Skip to main content

View Diary: The SwiftHack (ClimateGate) Scandal: What You Need to Know (279 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which scientists? (0+ / 0-)

    There are scientists on both sides of the issue.

    So far we haven't been treated to e-mails from the anti-AGW group taking about "hiding the increase".

    •  Both sides? (0+ / 0-)

      The anti-AGW side doesn't have enough peer-reviewed publications to be called a side. I am yet to see a counter-proof against AGW and a counter theory.

      AGW theory is based on the simple fact too much C02 enhance the greenhouse effect. Even if it hasn't been observed yet, it wouldn't mean that the AGW is wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity can before the observations. In science, observations can very well come after the theory.

      The anti-AGW "side" has to answer one simple question: "Where will the excessive C02 go?" and prove that the biosphere and hydrosphere (and lithosphere?) can absorb it no matter how much humans put it on the atmosphere.

      •  Half right... (0+ / 0-)

        The anti-AGW side doesn't have enough peer-reviewed publications to be called a side.

        No longer convincing given the e-mails that seem to show a concerted effort to keep AGW papers out of the peer reviewed literature.

        AGW theory is based on the simple fact too much C02 enhance the greenhouse effect. Even if it hasn't been observed yet, it wouldn't mean that the AGW is wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity can before the observations. In science, observations can very well come after the theory.

        Agreed.  AGW makes perfect sense.  But so have many theories that turned out to be incorrect in the long run.

        In addition, the magnitude of the effect and the amount of CO2 required to cause unacceptable increases in global temperatures is far less obvious than the apparent correctness of the basic AGW concept.

        If current CO2 levels are still low enough that normal global temperature fluctuations significantly exceed AGW impacts then we can all save many trillions of dollars.

        •  Game (0+ / 0-)

          No longer convincing given the e-mails that seem to show a concerted effort to keep AGW papers out of the peer reviewed literature.

          Not quite true. In those mails, they were talking about "boycotting" a certain journal, because their standards became too low when they published a particular paper by Soon. For example, Soon had one of his papers published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons probably, because his paper was a mess. He was defending that CO2 were great for the plants, which he can prove, but he "forgot" to say that ocean acidification is not good news. You can read it here:
          Robinson et al, 2007: Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12, 79-90..

          I am not saying that all paper by anti-AGW are crap. They have been publishing for all these years, but others have been responding to their claims, improving what they say is wrong.

          Agreed.  AGW makes perfect sense.  But so have many theories that turned out to be incorrect in the long run.

          And so many (most of) theories turned out to be correct. If GW is not anthropogenic, it must have a theory to explain it. Svensmark's comic ray theory was a good one, but already refuted. If there is no warming at all, someone has to come up with a model with GHG in it, run it and find another result.

          If current CO2 levels are still low enough that normal global temperature fluctuations significantly exceed AGW impacts then we can all save many trillions of dollars.

          According to simulations, current CO2 levels would lead to a +2/+3ºC increase. That's why we aim to decrease it to 1990 levels, however, due to economical and population growth, current levels won't be constant.

          Let's say that AGW proponents are wrong. What would be the consequences? Slow economic growth in the next 20 years with a shift to non-fossil energy sources. Renewable energy leads to independence of foreigner oil and for the US, we know that "drill, baby, drill" will not be enough. So here it is your "save many trillions of dollars" - a short term project.

          Let's say that anti-AGW proponents are wrong an we burn all we can burn. The Earth mean temperature raises up to 6ºC in 100 years. What will it be the cost? Well, we can always pray that the Sun becomes weaker (exactly the 3 W/m2) and all of the C02 actually helped...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site