Humans generally think and react based on the more primitive but dominant emotional sectors of the brain. An example is how fear and greed drive stock trading.

When applied to CO2-based global warming, many people emotionally want CO2 to be the cause of global warming because this conforms with their belief that the human species should conserve resources, stop the spread of urban sprawl, discourage private autos and encourage public transit.

Thus, it is quite possible that climate science has been “directed” towards CO2 as the main cause because of the strong, emotive desire for it to be so by those who awarded grants and performed peer reviews.

Some of the “pre-frontal cortex” facts are:

1) CO2 is a rare element in the atmosphere comprising only 3.8 out of very 10,000 molecules of the atmosphere.

2) The “greenhouse gas” physical properties of CO2 by themselves cannot cause runaway, devastating global warming. Rather the climate models must incorporate “positive feedbacks”, by CO2 drives increased humidity and cloud cover which ultimately drive the runaway AGW. These positive feedbacks are controversial in the scientific community, are not fully understood and may be offset by negative feedbacks that also are not well understood.

Other variables might that play a greater role in climate change than peer reviewed and accepted studies to date have allowed to be determined.

An example is Urban Heat Island effects – Dense urban areas are much hotter than rural areas. This can have two effects on climate science. First, increased global urbanization will play a direct role in global warming from heat radiated off of buildings, asphalt, lack of vegatation, etc. Secondly, many of the land based temperature gages that originally were in rural locations just outside of the urban heat islands, now are located within them because of expanding urbanization. Thus they give false readings of increased temperatures unless they are adjusted and the adjustments are subject to scientific judgment and manipulation.

There would be cognitive dissonance if a scientific study were to conclude that urban areas are a significant contributor to global warming because a basic desire of most environmentalists and urban planners is to promote dense urban development.

Other variables that may have been under researched/emphasized are solar radiation cycles, solar wind, global land use patterns e.g. forests converted to agriculture, ocean cycles, etc.

Also, many skeptics believe that the consequences of global warming have been portrayed only in the negative. What is not revealed they feel is the increases in food production, the ability for man and animals to adapt and migrate as temperatures slowly change.

So, all we ask is that you look at climate change with an objective eye and reach your own conclusions after reviewing both sides of the issue rather than accepting the conventional wisdom of a science that potentially has been corrupted by well meaning but nevertheless scientifically dishonest individuals.

I would encourage you to at least read the article by Professor Lindzen from MIT. He is a distinguished professor whose comments you will be more likely to accept than those of bloggers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

@mknowles: Climategate’s ideas are alive and well. He should not “go away”. Rather you should open your mind to take in what he has presented and then rebut if you have facts to the contrary. To say “go away” simply implies that your head hurts because Climategate has presented you with a fact that runs contrary to your strongly head belief system and that you cannot rebut.

You obviously think you can make your point by name calling and ad hominem assertions. It only shows how desperate you are.

rc

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

Please read the emails (even a second grader can see what the “scientist” were doing)

And please use your prefrontal cortex (not the primitive parts of your brain as Amygdala that is responsible for instinctual emotions [also when it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression]

Think about it (with prefrontal cortex please):

Lets assume that there is global warming and it is secondary to industrial carbon dioxide emissions (this is what after wasting billions of taxpayer money these “scientists”, “alarmists”, and the liberal politicians are telling us).

~186 billion tons of CO2 enters earth’s atmosphere each year from three main sources:

~90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans

~90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants

~6 billion tons are from industrial carbon dioxide emissions

Even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting or completely eliminating industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have no effect on global climate.

It just does not make any sense what the liberals are forcing on us; therefore, there are other reasons motivating these progressive liberals: use it as an excuse to expand government, use it as an instrument of social and cultural change, use it as an instrument of wealth redistribution and to raise taxes, use it as an instrument to control the economy through the manipulation and interference in the free markets, use it as an excuse to participate in international organizations that usurp American sovereignty, use it as an excuse to undermine the inherent freedoms of individual citizens, use it as an excuse to to impact every facet of American life, and simple greed and money.

(And if you disagree with them, the liberals will attack you, label you as a denier and enemy of the planet or an enemy of the people or a racist.)

As a rule of thumb, start with follow the money.

Climategate: Follow the Money
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

When climate history is rewritten and scientists cannot find out why, there are credibility problems.
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif

When raw data is “lost” there are credibility problems.
Climate change data dumped
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

When scientists intentionally withhold information from the public, there are credibility problems.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

You apparently think some youtube clip where other “climate sceptics” claim something, other unproven unspecific claims and quotes, often w/o even any sources, strawman arguments with regards to climate science, or claiming a number of scientists has a certain opinion constituts evidence for your believe that I had (apparently correctly) summarized, about the alleged vast climate conspiracy. This is this game where the unproven assertions by one “climate sceptic” are being quoted and serve as “evidence” for the assertions of the next “climate sceptic”.

rc

Re: ”I call these kind of unproven accusation made by you and your likes plainly and simply libel.”

I do not want to spam Barry’s blog with multiple pages of evidence.

I have posted some of the evidence in response to Winston Munn drinking “peer-reviewed” Cool Aid.

Please read all my responses and read the articles (click on the links).
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/food-stamps-at-record-highs/#comments

“From what I have read, I do not think it is bogus. Further it appears that public opinion is moving in that direction. Their is a lot of distrust of the science and politics behind global warming.”

Public opinion has never been a good criteria for truth. So what is this supposed to prove?

There are plenty of data available even in the public domain, raw data, processed data, also the code with which they have been processed. The code of climate models is available. Not all data are public, though. Usually it has to do with some commercial interests or policies of institutions by which scientist are bound, but usually not invented by the scientists. This doesn’t even mean that other scientists won’t get access to the data, if they request it. Not saying that everything was perfect.

“But the data and the models have not been transparent to all scientists and suspicion is the result.”

And how much of these suspicions are based on rumors and mis-representation by the so-called “climate sceptics”? Please could you make this accusation specific? Who has really been prevented from independently test the results from what significant climate study by denying scientists access to data, code and by not publishing the methodology of the research?

I rather suspect it never will be satisfying for many of the “climate sceptics”. Even if every data set was publicly available, they just would keep moving the goalpost.

rc