Time Magazine: As Climate Summit Nears, Skeptics Gain Traction

[kgrandia]

When "Climategate" broke on Nov. 20, with hackers stealing and subsequently releasing more than a thousand apparently dubious e-mails by renowned climate scientists, the timing couldn't have been more inconvenient for advocates of action on climate change. The major U.N. global-warming summit in Copenhagen was just a few weeks away, and the U.S. Senate was starting work on a bill that would cap U.S. carbon emissions. It was the eve of a month in which crucial decisions could be made in the global effort to curb climate change before its effects become truly dangerous.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070,00.html#ixzz0YauWnRPB

[jimlup]

1. I refuse to call it "climategate"

I'd accept "emailgate", "hackergate" or some other label but any source that uses the term "climategate" is doing the denialist's bidding

[bhikkhu]

6. How long before no one cares at all?

I think Tiger Woods already bumped it off the main page everywhere.

[WCGreen]

2. Why would apparently dubious EMails give skeptics traction...

Oh yea, the press, ya, they have to have two sides of an issue no matter now shaky or "dubious".

[unabelladonna]

3. i'm one of those skeptics

i have doubts about the average temperature of the earth rising, however even if i was absolutely sure, i believe it is cyclical and human beings can't do anything about it. rather than spend billions to combat something which is IMO we can't control, money should be spent on more immediate problems. just my 2 cents.

[StClone]

5. You're not a Skeptic

You are just not rational.

You drive a modern a car? Use a computer? Do you know where they came from? Technology from the same Science you can't believe makes deductions about a Climate. Now why don't you stop using that cell phone, toss out that modern medicine and I'll forget you ever made this post.

[hatrack]

7. Then why are you posting here? Obviously, you've no need of our input or links . . .

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

8. Did you know CO2 absorbs IR light, and that we release about 30 billion tonnes of it yearly?

If you accept that CO2 absorbs IR light (unlike nitrogen or oxygen), then you must accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Given that we release about 30 billion tones of it a year, then you must accept that we are increasing our greenhouse gas CO2 every year.

So it is not "cyclical," I'm afraid. The evidence is to the contrary.

[NecklyTyler]

9. .

[izquierdista]

4. I don't think that word means what TIME thinks it means

A 'skeptic' is one who follows the maxim "incredible claims require incredible proof". Someone who digs up bullshit to cover over credible data is not a skeptic. The correct scientific term for this type of person is "dungflinger".