>HardySpicer wrote:
>
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
>
>Now we know that someone is lying. How do we know who?
>
>Jerry

(Apologies if parts of this appear repeated; dsprelated seems to hav
become temporarily inaccessible right when I made an initial post over a
hour ago, and I still don't see it.)

It took 6-7 minutes to get the torrent. Why don't you go download it an
decide for yourself? The conclusions seem a bit sensationalized (stoc
advice), but the emails speak for themselves...if you believe they'r
legit. Here's what my take was prior to seeing this, FWIW.



The whole climate change thing has long stunk. The biggest problem is th
general attitude (both among people with scientific interest and thos
without) towards people with alternative theories. Note I didn't sa
towards the theories themselves (although that's the case, too), bu
rather, towards the people. All theories should be tested, and none can b
proven, as you probably know. The best a theorist can hope for is that th
evidence to date would be consistent with the theory; the history o
inadequacies of models and fabrication of results (most infamously, th
hockey stick of Mann, et al, which has long been known to intentionall
underemphasize the medieval warm period and little ice age by means of ba
statistical methods) doesn't even offer that. There are a whole host o
ulterior motives one can postulate for people to take one position or th
other, some of which are more believable than others (these are no
mutually exclusive):

*) right or not, some people honestly believe the evidence points
particular way
*) for most people in government who support policies on the basis o
believing it, it's about control of peoples' lives: light bulbs, cars
thermostats, etc. I can't imagine wanting that kind of control, but som
do.
*) it's easier to get funding for an alarmist study than a study tha
yields the opposite result, and words can always be tailored to emphasiz
or deemphasize results
*) some people "behind the scenes" have their views misrepresented i
publications (a trademark move of the IPCC, along with representin
non-scientists as scientists)
*) most scientists who study climate are not directly involved in th
MODELING, and have little knowledge about it
*) some companies have a vested interest one way or the other, and ma
have people willing to deceive, or perhaps just market to people who wan
it one way. This point, like the first, can be seen in both directions.


The words "climate change", as opposed to "global warming", have th
interesting interpretation of being untestable: no one in their right min
should expect the climate to stay the same, whether man exists or not.
should also point out that one of the key scientific debates (and most o
the typical banter you hear is not) is about positive versus negativ
feedback, where the "input" to the model is primarily man-made CO2
something that, in itself, is not enough to significantly affect climate.
The feedback mechanism proposed, interestingly enough by both sides, i
water vapor, a more substantial greenhouse gas. Indeed, historical record
show CO2 levels *lag* temperature (varying amounts, but 800 years or s
rings a bell), but it's possible to zoom the plots out enough so you can'
tell that, as Gore does.

If you asked most skeptics 5-10 years ago if the large-scale warming wa
occurring, the answer would be "yes, but we can't see any significan
evidence that man is the cause". Now that we've been cooling for nearl
that long on a large scale (perhaps even as long ago as 1998), th
believers want to come up with more complicated theories to explain i
away.

In other words, keep changing the model so it continues to be a contender
That's all well and good, but making policy on theory with a poo
prediction track record is not good. It's sad comment on education on th
scientific method that the labels "doubter" or "skeptic" can be take
pejoratively.