AP debunks "hoax" claim! What do you think?

[Vort]

AP reporters have determined that the "outed" (or "stolen", depending on your political viewpoint) emails do not show that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but rather that climate scientists have all the intricate social skills of a maladjusted seventh grader wearing plaid pants and Coke-bottle glasses with tape across the nosepiece. (Big, big surprise there!)

Now we can all breathe easy, relax, and let our honest politicians continue in the important, nay vital, work they have been doing: Making the world safe for climate change!

Or can we? Is the AP report accurate? Who you gonna believe, them or your lying eyes?

Which most accurately reflects your own viewpoint? Manmade global warming is:

• Real! The scientists said it, I believe it, that settles it!
• Real! The AP is famous for its deep understanding of all things scientific.
• Probably real. The preponderance of evidence weighs toward anthropogenic global warming. I know this because I have actually done research on the topic and am qualified to offer a knowledgeable opinion on the matter.
• Probably real. The preponderance of evidence blah blah, or at least that's what they say, and I figure they wouldn't make such a thing up. It makes sense to me that a few billion people burning hydrocarbons for a few centuries would impact the chemical makeup of the atmosphere enough to cause some observable change.
• I have no idea. It's all over my head anyway, but if I trust them to collect and spend my tax money wisely, why not this, too? (That could be an argument either way.)
• Probably false. I can't put my finger on it, but the whole thing smells distinctly fishy to me. If anthropogenic global warming is real, why can't they just expose the proof so that everyone can see it?
• Probably false. Scientists are human, too, and they often are not nearly as smart as they think. This unfortunate "cause" has gained traction, mostly among the ignorant political Left and those who have just enough education to be dangerous but not enough to actually see through the smokescreen to the man behind the curtain.
• False! The earth has heated up and cooled down throughout its history. Why ought we to think that the last couple of decades (when we actually started paying attention) are suddenly so completely different from all other historical occurrences?
• False! It's all a scam, a plot by communists, earth worshipers, energy companies, and/or the world bank and the Illuminati to restrict our freedoms and ability to travel or even think clearly by foisting off this absurd "the-sky-is-falling!" scenario onto us, and the sheeple are too stupid and too committed to their drugs, fornications, and other debauchery even to care!

[FunkyTown]

AP reporters have determined that the "outed" (or "stolen", depending on your political viewpoint) emails do not show that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, but rather that climate scientists have all the intricate social skills of a maladjusted seventh grader wearing plaid pants and Coke-bottle glasses with tape across the nosepiece. (Big, big surprise there!)

I think your poll might be a bit misleading. The AP people don't pretend to be Environmentalists. Instead, 5 reporters combed over the million words that the emails contained to decide if the emails contain evidence of fraud.

The AP decided they probably did not, which is heartening.

You might disagree with climate change, but the scientists investigating it didn't simply investigate it for the money. They apparently thought the evidence compelling.

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO most scientists believe that a significant element of global warming is human-caused, and that the situation is dire. Therefore they feel justified in squelching dissent, sometimes by resorting to underhanded means.

[Vort]

OK, who claimed to have published research on the matter? 'Fess up. Inquiring minds will have all sorts of questions to ask you.

[mnn727]

While there have been exaggerations and even lies on both sides, all one need do to confirm global warmimg is to look at the northen passage (open water in the Arctic) to see that global warming is happening.

Frankly, why can't we just be good stewards of what God has given us and clean up the junk we're polluting the atmosphere with (not to mention the land and the water)

[Guest mormonmusic]

This is a good exercise in critical thinking - defined as "the process of deciding what to believe or do".

First of all, I haven't read the AP reporters claims, so I can't judge their credibility -- however, I do believe this -- on technical/scientific matters like this, you have to look at the credentials of the scientists, and even more importantly, their REASONS and EVIDENCE of global warming.

Looking at their credentials alone, and simply believing what they say is a logical fallacy called an "appeal to authority". "Mr. Educated said it, so it must be true". These experts have to give solid reasons and evidence to corroborate their theories.

If scientists are divided on the issue, with both sides providing solid reasons and supporting evidence, then you have to conclude you don't know.

So, my response is -- show me the evidence!

[NeuroTypical]

5 reporters combed over the million words that the emails contained to decide if the emails contain evidence of fraud.

The AP decided they probably did not, which is heartening.

Well I, for one, would like to stand up and defend these scientists. I haven't seen anything that led me to believe GW supporting scientists were fraudulent.

* You can engage in bad science and not be fraudulent.

* You can spin and emphasize and deemphasize data and not be fraudulent.

* You can use inconclusive scientific data as a tool to forward a political agenda without being fraudulent.

* You can bow to peer pressure and refuse to make waves in the scientific community without being fraudulent.

* You can apply pressure (or any other of a large bag of dirty tricks) to dissenting opinions in order to shut them up or make them tow your line without being fraudulent.

Now, these emails pretty much prove that all the above behaviors were engaged in, but please people - let's not be uncharitable and call them fraudulent.

LM

[FunkyTown]

While I appreciate where you're coming from here, LM, you're being disingenuous.

The scientists who believe in climate change have as much evidence for them that many other scientific theories that are accepted as fact have:

Black holes

Evolution

String theory

Just to name a few. That the climate has been changing since we have begun to examine it is indisputable. For examples of this, see the climate time machine at:

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

This does lead to a few problems:

1) Climate is always changing. Historically, we know there were ice ages. We know there were hot ages as well, during the time of the dinosaurs.

2) We have only been observing the weather for a little over a century, which is insignificant in the time-period of the world.

3) We do not have a control in these experiments. It is impossible to have another world, untouched by man, the same distance from the sun, with the same orbit, spin and tilt, flora and fauna.

Environmental scientists have been attacked by those who don't like what they have to say, whether for or against Man-made Climate Change. Some have been mocked, berated or attacked for their positions. They, like many others, have reacted in varying degrees.

Their science isn't bad. It's merely spinnable by both sides of the equation. This has resulted in many getting defensive, such as those who printed these emails(Based upon what AP had to say of their findings).

Well I, for one, would like to stand up and defend these scientists. I haven't seen anything that led me to believe GW supporting scientists were fraudulent.

* You can engage in bad science and not be fraudulent.

* You can spin and emphasize and deemphasize data and not be fraudulent.

* You can use inconclusive scientific data as a tool to forward a political agenda without being fraudulent.

* You can bow to peer pressure and refuse to make waves in the scientific community without being fraudulent.

* You can apply pressure (or any other of a large bag of dirty tricks) to dissenting opinions in order to shut them up or make them tow your line without being fraudulent.

Now, these emails pretty much prove that all the above behaviors were engaged in, but please people - let's not be uncharitable and call them fraudulent.

LM

[Guest]

While I appreciate where you're coming from here, LM, you're being disingenuous.

The scientists who believe in climate change have as much evidence for them that many other scientific theories that are accepted as fact have:

Black holes

Evolution

String theory

Just to name a few. That the climate has been changing since we have begun to examine it is indisputable. For examples of this, see the climate time machine at:

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth

This does lead to a few problems:

1) Climate is always changing. Historically, we know there were ice ages. We know there were hot ages as well, during the time of the dinosaurs.

2) We have only been observing the weather for a little over a century, which is insignificant in the time-period of the world.

3) We do not have a control in these experiments. It is impossible to have another world, untouched by man, the same distance from the sun, with the same orbit, spin and tilt, flora and fauna.

Environmental scientists have been attacked by those who don't like what they have to say, whether for or against Man-made Climate Change. Some have been mocked, berated or attacked for their positions. They, like many others, have reacted in varying degrees.

Their science isn't bad. It's merely spinnable by both sides of the equation. This has resulted in many getting defensive, such as those who printed these emails(Based upon what AP had to say of their findings).

I agree Funky. Well said.

Now, if we can only keep grubby politicians hands away from all this and let the scientific community do their job the best way they know how... maybe we could all learn something from it! Grrr!

[prisonchaplain]

Those who believe that humans are causing unstainable warming would have us spend trillions of dollars globally, to attempt to mititgate the damage. If they are right, we'd best pay the piper. If they are wrong, they are prodding us to incredible difficult expenditures that will deflate the global economy, perhaps for generations. In other words, this is high stakes stuff, and appeals to just calmly let the scientists do their jobs would seem to miss the international economic and political pressures that are afoot.

[talisyn]

I would agree, PC, except...the world of academia is not a peaceful gathering of intellectuals deeply committed to the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake. Granted, I have only my experiences at Univ. of Calif. Santa Cruz as my example. But if it can be that cut-throat and competitive at that mellow hippie school then I don't even want to contemplate what it's like at other colleges and in the private sector.

I picked "Probably real. Billions of people burning hydrocarbons for a few centuries would cause some change." The Earth might be going into a cool-down, or a warming phase, or nothing at all. that doesn't mean we do not have a responsibility to take good care of our toys.

[ADoyle90815]

My vote is: Probably real. Billions of people burning hydrocarbons for a few centuries would cause some change. Regardless of what's going on with the climate, we need to take better care of the environment as I'd hate for a major catastrophe to convince people to change, as it might be too late. Also, there will be a time when the oil reserves and other resources have been used up, and once those are gone, they're gone. If there are no alternatives, then it will be really bad for the global economy.

[Maxel]

My problem with the situation is the agenda of many world leaders to use climate change as a tool to undermine individual nation's national sovereignty. I have nothing against the idea of humans causing negative climate change, nor the idea that we should be good stewards of our planet.

But 'being good stewards' doesn't equate to 'enact sweeping legislation that will sweep the legs out of the global economy in a global recession'. Frankly, I don't trust the people behind the push for legislative changes (the same people using anthropogenic climate change as their battering ram).

I think the issue has become too politicized for the layman to have any hope of arriving at a well-founded conclusion. I don't doubt that there's an abundance of evidence both for and against anthropogenic climate change (ACC), but all public debate is being squashed to support Al Gore's oft-repeated mantra that 'The debate is over'. I'd like it if the pro-ACC camp would de-militarize; I think that would give the anti-ACC camp the oppurtunity to do so as well.

[NeuroTypical]

While I appreciate where you're coming from here, LM, you're being disingenuous.

I never tire of looking up that word in the dictionary. I get called that occasionally, but I've never really thought of myself as exhibiting a lack of frankness, candor, or sincerity.

I am often spilling over with smarmy sarcasm, but really, that's different than being disingenuous.

Their science isn't bad. It's merely spinnable by both sides of the equation. This has resulted in many getting defensive, such as those who printed these emails(Based upon what AP had to say of their findings).

I suppose that's a valid point. Ok - remove "bad science" from my list. That still leaves:

* Spinning/emphasizing/deemphasizing data

* Using inconclusive scientific data as a tool to forward a political agenda

* Bowing to peer pressure and refusing to make waves in the scientific community

* Applying pressure (or any other of a large bag of dirty tricks) to dissenting opinions in order to shut them up or make them tow your line

Anyway, I really did mean what I said - none of that makes someone fraudulent. None of that is breaking any laws. It just makes me a heck of a lot less likely to buy what they're trying to sell me. They are red flags - warning signs - cautions - that the stuff coming out of their mouths might just not be the unvarnished unassailable truth.

LM

(btw, I voted "Probably real. Billions of people burning hydrocarbons for a few centuries would cause some change.")

[FunkyTown]

Hahah. Okay, okay. That, I can agree with. I would say that what you were saying was not exactly what you meant. I would have thought that you were being insincere when you said they weren't fraudulent.

But you're right: All the passion climate change causes makes getting the truth difficult. Frankly, I'd rather know that we need to spend trillions to change the world then wake up in 2016 with a billion people displaced from their homes. Or I'd rather know it's not true so we can work on things that are problems.

I never tire of looking up that word in the dictionary. I get called that occasionally, but I've never really thought of myself as exhibiting a lack of frankness, candor, or sincerity.

I am often spilling over with smarmy sarcasm, but really, that's different than being disingenuous.

I suppose that's a valid point. Ok - remove "bad science" from my list. That still leaves:

* Spinning/emphasizing/deemphasizing data

* Using inconclusive scientific data as a tool to forward a political agenda

* Bowing to peer pressure and refusing to make waves in the scientific community

* Applying pressure (or any other of a large bag of dirty tricks) to dissenting opinions in order to shut them up or make them tow your line

Anyway, I really did mean what I said - none of that makes someone fraudulent. None of that is breaking any laws. It just makes me a heck of a lot less likely to buy what they're trying to sell me. They are red flags - warning signs - cautions - that the stuff coming out of their mouths might just not be the unvarnished unassailable truth.

LM

(btw, I voted "Probably real. Billions of people burning hydrocarbons for a few centuries would cause some change.")

[Guest]

Those who believe that humans are causing unstainable warming would have us spend trillions of dollars globally, to attempt to mititgate the damage. If they are right, we'd best pay the piper. If they are wrong, they are prodding us to incredible difficult expenditures that will deflate the global economy, perhaps for generations. In other words, this is high stakes stuff, and appeals to just calmly let the scientists do their jobs would seem to miss the international economic and political pressures that are afoot.

That would be a good thing.

Do you know how many times I've been through the "end of the world" media/government -driven panic? Too many times... You do it some more and nobody will listen to the boy who cried wolf.

[Snow]

What I'd like to see as people answer the pole is some sort of statement as to the extent of their research on the topic.

What peer-revied scientific journal articles have you read on the topic?

What books (by whom) have you read on the issue?

etc.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow, the sad state of affairs is that we non-scientists are left to wonder about the objectivity of the scientific community. There is a sense that these things get politicized, and then science becomes like statistics--just find a few that agree with you, throw a bunch of money at them, and they'll cook you up some peer-reviewed, respectable findings to back your agenda.

Perhaps that sweeping condemnation is way overboard and unfair. However, when my politics and opinions leans away from the scientific majority I find the ability to just dismiss them as being bought off by my opponents rather appealing.

[Moksha]

Why do scientists continue to meddle in what is essentially a political and religious issue?