RE: How climate change deniers were duped into believing Daily Mail article over manipulated global warming data
I wish people would have a debate over the real issues at hand instead of the whole "hoaxers" vs. "deniers" trope.
Anybody can see temperatures warmed over a given period of time. The fact that CO2 being a greenhouse gas is well established scientifically and that there is a correlation between CO2 levels and warmer temperatures certainly indicates that it plays a role.
Then there is the complete and utter BS that politicians like Al Gore spout, presenting exaggerated outcomes that have little or no scientific backing. Or presenting carbon tax schemes that have even less scientific backing. There is currently much uncertainty in how big of a component man-made global warming is and climate models thus far have been poor predictors.
Whatever the scientific consensus is on global warming (as if there is such a thing), there is relatively little science to suggest the best solution. Do nothing and put efforts towards mitigation when problems occur? Drastic forced reductions in carbon output? Defer to the next generation when economic costs of dealing with the issue (and therefore impact on humanity) will be far less? Launch a configurable "umbrella" into space to reduce solar warming (which is perfectly feasible by the way)? Something else?
Totally agree, we can never resolve things just by talking about how those or these right or wrong at times, it should be a real debate
test
edit:
Now, this for example is wrong. There is not much uncertainty about man made part in the change. The really really careful ones say 70%, others say 100%. But if we - as humanity - don't change our behavior, that just means that the earth takes a bit longer (or not) before the climate change has really serious results.
And climate models have been quite good predictors. In fact the real curve is very close to the "most likely prediction" ones.
But yes, of course, you can find extremely diverging models, because they all use different estimates.
There is no perfect model that could predict Trumps win in the US elections in the year 2000 - but that will still be a big influence in global climate. Here again: The models based on "we don't do as the scientist say and make only small efforts" is quite matching with real earth results.
test 2 (sorry, stragne things happening here)
Now, this for example is wrong. There is not much uncertainty about man made part in the change. The really really careful ones say 70%, others say 100%. But if we - as humanity - don't change our behavior, that just means that the earth takes a bit longer (or not) before the climate change has really serious results.
And climate models have been quite good predictors. In fact the real curve is very close to the "most likely prediction" ones.
But yes, of course, you can find extremely diverging models, because they all use different estimates.
There is no perfect model that could predict Trumps win in the US elections in the year 2000 - but that will still be a big influence in global climate. Here again: The models based on "we don't do as the scientist say and make only small efforts" is quite matching with real earth results.