Scientists condemn climate change attacks

I would suggest to you that there are scientists that have doubts on the validity of AGW but their concerns are based in reason and not in ideology. Some skeptics are "right wingers" but some people that embrace the idea of AGW are "left wingers" who care as little about actual science as "right wingers".

Nobody who has a clue doubts that climate changes over time. In the last two million years there have been a series of glaciations covering much of the earth for tens of thousands of years at a stretch as well as glacial recessions. This is the big kahuna of climate change. Yet the processes governing it are as yet subject to much discussion and disagreement.

Past instances of evolution, just like past instances of climate change, are observations, sure, but generally speaking, when people say "evolution" or "climate change", they're referring to the theories and/or the predictions that spawn from those theories. The theories are not material facts, and unless you're far more careful about the language used than you have been, saying evolution or climate change are facts is not true.

Temperature projections (specific ones), rates of glacier or other ice melt, sea level rises, increased drought cycles, worsening storms, etc. Pretty much any consequence of global warming that has been put forth as something along the lines of "this will happen", rather than "this easily could happen" is ascribing too much certainty to results, especially if precise numbers are given. As good as climatologists are, the climate is too complex and the predictions have thus far been too imprecise to merit certainty in subsequent predictions.

That greenhouse gas emissions are capable to doing extreme harm to the planet by way of altering atmospheric chemistry and an exacerbated greenhouse effect, is something that seems beyond reasonable doubt. But just because those emissions are capable of doing such harm, does not mean that they will, only that they could. Don't get me wrong, that possibility, even if it's more remote than the evidence indicates, is enough reason for rational action on the matter, but that's another issue…

debunked? who said this? Newsweek? please describe.

Holly,

You would be much more effective in your arguments if you refrained from personal attacks. This type of debate only weakens your position….just sayin.

Understanding AGW from a scientific perspective gets a lot easier when you ignore Al Gore, who is – as many proponents of the theory including myself readily admit – an opportunistic d-bag.

"If a field can make itself a matter of international survival its researchers will be drowning in grant money"

Two things with that statement. First, the evidence itself supports the possibility of significant, potentially catastrophic problems related to greenhouse gas emissions. You've raised the objection that climatologists present this possibility as more of a certainty, or that they engage in unsubstantiated hyperbole about the severity of these problems, beyond what the evidence actually shows, and that's a fair criticism, but that does not mean they have any greater incentive to deceive, manipulate data, or misrepresent results than any other field, as other fields also have incentive to present findings with greater certainty or with heightened importance to society than may be objectively true.

Once again, the justification for funding for further research has already been established by the uncertainty of safety – the reported certainty of damage might add fuel to the fire, but it's not a tactic unique to climatology. Most importantly, it does not in itself provide any reason to disbelieve the hyperbole-less claims which are the basis for justifying both action on the matter.

And no, ideological goals are not relevant without some sort of conspiracy or demonstration of results tampering to further those goals. Yeah, there are people who would use AGW to push their ideological goals, just as there are people who push against AGW because dealing with it runs against their ideological goals. But ultimately, what people use a scientific conclusion for has no bearing on the validity of that conclusion. Again, genetics isn't false because some nutjobs want to use it to justify eugenics.

You accuse me of throwing up a straw-man, but I haven't – you threw up the spectre of population control as a response to the conclusions of global warming, just as some have pushed eugenics in response to the conclusions of evolutionary biology. It's an apt analogy. What people want to do with the conclusions of scientific research has no bearing on the validity of that research, that's the point I was making with that statement.

"What's being claimed is that we should be skeptical because there are vested interests, both ideological and financial, at stake."

There are financial and ideological vested interests on both sides. There are many industries who would pay a lot of money if they could get credible research against AGW published. Our own Conservative government, considering its base and reluctance to make any action on the matter, would likewise welcome such research. Being subject to temptation, why are you only entertaining the idea that scientists are being persuaded by those with an ideology opposed to your's?

Really though, the existence of vested interests is irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that they're having an impact on produced research, in any direction, above and beyond that of other fields of study. In the absence of evidence of academic misconduct that includes fraud or falsification of data, on what grounds do you remain skeptical of the conclusions of climatologists?

The link you gave only indicates that the NASA data is not more reliable than the CRU data, according to one of the responders. Jim Hansen actually follow-ups by saying that he believes both to have some advantages and disadvantages, further saying that there shouldn't be a single authority on this subject.

All said, however, the NASA data is still fine. As for more tangible evidence, I like to point to the contrast in temperature between Venus and Mercury, a difference nearly impossible to explain without the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide – exactly the effect AGW rests upon.

Either way, you asked for evidence, I provided it. Have some institutions been less than completely open about their data? Sure. But do you expect the same level of openness from biologists, physicists, or chemists? I don't have complete and open access to particle accelerator data either, but I don't see much complaining about that.

Are you going to respond to my points, or just continue spouting rhetoric?

Yes, scientists should be open about their research and the CRU have been overly reclusive with it, but AGW does not depend on the CRU and other evidence is freely available which more than makes the case for the general conclusions of the AGW theory (the doomsday scenarios that receive the most media attention and skeptic scrutiny are another matter). Furthermore, the extent you expect the CRU to provide information goes above and beyond what any other scientist is expected to provide.

"So, yeah, I could stand a little more discussion, debate, replication of analysis, etc."

That's great. But when I present you with information, you ignore it, and simply say that climatologists, including the ones that provide all the information you desire, are not credible. It's fine to say you want more debate, but that claim has no credibility if you're unwilling to engage in that debate.

As for the transparency of scientists, as I've said, the CRU was not transparent enough – but other institutions have been, and AGW does not rest on the CRU, exactly the point Jim Hansen made in the e-mail you linked.

But, as you've just agreed, what you're asking of climatologists is beyond what other scientists have to provide. That extra scrutiny may be warranted, but the hyperbole in the criticism is not – if climatologists are behaving in the same way other scientists are, then their work is just as scientific as what is produced by any other field. Just because you don't like the conclusions of certain scientists or what the reasonable response to those conclusions should be, that does not discredit those conclusions. Science doesn't change because it produces an unwanted result.

OK, let me ask you. Do you still believe in the hockey stick? The now discredited horror image that was supposed to fry us all to hell?

And, ok, I'll bite, just for fun. About that "information" you offered. Well, you mentioned Mars and Venus, without any particular information. So please feel free to expand.

The rest of your information basically says "Fear not, the rest of the data is just fine." Which sounds a lot more like conjecture, not information.

And yes, dammit, if someone in a white coat joins a few other people in white coats in front of the microphones to say "Everybody, change what you're doing NOW even though our models tell us it might already be too late," the white coats are going to get a well-deserved request for proof. Because they're not engaging in science when they are trying to rule my life. They are practicing politics.