprof]

Hi pottyprof,

Can you be a bit more specific, please. What is, in your opinion, not proven? The 'A' in AGW or the 'GW' bit? I find it hard to use a broad statement like "it isn't proven" as a basis for a discussion.

Anyway, I believe we're getting a bit off-topic here. After all this thread is about "tampering with science" and I have yet to see some evidence that this is happening (well, except on the denialist/ultra sceptics side, where it is pretty obvious).

The "A" bit. Of course the "GW" bit is a true observation. Anyone who denies that has to be on a wind up.

[The Eagle]

The whole AGW thing is a complete myth. I see phrases like 'even larger teapot' etc on this forum and it just annoys me tbh. You would honestly think there was never a warmer period in Earths history. Politicians have by and large misjudged the publics mood on this aswell. They will suffer electorally if they keep on about it and extra taxing for it. Thats all it is. Politicians talk about environmental this and that but the tree huggers are handing them on a plate new avenues of tax. They wont say no - especially Labour. They dont care about the environment.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Darkman

[Gray-Wolf]

In the same way as producers who are suddenly now 'greener than green' so it is with politics. One seeks to maximise profits by wooing you , one to maximise votes, neither genuine.

It is not as though the general populace has only just started having environmental concerns and our politicians are the one's who feel they are best positioned to represent our views as such they should have been doing more than make noises since 1985. They haven't.

P.P., by the time you receive confirmation of the 'A', GW will be costing us all dear! It was never ,ever a matter of being right (every AGW proponent would dearly love to be wrong I promise you) or wrong. Just a matter of grave concern.

Like some bizarre caricature of the scene in the life of Brian when Judith returns to tell them the Romans are about to crucify Brian. ......so the motion before us is.........

Again I'd plead for consideration from the 'deniers' as we (the adherants) have been where you stand (and for the longest of whiles) before being forced to dismiss most of the 'theories' proposed (by the Deniers) that we'd dearly wish to be true. We may appear distressed in our posts but it is only at our own failings to 'see things another way'.

I'm sure those who feel 'pounced on' are purely incidental to the occurance, it's like a man who is toiling with a serious and time sensitive problem being handed his first thoughts when he's been days wrangling with the idea, any outburst would be more a frustration at the inadequacies of self and not an assault on the 'idea giver'.

I'm sure none of us wish to cause offence but you are generally sternest with yourself and so our frustrations at our own failings may sometimes appear curt.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Bobby]

The whole AGW thing is a complete myth. I see phrases like 'even larger teapot' etc on this forum and it just annoys me tbh. You would honestly think there was never a warmer period in Earths history. Politicians have by and large misjudged the publics mood on this aswell. They will suffer electorally if they keep on about it and extra taxing for it. Thats all it is. Politicians talk about environmental this and that but the tree huggers are handing them on a plate new avenues of tax. They wont say no - especially Labour. They dont care about the environment.

What about the science? Have you researched the masses of peer reviewed scientific papers out there pointing to AGW? If you know something they don't, it might be worth writing a peer reviewed paper to show the world your discovery that shows that we aren't warming the Earth, or its not warming it all.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi Pottyprof,

Thanks for reading.

I do not see that the article does say that "AGW is controlled by natural cycles". Rather it is about debunking one of the arguments that sceptics sometimes raise. They (the scpetics) say that in historical records of CO2 and temperature we can see that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature. Therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature rise. And therefore the recent rise in CO2 cannot be responsible for the upward trend in global temperatures.

The article you refer to shows why this reasoning is wrong. CO2 content can be a feedback -for example when the climate warms up due to changes in orbital parameters (this is the natural cycle you refer to)- which is why it lags behind the change in temperature.

But this is not the situation we are in today. The CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) that we humans have added by burning fossil fuels, and other means, act as a forcing. This fact is not based on looking at graphs of historical CO2 concentrations and temperatures. It's based on our understanding of the "greenhouse effect".

Believe me this is not missing from the AGW perspective and no, it was not forgotten to tell us.

No sorry, I take that back. Don't believe me. Go and read the IPCC report (and reference material).

Just a quote to wet your appetite (from chapter 6 of the report), my emphasis

Cheers

THat's an excellent clarification, and very much buttresses a point I often make on here, which is a tendency to assume that cause and affect are always the same, that each event is driven by a singularity, and that all singularities are the same.

It is perfectly plausible that CO2 can either lag or lead: if carbon has been locked and is released (e.g. by more acid rainfall, or warmer water) then CO2 can lag the warming, where that warming is forced externally - e.g. as you state, orbital changes - but it is equally plausible that a forced release of locked carbon (e.g. as we are seeing now via man's activities) could preempt warming.

It is an extension of the same flaky reasoning that looks at temperature curves and assumes that a downward curve means only cooling forces are at play, and an upward curve means only warming is at play. All the curves demonstrate, rather like a voltmeter, is the difference between the two forces at play. Thus, it is easy to argue that at present we are warming excessively because of natural factors over and above man's activity: however, it is rather easy to overlook the possibility that man's activities MIGHT be being dampened by natural forces that are currently working in the opposite direction, only not strongly enough to turn the climb around, but only to slow it.