6 ms·

> The leaked emails did not say that. You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the models' predictions didn't correspond to what

• KirinDave 17y ago
  > You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the models' predictions didn't correspond to what they thought that they were seeing from the measurements. It didn't correspond to tree-ring measurements. Which is already an unreliable and lossy sort of data, so they applied corrections for other phenomenon. And if it were a primary line of evidence in the case for climate change there might be a problem. But, as it stands, they were not and it was not. Further, at this point, all the work they did is replicable. The orignal data was not lost, it simply wasn't kept at that facility (for a variety of reasons). The IPCC is investigating any serious wrongdoing and having an independent group check the results. > How about telling us what you'd take as a statement or evidence that AGW wasn't happening? Sort of like asking, "What you'd take as evidence that evolution isn't real." At this point it'd need to be fairly extraordinary, since there is a LOT of data (both observed and modeled) that supports the hypothesis. So I dunno. Do you have anything better than, "One statistician disagrees with Al Gore's movie from 4 years ago but agrees with the IPCC?" Or maybe, "These people did something with data that I don't understand and called it a trick, I knew those guys were up to something!" Maybe something to counter the EIS footage? Or perhaps data to argue against the basic tenants? Is there actually much less CO2 in the air than claimed? What evidence would you take that it is happening? Epochal records of CO2 content in the air? We have that. Clear evidence of sharp and sudden environmental change in temperature sensitive areas? We have a ton of that; some of it is incredibly dramatic. Decade-term data that still shows overall warming trends? We've got that and its far more reliable than the extreme longterm data. Clear chemistry explaining what should happen? The base science backs this up. Do we have absolutely conclusive proof yet? No. Do we have enough evidence to start taking this seriously? Yes, I believe my threshold is met. Do post-industrialized nations like America stand to gain a lot financially by embracing this? I think we have much more to gain (and a lot to lose if we let China continue to outpace us in renewable energy research and production). So not only do I see a lot of science backing this notion, but I see a lot of opportunity. That's enough for me.
  • anamax 17y ago
    > It didn't correspond to tree-ring measurements. Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account for the recent measurements" e-mail. They weren't talking about the tree stuff, which has its own problems, but is not recent. > Further, at this point, all the work they did is replicable. Phil Jones disagrees. > The orignal data was not lost They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? > Do you have anything better than I have the person who did the IPCC's work on temperature measurement. You found his work compelling when you agreed with it. > Sort of like asking, "What you'd take as evidence that evolution isn't real." Yes, exactly. There are many possible observations that would contradict some/all of evolutionary theory. We don't see them, but they're very easy for an honest scientist to imagine. > At this point it'd need to be fairly extraordinary, since there is a LOT of data (both observed and modeled) that supports the hypothesis. You're overstating things. The recent temperature data is broken and even then contradicts the models. The "tree data is good when it supports the AGW but not when it doesn't" argument is weak. Jones admits that the arguments for ignoring the medieval warming period have problems. The hurricane stuff was wrong. The glacier data is far from conclusive (and overstated anyway). Arctic ice isn't behaving as predicted. And so on. > Epochal records of CO2 content in the air? We have that. Yup. It shows that with significantly higher CO2 concentrations (2-10x), we didn't see significantly higher temperatures. > Clear chemistry explaining what should happen? Actually, CO2 chemistry, or rather its physical properties, doesn't predict the magnitude of AGW. AGW requires feedback from other things. > Clear evidence of sharp and sudden environmental change in temperature sensitive areas? The AGW theory is that CO2 is causing climate change. Since climate changes constantly anyway, it would be surprising if we couldn't find such things now. The problem with using them for evidence of AGW is that we can find them from pre AGW eras as well. In other words, they occur independently of AGW. > I see a lot of opportunity. That's enough for me. Good for you - spend your money. I hope that you get rich. However, the current state of AGW research is no where near good enough to impose those beliefs on anyone else.
    • KirinDave 17y ago
      > Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account for the recent measurements" e-mail. They weren't talking about the tree stuff, which has its own problems, but is not recent. Please link this email then? > They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and then you can do those sources. But here's the key thing to keep in mind: neither you nor I know the full story there. There's not enough evidence to suggest fraud, only enough to warrant an investigation. You'are acting as if the science is discredited, but it seems to me like you want it to be discredited so you're preemptively declaring it so. > I have the person who did the IPCC's work on temperature measurement. You found his work compelling when you agreed with it. I found the whole body of work compelling. Only a few individual pieces of work are truly compelling on their own, and Phil's never was one. And by the way, I was skeptical until about a year and a half ago. Now that physical observations are starting to replace pure models and showing similar (if somewhat less aggressive) temperature gains, I am less dismissive of it. > You're overstating things. The recent temperature data is broken and even then contradicts the models. The "tree data is good when it supports the AGW but not when it doesn't" argument is weak. Jones admits that the arguments for ignoring the medieval warming period have problems. The hurricane stuff was wrong. The glacier data is far from conclusive (and overstated anyway). Arctic ice isn't behaving as predicted. And so on. I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be. It's pretty obvious that several glaciers are retreating at what can reasonably called a "surprising" rate. > Good for you - spend your money. I hope that you get rich. You know, I hope you're right. Because if I'm right the next 35 years are going to be shitty for everyone.