IntLibber, I find it highly unlikely that the scientists will be proven wrong, and I think Tamino's bet is fair, wouldn't you agree? As far as the other conspiracy stuff you have said, well, I won't touch it.
BTW;
A theory about the radiative effects of CO2 is not a fact, especially when it is dated to the 19th century and there is plenty of science since then that calls it into question in whole or in part.
I do think you should look at the IR absorption profile of CO2 in your handy Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, dear sir. High school science teachers (the fun kind) can put up an IR camera with a candle on the other side of a glass container, full of oxygen and nitrogen, and show that when CO2 is pumped into the vessel, the IR from the candle is absorbed, and no longer visible on the camera view screen. This is something high school children can understand and visualize. To deny it is to deny yourself knowledge.
Those pesky climate models that failed to predict Arctic and (especially) Antarctic ice melt? They are based on physical models of the environment.
They get better over time, but will never be perfect. The real experiment is the one we're doing on a planetary scale, every moment.
TallDave,
Darwin Zero says the methodology is not being followed.
Neither you nor your links to denialist screed has established that in any way whatsoever, it is all innuendo, without facts to back it up. I googled "Darwin Zero" out of curiosity (with quotes), 22 thousand (THOUSAND) hits for a post made around two weeks ago. I checked the first 10 pages, they're all the same thing (a few outliers but the vast majority are this non-story).
Hell, all Eschenbach does is says "this is a graph, it looks weird, I don't know why." If you are actually interested you'd go digging and find posts like this, talking about how difficult Darwin data is to divine:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/11/ho ... ent-843553
Of course, Blair here is a really corrupted scientist, we should find out who they are and make them pay by sending in spurious FOI requests for data we're incapable of understanding which we will only use to twist and corrupt the process further because we are not held to the standards of peer review, merely public opinion and the blogosphere.
(the TOD changes are more than offset by growing HI effects, as has been pointed out over and over and over by real scientists)
By "real scientists" you actually mean "scientists I agree with." I myself stick to the peer review and reject nonsense about the process being corrupted without very strong evidence. A few graphs of cherry picked weather stations and a failure to understand the homogenization processes isn't enough, sorry.
The satellites show a different trend.
Disinformation.
They won't release the actual adjustment algorithms.
It's not their fault you cannot read a paper. This, btw, is again disinformation, like those 22k hits on Google about this Darwin Zero bullshit.
If you don't see a problem with this situation as a whole, you don't understand how science is different than religion or politics.
My point of view? I spent a decade debunking crazy space alien Mars artifact insano people. I am a skeptic to the core. Denalism is in fact the religion you speak of. It'd be one thing if denalists made some legit objections (some people denialists invoke have, and they have been included in the science), but overall they are mostly spreading innuendo. If you thought the Darwin data methodology was flawed, you, or someone else, could explain to the GHCN guys what is wrong with it and go from there. But because you don't even *understand* how they create the temperature record, you just throw out funny looking graphs and say "that can't be right!"
Note, even the Mars alien guys get it right once in a while. They noticed water droplets on Phoenix Lander, months before NASA came out and said something (NASA knew, of course, but they had to write a paper and that takes time). So denialists actually contributing to the process by pointing out errors or mistakes in the data are simply a broken clock being right twice a day.
As far as private emails are concerned? Well, let me tell ya. When the freaking alien crazy guys were at their pinnacle I myself was getting FOI requests (non-nonsensical requests at that, for logs of the server, to see who was "slandering" them). You do not want to see my private emails during that time, and I'm sure other emails, taken out of context, would be a nightmare. When I read their exchanges I go "I hear ya." Because, really, 22k hits for a posting around two weeks ago about something that is clearly not understood by the many people pushing it. It's sickening.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 766508.htm
BTW, Darwin Zero is not trivial; it significantly alters the trend for the whole continent.
Darwin Zero is in the lowest acceptable classification station rank. If you used raw data from such a poor station for measurements then Darwin would, certainly, significantly alter the trend, and that would damage the temperature record. What we have are people cherry picking a suspect data set, one that really exhibits homogenization well (not necessarily station to station, simply TOD, UHI, etc), and being upset when that data is clearly not good to begin with (again, lowest rank).
This is my final word on Darwin Zero (difficult to find this given that the denialists have buried it under 22k hits for the conspiracy!):
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... scientists
No one here even argues there isn't a warming trend -- just that it's being exaggerated.
OK then what do you say, if the next 10 years are hotter than the previous? Warming trend exaggerated or warming trend confirmed?
Oh, the irony.
Blog postings on right wing shill sites are not the same thing as scientific scrutiny.
From 2002-2009. Antarctica has gained mass since the 1970s.
I spent an hour trying to find your source for that, I gave up, therefore I find it questionable. In any case, the melting that is occurring is massive, beyond all models, therefore it should at least concern you.
You're defending the advocates, the priests, the anti-scientists. We're defending the scientists.
You're defending bloggers and shills. Again, there's nothing that you've said that has established a conspiracy in any way whatsoever.
Fortunately, more people are starting to catch on:
Wait, I don't understand. Let's assume that all of climate science is exaggerated and inaccurate. Small warming trend, no big deal. Since there is *absolutely no evidence that we are moving off of fossil fuels* what would there to be to worry about if people were "misled"? We're not doing anything about it! So who cares, right? For me this is about truth, it's not about activism, because I know that actions are impossible (more than 1GW of renewable or clean energy must be built daily just to stop increasing emissions, it is simply inconceivable politically; we won't have another chance for a COP15 for 10-15 years, perhaps two Presidents).
Haven't you heard? AGWers are already covered through about 2040. They've accepted the PDO trend.
No, you keep enlightening me with new bizarre theories that don't stand up to scrutiny, so I haven't heard this and don't even know what you are talking about. I am talking about Tamino's bet, which is darn reasonable.
MSimon,
Actually any thing that burns mined chemical fuel. Oil, natural gas, coal. They all have to go.
Hansen is the most liberal / crazy / dire predictor, and he calls for coal phaseout. That is the biggest plan I know of. Anyone calling for more is not credible (or insignificant on the scheme of things). Hansen is basically as big of a phaseout you will get from anyone that anyone actually might listen to (note, again, COP15 was a failure, etc, etc, nothing is changing, don't worry you're not getting CO2 tax; you will get health care tax though, sorry, not my fault).
BTW, all of your questions, especially the sailor one? You must have read them from a list somewhere. The scientists try. They're not perfect. The main thing here is that over a large enough dataset statistics kicks in and then the numbers are fairly good indicators of the truth.
No one said it's perfect. Though many of you are saying it's flawed (which should be a given, I thought). It's just that the "flaws" being pointed out are trivialities. It'd actually be cool if you helped improved the method by pointing out real flaws.
I particularly liked this:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/12/clima ... crisy.html
(Don't agree with it fully as some of the examples are hilarious and stupid, but others are dead on accurate.)
