The Hutch: I was arguing about this with my conservative christian friend. One group of scientists doing bad science does not damn the science itself. There are still mountains - MOUNTAINS! - of good science being done all over the world. Look at the stuff coming out of India, China, and Antarctica, for example.
Fact is, we know we are producing more CO2 than ever. This much is certain. And we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. These two facts together, paired with a great deal of observed and measured evidence from all over the world leads to a very obvious and ultimate conclusion about Global Warming.
No doubt, you'd point to more than a few outliers that exist. The oft-debated "cooling "stats, for example. And these facts need further exploring. It is certainly possible that all we know about global warming could turn out to be wrong. But considering all that we DO know, we can say, at the moment, that that is highly improbable. It would be very irresponsible not to act accordingly considering the danger involved in Global Warming being a real phenomenon.
There are no 100% knowns in science. Everything is a best guess. Even gravitation is called into question by any physicist worth his salt. We can only gather the best possible evidence and act according to what seems most likely at the moment. The testing and modeling and data gathering continues, and science refines and revises.
I sincerely hope everyone's wrong about Global Warming, but a handful of corrupt scientists does not make that so.
The Gibroney Hunter: I have no doubt that much good science is done everyday around the world. My intention isn't to attack science as an institution. Quite to the contrary, it's my love and respect for true science that motivates me to try to expose the criminal monied interests that have infiltrated, and now threaten to completely and irrevocably pervert and destroy science.
You're adamant about describing this e-mail situation as a group of rogue scientists who somehow got it into their heads to try to hide evidence of global temperature declines.. as if they weren't instructed by the individuals and groups who oversee their research to do just that.
When a scientist is given funding for specific research, he/she is not permitted very much deviation from the specific task that has been chartered. Sadly, the days of research and inquiry truly being in the hands of the scientist have long since passed us. The point I'm trying to make is that I find it extremely difficult to believe that these individuals attempted to fudge the data of their own volition. That's kind of like believing that the troops at Abu Ghraib decided amongst themselves to begin torturing people, and weren't specifically instructed to do just that. The scientific mind, like just about everything else in our world, is treated by the elite like just another resource to be harnessed and misused for their purposes.
While it's true that we as a species are producing more Co2 than ever before, studies have also shown that the overall levels of Co2 in our atmosphere have actually been much higher during certain periods of geological and human history.
Another point of debate is the issue of causation, regarding Co2. Many credible scientists question which comes first.. temperature increase or Co2 increase. In other words, there's disagreement over whether our Co2 emissions are significantly increasing temperature, or vice versa.. natural climate change is triggering a planetary response of increased Co2.
It's important to mention that no one is truly certain about global warming. It's not like the sabotage attacks of 9/11, which is clear-cut, and presentable in a court of law. This is an issue to be sorted out by honest professionals.. which is why gibronies like you and I can only really get so far, trying to figure it out.
I know of no global warming skeptics who doubt that our planet is very troubled. Oceans, rivers, and streams are poisoned. So is the air. Species are dying, new cancers are cropping up all the time, less and less of the planet remains unmolested and mowed down by profiteers.. the only point that many honest scientists have a burning desire to debate is that of specifically whether or not our activity can be conclusively linked to temperature increases.
Regardless of where you stand, we should all be in agreement that something with such serious implications as "carbon credits" or climate change legislation, should not be primarily in the hands of a reptile like Al Gore. He's a treasonous parasite. He stands to make a killing if his "carbon credit" scheme pushes through.. but i digress.
I'm curious.. what do you think about the fact that much of the global warming raw data is not made available to skeptics who intend to scrutinize it? Commonly, global warming skeptics are refused this data, and told by Establishment scientists that they probably work for an oil company, and to get lost. First of all, no skeptics have ever been exposed as being on oil company payrolls, but even if they were, so what? How can it be truly scientific if the RAW DATA, the very source of studies and calculations, is not shared with professionals on BOTH sides? Also, much of the information presented by Al Gore is based on studies not properly peer-reviewed.
There may be confusion when it comes to the issue of global warming, but there's no confusion whatsoever over what IS and IS NOT good and legitimate scientific practices. These hacked emails are just more evidence that an honest scientific debate is NOT TAKING PLACE HERE.
Another reason why the "you may work for an oil company" argument is bullshit.. is the example of the tobacco industry. They employed scientists left and right, but eventually good science won, and now everyone knows that cigarettes are quite bad. So if the proponents of anthropogenic climate change are so confidently certain of their findings, they should not only offer every and anyone the opportunity to prove them wrong, but indeed CHERISH it, since it's through this exact type of criticism and refinement that scientific progress is made.
The Hutch: It sounds to me like you're attacking the process than the findings themselves. Which I can't and will not argue with. Any attempt by anyone, regardless of intention, to make good science better will be applauded by me.
However, most of the time, the statements you make are headlined by a disbelief in climate change which I don't think is a valid position based on the good science we do have.
As for people not turning over their data, well, I can't answer for everyone, but I have met more than a few climatologists (working for AAAR [http://aaar.org/ -- no, I didn't design their page, I Just publish updates on it] on occasion, in particular, grants me the opportunity) I know there's a lot of fear in the community. Fear of their data being stolen or misinterpreted. The measures they make us go through to make their presentation slides undownloadable... (which, mind you, is absurd and incredibly frustrating. When I show them how to take a screenshot, their heads explode).
But every year there are these presentations when the data does come out. I think it's more about completeness more than anything.
But I like the tabacco industry analogy. I may bring that up next time I have a chance to haves a conversation with a AAAR person.
Sorry if this is all over the place. Just trying to get a few tenuous points made before leaving for Thanksgiving stuff. Which I'm now going to do. Later!
The Gibroney Hunter: