"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Sunday, November 22, 2009

More CRU email analysis and other climate warming goodies

The Climate Research Unit emails number around 1000. As people search the online archive or their own copy of the released data, more detail on the inner workings of this group come to light.

I’m going to first direct readers to the Ace of Spades blog. Gabriel brings together several PowerLine posts about this matter with brief summaries. a brief intro:

John Hinderaker at PowerLine have been doing a great job digging through the emails leaked from the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

[…] (source, be sure to follow the links to Powerline for the full details.)

The other climate warming goodies are several online resources covering the overall debate on AGW. Some I have mentioned or linked to before but I thought readers would be helped by mentioning them again. Of course you can find even more by perusing their blogrolls.

Watts Up With That?

Lucia - Blackboard

the Air Vent

Bishop Hill – This blog covers other issues as well but the author is recognized as being quite adept at writing on the global warming issues under debate in a way that is accessible to the average person. He now has a book coming out called The Hockey Stick Illusion.

Finally, I recently ran across climate skeptic which brings up some good points about the global warming controversy.

[…] I often make a wager with my audiences. I will bet them that unless they are regular readers of the science-based climate sites, I can tell them something absolutely fundamental about global warming theory they have never heard. What I tell them is this:

Man-made global warming theory is not one theory but in fact two totally separate theories chained together. These two theories are:

  1. Man-made greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, acting alone will warm the planet [between] 1.0 and 1.5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
  2. The Earth’s climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks, such that the warming from Greenhouse gasses alone is amplified 3-5 or more times. Most of the warming in catastrophic forecasts comes from this second effect, not directly from greenhouse gas warming.

This is not some Iird skeptic’s fantasy. This two-part description of catastrophic global warming theory is right out of the latest IPCC report. Most of the warming in the report’s forecasts actually results from the theory of positive feedback in #2, not from greenhouse gasses directly.

One of the most confusing issues for average people watching the climate debate is how one side can argue so adamantly that the science is “settled” and the other can argue just the opposite. The explanation lies in large part with this two-part theory. There is a high degree of consensus around proposition1, even among skeptics. I may disagree that the warming is 0.8C or 1.2C, but few on the science end of the debate would argue that CO2 has no effect on warming. When people say “the science is settled” they generally want to talk about proposition 1 and avoid discussion of proposition 2.

That is because proposition 2 is far from settled. […] (source)

It may be that good and honest people currently on opposite sides of the debate are actually talking past each other due to confusion over these two points.

I’ll end this post by asking a question of those who are following this story. Do you know people who do not follow blogs and/or only watch Lamestream Media? Hopefully you will be talking to them about this unfolding story, emailing the various blog posts you find with good information and/or posting on whatever social website you and they use.

The point being, we obviously cannot rely on the Lamestream Media to inform people. With Cap and Trade still a possibility in the Senate, we need to maintain pressure and ensure that important information such as this is not ignored.


Previous posts:

More on that CRU email and data hack

Climate Research Unit – What the hack?!

Mark My Words – Global Warming archive

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: