Just because a couple of people were saying that the world might be going into an new ice age is not the same thing as thousands of scientists saying we are in the midst of global climate change.

I don’t now why people who disagree with the idea of global climate change have to repeat such nonsensical statements in an effort to support their positions. Just like the claim I frequently see that there has been no warming in this decade when almost every year has ended up being one of the 10 warmest years since temperatures began to be recorded.

All doing so does is demonstrate to the world that the person is merely accepting and repeating what someone else has said, they didn’t verify the information, and they really don’t know what they are talking about.

Science has made huge mistakes in the past. Scientists use to speculate how certain long volcano eruptions occurred in ancient times. One, they said, probably went on for year according to the evidence they had uncovered. That is until Mount St. Helens blew. Then they realized that eruptions could move huge amounts of materials in days not in years.

If human caused global warming proponents want to win their argument, then they have to stick to that argument and it alone. The HCGW argument is being used for every ecological issue that come along, sound or not.

The problem will be that if the human factor is found to be minor, as some and more are suggesting, then all those who claimed the human factor significant will be discredited. Worse, considering the impact of the plans on the poor and middle-classes around the world, they will be the historical footnotes of foolish scientists of this century.

From the skeptic view, the problem with the CRU is that we do not know how much of the theory planetary dynamics fudged. Since the CRU had sway with the UN groups, we do not know how much of the contaminated theory may have worked its way into other scientists data.

The proponents are using reasonable scientific means to extract data they do not have records for. Still indirect measurements leave a lot to be desired. Certainly using multiple methods to confirm individual components lessens the impact of erroneous theories, the huge holes that exist in the record of Earth could mean that scientists have it all wrong. After all in 1975 scientists were talking the coming Ice Age.

There are good reasons to be a skeptic. Only elitists call skeptics “deniers.”

Read the emails.

Or go to the movies. JFK has a grand conspiracy theory; 2012 can give you certainty.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12#feature
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-1.html
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-2.html

That petition is pointless.

Which is why I refuse to call the skeptics

I also don’t have the time, resources, or skill set to wade through all of the climate data that’s out there. Within limits, I trust the consensus that’s reached after all of the squabbling and peer review. That’s what I try to read, leavened by a dose of your darling deniers just to watch for shenanigans. I’m really, really irritated by those emails, the people who wrote them and the intellectually dishonest people who try to make them something they are not. Mostly it’s the people who wrote them. How disappointing.

Still, zac, Jones fell on his sword in honorable fashion. What more do you want? Genocide?

Show of hands. How many people have gotten by the excerpts used to prove this or that point and actually read the originals?

Of course not.

By defending the actions of the people in the CRU, you are basically showing the skeptics and the world that you are a partisan that care not a wit about the scientific method.

The title suggests a partisan message that the leaked emails are not a big deal; it offers a clever allusion to “swiftboating”, i.e. hinting that the affair is part of a devious campaign by deniers.

This is colorful political campaigning style. While it appeals to partisans, to me it undermines the credibility of Chris’s message, which, separated from the title, I found informative and quite nuanced. Sure, it had a point of view but not so strong that it did violence to the facts.

Potential negative effects of the title include 1) creating skepticism about contents of the blog in people who are not already in Chris’s choir 2) mixing science policy (in the broader sense) with advocacy, and 3) tending to create the impression to browsers that the Center for America Progress website is an overtly partisan political site.

Among the stated objectives of the Center and its website is that it be nonpartisan, and that it seeks “to provide a forum to discuss the science and technology policy – not to advance the interests of any particular political party or candidate.” That is sound policy. Besides IRS issues, there are endless opinion and partisan sites but only a few with the content to help achieve useful policies and perspectives.

While the Chris’s post not refer to political candidates, its title clearly has the “look and feel” of political advocacy regarding party interests.

Let’s look at an alternative approachs.

["Hacked emails and 'Climategate': why private errors should not obscure the larger issues".]

I argue that acknowledging reality in the title invites more credence than a title dominated by defensiveness and advocacy.

The alternative title retains “hacked emails” which implies that those who revealed the messages used unethical means. Its reference to “private errors” gains credibility by acknowledging individuals’ poor judgment (especially for persons in highly visible or responsible roles)but separating them from the larger issues.

I regard Chris as a talent. He’s bashed Republicans in his book. But I argue that he could use his knowledge and talents to best effect by shedding light rather than heat on key problems. Maintaining partisan hostility accentuates antagonisms that distract attention from “science and technology policy”.

What are we supposed to do other than point out that the latest accusations are just as inane and distorted as all that came before? We’re still trying to convince people that nobody really believed in “global cooling in the 1970s,” and the only way to do that is to quickly and compellingly provide the evidence. How could (and why should) we possibly treat this “hide the decline” misinterpretation any other way?

Given this background, I find it remarkable that you don’t explicitly admit that the public image of global warming has suffered a real and potentially serious setback with the CRU email hack. The science has remained intact, no doubt about it, but we would be burying our head in the sand and providing more fuel to the deniers if we don’t admit that the reputation of climate science in the public eye has taken a beating with this incident, whether it was warranted or not. Unless we admit it, we would not make efforts to fix it.

Also, call me pessimistic, but I have no doubt that this incident will add yet another arrow in the quiver of the deniers at the Copenhagen meeting. To what extent it will damage the proceedings of the meeting remains to be seen, but I feel pretty sure that it will not be without impact.