BS: Climate change: Not??

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:14 PM

"A conclusion is the place you go when you are tired of thinking".

"Many of the things you can count don't count. Many of the things you can't count really count."- Albert Einstein

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde

If everything else fails through denial, try eliminating climate change by chanting the verse below:
"Heinasirkka, Heinasirkka, menetaala hiiteen." ("Grasshopper, Grasshopper, go to Hell!") - St Urho (who drove the grasshoppers out of Finland by chanting this phrase)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:29 PM

Nestled? Like Mel Gibson's version? No thanks...

And... at my age, I think "short-term".

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:18 PM

There's no profit in reversing climate decline in the short term. Just long term survival, and what good is that? We'll all be in heaven by the time that becomes an issue, nestled up with Jesus and out of range.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:12 PM

sadly, that is probably true....

Let's save 'em anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:12 PM

But not the kind of lives that the neo-Nazis would want to be saved, perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:09 PM

Here's an example of why we should pursue certain paths no matter what the final details on warming are!

"Cutting greenhouse pollutants could directly save millions of lives worldwide"

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM

I doubt if you'll really welcome them on your side, Doug, but the neo Nazi BNP in nBritain are very much in the Climate Change Denial camp. Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:50 PM

Greggie Boy, I thought you knew that one of the pleasures of my life is providing that brings you joy!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM

The disgraceful efforts of deceit...

Douggie-Boy! You're speaking out against deceit! Congratulations!

I await your indictments of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the BuShite 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' fairytale, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, the Swift Boat gang, the BuShite policy of supressing scientific data that didn't fit their political agenda, etc., etc., etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:47 AM

Aliens discuss the climate crisis

a

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:24 AM

True -- And 100

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:51 AM

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

And there is money in being allowed to pollute the air, water and soil. It's a dirty bird that beshits its own nest.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:52 PM

Good question MG.

I will take a stab at the answer.
Controlling the causes of climate change will require government action, and "conservatives" hate that. What we call "conservative" in the US is really "defenders of bu$ine$$". Because we have a fossil fuel economy, there is a lot of money in the fossil fuel industries. These industries, knowing the truth in their heart of hearts (yes, I know some will say they do not have hearts), have decided that it is good business to wring the last drops out of fossil fuels rahter than invest in a transition to an economy based on some other energy source. This is very short sighted. they are maximizing their own lifestyle, by borrowing against the lifestyle of coming generations, but there it is. So, to facilitate this clinging to the old economy, they have hugely bought-off politicians - mostly "conservatives" - who now are monstrously beholden to the fossil fuel industry, so they MUST deny any science that might jeopardize their political lifeline.
Now comes the tricky part.... People who are not wealthy, and can expect no payday from the fossil fuel industry have been taught to listen to the spokespeople for the politicians who have been bought-off by fossil fuels. So, the fabulously wealthy gas bags repeat the talking points that are fed to the bought politicians by the wealthy but dying fossil fuel industry, and because they tie "freedom from government" to other hot button, but completely unrelated, issues like "God, Guns, Gays, Libruls, and the Cultural Elite", people who have absolutely zero stake in fossil fuels are compelled to go along. And they find huge validation on "conservative" blogs and "conservative" radio, etc. All the time not realizing what total pawns they are and how thoroughly they are jeopardizing their own futures, while making people (who do not care one flippin' shit for them) tremendously wealthy.

It is no coincidence that the American Enterprise Institute has been offering a $10,000 reward to any scientist who will publish a paper that disputes the concensus. No shit. They really do. Look it up. Don't believe me. Then look up who funds that Institute.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM

Why is there this link between being right-wing and being hostile to the notion that we might be damaging the planet we live on, by our activities? If anything, people who hold to genuine conservative principles would be in the fore when it came to trying to stop doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:31 PM

The University of East Anglia is not exactly the cutting edge of world science. *grin*

SPPI ...EXXON!
You will see that there are many links between the sites and groups trying to discredit the research that is telling us of global warming. Lobbyists, 'institutes' with professional sound names that are just a front for propaganda, economists pretending to be scientists...etc.

If enough money is involved, they will tell you anything.....just like the health care lies being put out by conservatives with $$$$$ at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM

Ah yes.
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
Degree in journalism from Cardiff.
Economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher.
Absolutely zero training in science.
One article published in a non-peer-reviewed science newsletter "Physics and Society".
One hundred and twenty five demonstrable, indisputable errors, detailed here.
That Monckton.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM

Folks, please go back to the site I linked to and download the pdf file as suggested.

It is written by Lord Moncton, who was invited to testify at Congressional hearings on Global Warming, but was banned by Congressional idiot Waxman because Moncton was likely to say things that the usual supects did not want to hear. No science and no freedom of speech wanted, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:35 PM

TIA

It is not fair in the slightest to show entire emails or to quote actual facts. It ruins one's ability to cherry pick, misquote, falsly attribute, take out of context and invent inconveinient facts that support the corporate status quo.

If you were Sarah Palin, you should be ashamed.

Now stop it before you ruin someone's faith in God or creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:39 PM

I'd have thought Exxon were sharper than that!

"...to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world's wealthier nations for its own enrichment..."

Pot Kettle Black

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:30 PM

Here is some real world.
The SPPI (PDQ's link above) is the latest incarnation of a group funded by......


wait for it......



EXXON!


The founder, Robert Ferguson, has been chief of staff for a string of republican congressmen. He has been a featured speaker for events sponsored by (among others) the West Virginia Coal Association, and the Heartland Institute (themselves funded by Phillip Morris). He has degrees in history and legislative affairs.


EdT is not the naive one.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:01 PM

Ed T,

Your idealism is admirable, but not justified by the happenings in the real eorld.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:00 PM

pdq I don't know whether to laugh or cry looking at that website...

I consider myself open minded, willing to be persuaded either way, so how does limiting carbon emissions "bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide" I wonder?

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:52 PM

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itse"

Exactly. The research and monitoring is done by thousands of scientists....such as atmospheric, oceanographers (chemical, physical and biological) , marine geologists, biological and ecosystem scientists, climatologists, meteriologists, from many world nations. These very specialized scientists....from countries like USA, Canada, UK, Japan Germany, China, France, Russia, Scandanavia... ( yada, yada), all contribute knowledge and play a part in analysizing data and putting reports together on the many related topics. They sit on the many IPCC committees. That is exactly why it is difficult for any few scientists to fake any of the projections and advice. Scientists do not make decisions....they use knowledge to model and provide advice on possible results and theories from particular scenarios.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:38 PM

>>>How can one tell if those evidence and math DO so indicate, if the data and the analysis of the data are not presented in an honest manner? The ends do not justify the means, no matter how well intentioned the prevaricator may be.<<<<<

There is no doubt whatsoever that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
There is no doubt whatsoever that we are releasing an unprecedented amount of CO2 into the atmosphere
There is no doubt whatsoever that Methane is 23 times as bad as CO2 and factory farming and the existing millions of beef and milk cattle are releasing that gas into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.
There is no doubt that rain forests, ocean biomass and other moderators of the Earth's climate are being destroyed by human actions.
There is strong evidence that the Sahara was once a forest, a forest destroyed by agriculture and wood consumption. Look at the Sahara on a map. See how big it is.

Human actions are certainly heating the planet. If there are cooling trends they are in spite of that. Here is an analogy. There is a fire in the room and the air conditioner is working harder and harder. Eventually it with break and that is what some scientists call the "tipping point." Perhaps billions of tons of methane released when the permafrost becomes millions of square miles of rotting, methane producing bog. God help us then.

There is no doubt that some scientists have fudged some data points to gain people's attention. I think that is misguided. Anyone who does not see the reality of what we are doing to this planet does not want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:04 PM

Well, the head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones has resigned under pressure.

Some people are asking for crimnal investigations because use of public money in perpetuation of this organized fraud.                                                   

                     
                                                    get pdf file of report here

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:24 PM

I've never picked blackberries in my garden in late November before.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:15 PM

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol..."

~ Wikipoopoo

{IPCC is part of the United Nations and says just what its bosses want}

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:28 AM

A review of climate change in Antarctica forecasts that by 2100 the world's seas will have risen to levels previously considered too extreme to be realistic.

The review, Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (PDF), was compiled by 100 scientists associated with the international Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Using 20 of the most up-to-date models that take into account the complex behaviour of the ozone hole over Antarctica, as well as the most recent observations of ice loss, the review predicts that the area of sea ice around Antarctica could shrink by 33 per cent – 2.6 million square kilometres – by 2100, leading to a sea-level rise of 1.4 metres.

"This is the first comprehensive review of Antarctic climate change that covers how the climate of the icy continent has changed from deep time," says John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, lead editor of the report. The report also makes predictions about how the Antarctic climate will change over the next century.

For the past 30 years, the hole in the atmosphere's ozone layer above Antarctica has protected the bulk of the continent from the effects of climate change by generating fierce winds. In that time, sea ice around the continent has increased by 10 per cent.

The new report warns that when the ozone hole heals – and it will, possibly by the end of the century – Antarctica will feel the full force of global warming, with temperatures rising by as much as 3 °C by 2100.
From sea ice to sea

The report backs the predictions of Stefan Rahmstorf at Potsdam University, Germany, whose own work suggests that given the speed at which West Antarctica's ice sheets are shrinking, sea levels are likely to rise by 1.4 metres by 2100. In contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment, published in 2007, predicted 59 centimetres.

"I am not the one to judge my own paper, but there is indeed [some] indication that these higher numbers – not only from my study, by the way – are now the new mainstream," says Rahmstorf.

The IPCC's sea-level rise projections are considered to be conservative, as they don't take into account the fact that Antarctica's loss of ice will accelerate as temperatures rise over the continent.

By 2100, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone could lose enough ice mass to raise sea levels globally by "tens of centimetres," Turner says.

Despite the transformations climate change will create on Antarctica, the study concludes on an upbeat note: only a few of the continent's species are likely to become extinct by 2100. (NEw Scientist)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:08 AM

Have you read Al Franken's book, "Lies and the lying liars who tell them"?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:10 AM

I believe everything industry funded scientists and science say. They have our interests at heart...not short term profits.

They were right when they said pesticides and cigarette smoke were good for us, acause had good (selective) science to prove it. They were right that air pollution had no impact on environmental health, and acid rain posed no risk for the environment (like Atlantic salmon....that cannot reproduce in some acidic streams anymore).

Auto industry scientists were right to withold information on auto and tire safety information from us....we don't need this type of information, as it just stresses us. They were also right that we should not worry about any food additives or fats they offer to usd each day.

Long live vested interest and industry science....and their paid agents.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 07:59 AM

It's December 1st and our Lilacs are budding!

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:36 AM

In Alaska we are in no doubt about the warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: fumblefingers
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 11:00 PM

I believe everything the government says. If my energy prices double, the government will save the polar bears and the glaciers and the spotted owls and CO2 levels will return to whatever they were before man discovered CO2. The temperature was 65°F today, but just as I was going to blame it on global warming, the weatherman says it will snow tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 10:44 PM

I have had Red Hot Pokers (South African flower) in my yard for 20 years. When planted, they bloomed in July and August. Now they bloom in May. They are clearly part of the conspiracy.

When I was in school, the robins disappeared in mid-fall, and we all awaited the first sighting in March or April as a harbinger of the coming spring. Now we have flocks of them all year round. Part of the conspiracy for sure.

I have been visiting the same tropical island for two weeks every March for the last 25 years. I have photo-documented the expanding bleaching of specific coral heads. Fooking conspirators!

I have photos of specific glaciers in the Alps that have retreated to a ghost of their former selves - in my lifetime. They are clearly in on the conspiracy as well.

But, my anecdotes are not scientific evidence. And neither are the rantings of the politically-motivated naysayers who do not begin to even try to understand the science. Blindly parroting demagogues is all that is within their intellectual range.

Don't believe Al Gore. Don't believe Rush Limbaugh....or Huffington, or Hannity, or even TIA. Just please make even a feeble attempt to understand the science before flapping your yap with political/big money talking points.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:43 PM

Doug, my friend, go back and read my post about what I have seen with my own eyes and comment please. Forget what anyone you dont know has written, just respond to what I said. Ok?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:52 PM

I suppose you should have used an Ironic type face, TIA. You've got to remember this is a transnational forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:39 PM

Reality is almost every government organization, political group and private business does its best to control what the media says about them,their orginazation and product....they even hire specialists to train and control their staff to do so....practice what they say to the media with PR specialists, and agressively monitor every media outlet. So, should it be any surprise that scientists are concerned about what is said about them and their advice? Organizations even hand pick reporters and columinists to break their news...to give them an advantage...or to ensure their spin is captured. Even environmental, and non profit groups do what ever they can afford to spin their message to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:36 PM

TIA--I didn't mean to spoil your fun...... but.......

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:26 PM

Just thought I'd post this, because it was just said on the news. Myself, personally I don't give a darn, though I do have my suspicions...
On the news they've said that there were over a thousand E-mails that were found, and some of them are pretty clear, as to what they're about. one of the ones that they read, indicated 'being able to control the media on this..."blah blah blah.",,referring to releasing numbers they apparently knew 'had been adjusted'..or something like that. I wasn't paying as much as attention as I could have been, but I did hear that, and when I came one here, I saw this was at the top of the thread, so I thought I'd pass that on.

Whether its real or not(the e-mails) isn't what I'm wondering...Actually I'm sorta wondering, "Hey, what about those hackers??"....I'm a thinkin', isn't that illegal? I mean, it is like wiretapping...or recording a phone call, without the other party knowing. Has anyone heard anything, about the hackers?

(maybe they thought, they were 'entitled' to a law to break for free, like the difference between an immigrant, and an illegal alien, who knows?) Nonetheless, I think that something should surface about that.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:09 PM

BillD:
Sssshhhh!




Of course it is tongue in cheek.
I wanted to see who might believe it.



But now that the game is up... This bit describes exactly what would have to be involved in a global scientifc conspiracy to fake global climate change.
But those who deny it because of their politics will never see that.
Shame on them for putting politics above the health and well being (perhaps even survival) of their progeny.
Even if they do not "believe in" climate change, they clearly have certainly never encountered the Precautionary Principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:36 PM

What we have here are stolen emails from very few scientists that could clearly be taken out of context by a vested interest. You could likely select a few past emails posted on Mudcat, and, taken out of context, make a good case that all mudcatters are really bad people....but that would not be logical. See the parallell?

There are thousands of scientists (many, but not all, are government scientists) from mant diciplines and countries who are participating in climate studies. Government scientists by nature are cautious people. Scientists by nature question each others work. In the worst case scenario, iIt's hard to comprehend that so many bright people could be duped by a few scientists, as proposed by some....and even some columnists, who already come from a particular position on climate change?

Now to common sense.   We know that climate is changing and has done so since the beginning. It's n o secret that humans are increasingly putting more carbon in the atmosphere. It is logical to say this has no impact. What impact is the question. That is what thousands of global scientists are working together to determine. There is good reason to question all scientific theories. Jumping the gun and negating all the good work done by these scientist throug the past few years...because of a few sketchy emails by a very few scientists does not make any sense at all. Current climate experiences may only be an anomoly....but could be a warning signal we would be wise to heed and investigate. We do the same with other aspects of our lives...now don't we.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:18 PM

TIA...I DO hope you are posting that tongue-in-cheek....

That is the silliest bunch of crap I ever hope to read! No one in their right mind would believe that an 'email' would be that stupidly phrased.

(The fake Hitler diaries and the fake Howard Hughes diaries of a few years ago were at least cleverly done.)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:18 PM

Gee Doug... first you exaggerate what the 'Myth' is, then you base an opinion on your own mis-represented take on it, then you quote the Wall Street Journal, which is now controlled by the far right wing likes of Rupert Murdoch, then you simply dismiss Huffington, which is FAR more credible than Rush will ever be.

Seems like you just simply don't want to hear anything that contradicts what you wish to believe.

Those purported emails...*IF* they are real, do NOT represent any large number of serious scientists.

The truth IS the truth IS the truth, and most serious science is only concerned with getting the truth, and we shall see whether their current evaluations are correct,hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:18 PM

This is a ridiculously long cut and paster (I'm really sorry), but I cannot find a link to this email to clickify. This is the most damning of the purloined emails, as it reveals the true scope of the conspiracy.

snip****************

From: [e-mail]
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?

Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel,
University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden
Temple of the Knights Carbonic

snip****************




by George Monbiot (in The Guardian perhaps?)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:01 PM

I think that it is interesting that those who are wedded to the "Myth" that population caused global warming, which if not stopped will destroy the earth, give no credence at all to the emails recently leaked to the press. Instead, leaders of nations world-wide will be meeting in Copenhagen next month to try to piece together a treaty that will be based on bogus science. Obama will be leading the pack.

The disgraceful efforts of deceit written by the scientists who these folks relied on to provide accurate information are not recognized by the "true believers" and I suppose they never will.

Today's edition of the Wall Street Journal contains two articles of recognized experts in the "Opinions" section that these "true believers" should read. I doubt many will though. No likes to see their parade rained on.

And the Huffington Blog? It has about as much credibility as most of you would give to Rush Limbaugh.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 09:09 AM

Yes, it's past time to do something about our contributions to the filth in the air, but we have to get around those who make huge profits by polluting the air.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:39 AM

Another interesting perspective:
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 06:03 AM

Ok, forget Polar Bears and glaciers. I have never seen either of these things so cant know first hand if they are being harmed by global warming or not.
What I do know is;
When I was a boy we had temperatures as low as 50 below zero where I lived. Snow up to the telephone wires causing us to be snow bound for two weeks.
The coldest I've seen it here lately is around 0 to a few degerees below, and it is now the last day of November and we have NO snow at all.
Furthermore, it is within the last 10 years or so that I have seen, with my own eyes, southern wildlife. Cardinals and Possums, unheard of just a few years ago.
Look at any smoke stack, exhaust from a big truck or bus and realize that we are pumping filth into the air by the billions of tons each year. Look at the history of volcanos. In the past they have caused nuclear winters because their emmissions have blocked out the sun's heat.
Climate change is a natural thing, but we are speeding it up with our "contributions" that are bringing it about.
How anyone with eyes that are connected to a brain can fail to see this is a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 02:36 PM

There is no secret that just like inventors, scientists compete with each other, and some agressively so. There is also no secret that their is a political heirachy in science. Those who operate on the outside, and those with minority theories or positions are treated with contempt from inside, also no great revalation there.

Additionally, it is known that vested commercial interests will agressively attempt to discredit anything or anyone that impacts them or their ventures and investments negatively.

Data analysis techniques is quite complex in science....as is the terminology scientists use. ...as with many other speciality professions. Does it not seem reasonable to question those who stole the e-mails....as to who they represent...Is it illogical to suspect it may be vested interests?

If you were a vested interest, in possession with vast #s of private emails....is it illogical to question whether some e-mails selected to be made public were selective, possibly taken out of context or chosen to reflect something not intended....given the differences in language used by the science community.

Is it wise to jump the gun...or to wait for a response? I suspect the scientists who are targeted must read the entire material themselves before recalling the context of a particular e-mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 02:10 PM

From:
Huffington Post    ( Katherine Goldstein/Craig Kanalley)



"One reputable group of scientists, Real Climate, has posted a response on its blog to the allegations about what information is actually contained in the hacked emails:

    More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Despite the lack of evidence of some sort of conspiracy in the scientific community, this criminal activity has created fodder for right-wing groups and websites to promote their own agenda that global warming is not real. This comes at a time when international attention is more and more focused on the climate crisis in advance of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/global-warming-emails-hac_

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:28 PM

Thanks, Pete, for the blue clicky. Yes, that is the article, however pdq's last posted message is more complete than even the WSJ editorial.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 01:04 PM

Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

Posted on 11/20/2009

   Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt's Up With That):

   The internet is on fire this morning with confirmation computers at one of the world's leading climate research centres were hacked, and the information released on the internet.

   A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones.

   In an exclusive interview with Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Jones confirms his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to have come from his organisation.

   "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

   One of the most damning e-mails published comes from Dr. Jones himself. In an e-mail from almost exactly ten years ago, Jones appears to discuss a method of overlaying data of temperature declines with repetitive, false data of higher temperatures:

       From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@ [snipped] Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped] Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

    Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers, Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit

   Jones told Investigate that he couldn't remember the context of "hide the decline," and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead. But when scientists talk about "tricks" in the context of hiding data, it certainly seems suspicious.

   Andrew Bolt points to a couple of other suspicious entries in the database as well for the Herald-Sun. For instance, here we have scientists discussing how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions:

    From: Tom Wigley [...] To: Phil Jones [...] Subject: 1940s Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600 Cc: Ben Santer [...] Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

   Hmmm. Sounds like "hid[ing] the data" once again. And here we have them privately admitting that they can't find the global warming that they've been predicting:

   From: Kevin Trenberth To: Michael Mann Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) ***

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

   Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That's not science; it's religious belief.

   Dr. Jones has confirmed that these e-mails are genuine. Whether the work represented by these scientists is as genuine seems to be under serious question. Tim Blair says, "The fun is officially underway."

   Update: These e-mails may explain this:

   Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

   At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

   Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

    Or maybe it didn't exist at all, except when scientists at Hadley were "hid[ing] the decline[s]."

    Update II: This follows on a more mundane controversy over competence at Hadley that erupted in September:

    A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

    At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 08:29 AM

To me, Gore is more of a "climate change snot"....rather then a climate change masiah.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 03:19 AM

Here is the quote that Burton is referring to:"The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science. They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Backpedaling, and minimizing, you suppose??

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 03:12 AM

I'm very much more in agreement with Tia's view on this, but in the interests of balance I think this is the article DougR is referring to.

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 02:44 AM

Ed T:"Back to reality. Al Gore is a politician turned entertainer... and possibly a standard waver for one aspect of climate change theories ....but is hardly a scientist.
Now back to Science."

Well said, Ed!!!...But isn't that an insult to entertainers??

Pardon me, that's MR.ED!!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 08:47 PM

I thought today's edition of the Wall Street Journal had an excellent editorial on this subject. It's probably available online for anyone interested.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 08:15 PM

I rarely disrespect a "Grammer Girl":http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-data-singular-or-plural.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 07:39 PM

Back to reality. Al Gore is a politician turned entertainer... and possibly a standard waver for one aspect of climate change theories ....but is hardly a scientist.
Now back to Science.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:22 PM

Slightly pedantic grammatical point: I note that Kevin Trenberth wrote "the data are wrong", avoiding the frequently observed solecism of writing "the data is wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: TIA
Date: 28 Nov 09 - 02:10 PM

DougR asks me, so I reply inside his text:

"TIA:Following up on your post listing the complete email from Kevin Trenberth, I quote from the email: "the Ceres data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement in 2008 shows there should be even more warming but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is adequate."

********he says that the data are inadequate, not adequate - big difference in the meaning of the sentence. Must read carefully to understand

"End of story, right? "The data are surely wrong"? Why is it wrong?"

*******because the data do not agree with myrida (yes myriad) other independent indicators that all point to even more warming than CERES. Note that CERES data do not say "no warming". They say there is warming, but not as much as all the other independent indicators. Again, careful reading would bring your apparent understanding is not up to speed.

"Can it be proved it is wrong?"

********yes, see above. CERES is only one of many, many, many independent types of data.

"It seems that even the experts question the data."

********yes, in science, experts must always question the data. But Trenberth is not questioning the fact of global climate change. He is questioning why one particular data set dopes not show as much warming as all the others. Now, this careful and complete reading of his email does not support your political argument against climate change, does it?

***********To prove that your position is sicence-based, you must show that your position is falsifiable. so, what, DougR, piece of information or type of data (even hypothetical) would falsify your position that there is no human induced climate change?

*********If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize, but I do not think I have.

"P. S. Please note: this post contains no personal attacks, no insults."

************neither does this one. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 10:21 PM

"Back in the 50's my wife and I (and perhaps others) were taught at School that another Ice-age was just around the corner."

That's because they only had station wagons and panel trucks in the '50s, and........
....... Allen Gore was just a little snot nosed brat in school, and they all knew better than to take him seriously!

OHHH, You mean THAT Al Gore, yes he even once claimed to have invented the internet! Thank goodness for that bright little whipper snapper!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:25 PM

Ed: I have yet to see a talking chicken or a talking horse. Therefore, I have to assume you are pulling my "thingy."

I LOVE my little SUV!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 05:21 PM

Back in the 50's my wife and I (and perhaps others) were taught at School that another Ice-age was just around the corner.

Could well be true, depending on where you live. A climate change that overall amounted global warming could very likely result in drastic cooling in some places,especially the British Isles, if the Gulf Stream ceases to warm us up. We're on the same latitude as Labrador and Kamchatka...

Labrador

Kamchatka

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:43 PM

Two knocks of the hoof says yes

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:41 PM

Ed, Are you alluding to that your THE 'Mr. Ed'????
Wink

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 03:38 PM

A horse and a chicken are playing in a meadow. The horse falls into a mud hole and is sinking. He calls to the chicken to go and get the farmer to help pull him out to safety. The chicken runs to the farm but the farmer can't be found. So he drives the farmer's Honda CRV back to the mud hole and ties some rope around the bumper. He then throws the other end of the rope to his friend, the horse, and drives the car forward saving him from sinking!

A few days later, the chicken and horse were playing in the meadow again and the chicken fell into the mud hole. The chicken yelled to the horse to go and get some help from the farmer. The horse said, "I think I can stand over the hole!" So he stretched over the width of the hole and said, "Grab for my 'thingy' and pull yourself up." And the chicken did and pulled himself to safety.

The moral of the story:

If you are hung like a horse, you don't need a Honda CRV to pick up chicks.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:56 PM

I sometimes wonder if many of those who deride those who drive SUVS object to their doing so for environmental reasons or they regret that they cannot afford to purchase a SUV.

DougR
(who drives a Honda CRV)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM

...or as long as 'politicians' bullshit us, the more helpless we become, and nothing gets accomplished!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 11:34 AM

From the flooded west of Ireland (3 years running and the worst ever) - it seems from here that the longer people waffle in order to justify driving their SUVs, the deeper the water gets.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 09:13 AM

In fact one theory (I do not believe it is a dominent one) that more carbon in the atmosphere could eventually lead to reduced solar warming (obscuring solar rays) ....leading to a colder....rather than warmer climate...Again....just theories

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Mike of Hessle
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 08:41 AM

Back in the 50's my wife and I (and perhaps others) were taught at School that another Ice-age was just around the corner.

Must be a big corner - or a small Ice-age !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 08:29 AM

The point is the oceans are extremely huge and complex...with many layers, currents and vast differences and changes in temperature. If someone found a new localized hotspot, to me it is totally illogical to leap to conclude that this alone eliminates any human influence in chnages in climate. Does it not seem odd that those who say scientists jump the gun on climate change, do so themselves....if an opportunity presents itself?

There are also many messengers (not refering to any mudcater) who spend alot of time injecting doubt into just about everything in life....often fueled by folks who have little scientific credibility and conduct "internet science" to join unrelated dots together to prove a sketchy theory.

I don't see why it is it important to climate change scientific research (which is important to humankind) whether vested interests call for the return of the $500,000,000 Noble prize award to a rich former USA V President? Anyway, if he lost it (which is unlikely), he likely will eat tomorrow:)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Nov 09 - 01:07 AM

Yes, I know. They have found new life colonies, as this 'hot spot' 1500 miles off South America have warmed up a bit. It has nothing to do with 'carbon emissions', but rather is what they are saying is what is heating up the ocean down there, that has been responsible for 'El Nino'.

By the way, there are outcries pointed at Al Gore, to give back the money,$500,000,000, that he's been given based on his bogus claims, based on his political, not scientific, fraudulent data!

Don't shoot me..I'm just the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 12:28 PM

Heat from internal geological forces (they have always been there) are taken into consideration with the models they use.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 11:49 AM

Yes, but, (and you can look this up), the ocean floor has been heating up, from below. Has nothing to do with the atmosphere, but from the earth's core.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 11:39 AM

The oceans are really huge and deep. They can trap and hold lots of heat and large currents (Global conveyor belt) transfer it from one place to another (for example equator north) to moderate clomate. In addition to capturing solar heat directly, phytoplankton at the surface captures atmospheric carbon.

To get a idea on how much heat and carbon the deep oceans traps and retains (and what is the tipping point) is complex, but important. It is much more complex than estimating the temperature of the ocean surface via sattelites, or merely looking at one place in the ocean.

The oceans are big and deep, covers 70 percent of the world are complex and are expensiveand difficult to study (including getting historic records from the seafloor). There are only a few nations willing and able to contribute scientists, ships and equipment to do far ocean research . That's a challenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Nov 09 - 02:47 AM

It should be noted, that NASA ans NOAA, also dispute the findings, in regards to the studies, suggesting 'climate change due to man made reasons'.

I previously posted, that "I think I should drive my SUV to about 1500 miles west of South America, to the bottom of the ocean, where it is known, that the ocean floor has been warming up"

Of course its warming up because of man made ...umm..whatever. (rolls eyes).

Just more political quackery to further an agenda, that needs for us to believe crap, to get support!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 09:59 PM

Seems like several folks answered Doug R pretty well while I was out..... but to reply to a couple of points specifically:

"...And you believe .... that the scientists that"will 'find' data that prove anything" could not possibly be..." etc...

Doug....you COULD buy 'some' to say anything, but not all of them! The vast majority of those who could claim expertise agree.....without being bought.
You missed my point... vested interest in this lies with those who do not WISH to believe in warming! THEY are the ones who will fund 'studies' that show what they wish...like the tobacco companies used to do. Remember?.."There is no real proof that smoking 'causes' cancer...harrumph! WE have done many studies that show little correlation!" *big grin* It was sorta funny when they traced who paid who for what!

"The cost of making the changes required is entirely too high."

The cost of NOT doing it could be much higher, though measured in different coin.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 09:49 PM

I laid that case a while back, on this forum...of course I was poo-pood. Even claimed it was funded by those who wanted those results!
Also another one that sooner or later will come out, is the studies that link homosexuality to a gene,,,another farce!
And anyone else read my posts(how could you not) about corruption, in these regards?
Another one on the radio today: Health providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, who have a stake in the 'health care bill' lobbying the 'representatives' to influence their vote to pass, for their attached deals to make them a LOT of money!

Also, how can we overlook 'Recovery.org', and their bogus figures, and reporting in jobs created, in Congressional districts...that don"t exist!!!" Obama's administration refuses to correct the numbers!..on this 18 Million, of your dollars website!!!!!!!!!

A 'Change' you can believe in????????????????????????????!!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 07:09 PM

I just don't understand why anyone can suggest that, even if there there did turn out to be natural causes for some degree of global warming, that would in any way reduce the need to do whatever we can to avoid making things worse by adding our own contribution.

Just because there are forest fires caused by lightning strike is not a valid reason to be relaxed about stuff like dropping lighted cigarette ends in forest areas, or pouring petrol on the flames.
....................................

So far as those hacked emails go - don't all musicians use the way "trick" in just the same way, not to refer to a way of deceiving people, but rather as a term for a smart or elegant technique we have picked up or invented? That's the same way scientists are liable to use the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 05:59 PM

Sorry about the "purple handle", B obbit. Hope it gets better.
But, that's local weather....and maybe age....not changing climate:)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 05:29 PM

Sheet fire...

Cold as a pump handle last night here in Carolina...

If these tree huggin,' commie, so-called scientists had been in Carolina last night they would be singin' a different tune...

Global warmin', my butt...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 05:05 PM

Most respected scientists would never state that climate is totally caused by the effects of human habitation or even that humanity is the main contributer. Natural forces are what causes climate change, always has and always will. That being said we must remember the story about the straw that broke the camel's back. Our contribution is skewing natural cycles and therein lies the danger of tipping the balance beyond the brink. If there is a lie in all of this it is the belief that climate change is reversible by simply cutting down carbon emissions. We must do all that we can of course, to clean our planet, but the solutions may be far beyond our means or ability. That means that what we must do as past generations and adapt to a changing world. Mankind is nomadic by nature and forced movement from rising seas, flood-planes, glaciers, droughts, etc. has allowed us to survive as a species for eons. Problem is that there are too damn many of us and we are too fixed in place by infrastructure and national borders!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 04:21 PM

TIA:Following up on your post listing the complete email from Kevin Trenberth, I quote from the email: "the Ceres data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement in 2008 shows there should be even more warming but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is adequate."

End of story, right? "The data are surely wrong"? Why is it wrong? Can it be proved it is wrong?

It seems that even the experts question the data.

DougR

P. S. Please note: this post contains no personal attacks, no insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 04:07 PM

There are two causes of climate change.
One is well-known: the variations that have been going on throughout earth history.
The last ice age was about 11,000 years ago, but there are lesser fluctuations; e. g. the dry, warm period of about AD 1100, when peoples in the southwest had to leave their lands and move to places where there were better water conditions.
The melting ice caps and the increasing water temperatures which are killing large areas of reef life are another result.
A current equivalent is taking place in the highlands of central Africa, where the famed snows of Kilamanjaro and sources of water are disappearing, with severe drougth and heat killing crops and cattle, displacing many thousands in Ethiopia, Kenya and contiguous areas.

The second factor, man-made, is contributory and is becoming increasingly serious. According to some scientists, the effects began with the industrial revolution.
The best evidence for this are the analyses of ice cores taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.
The ice core analyses clearly show the increase in greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals since the industrial revolution, and the almost exponential increase in the last 100 years.

The man-made effects may be lessened by 'green' practices such as reduction of greenhouse gases and stopping destruction of forests. The natural cycles also must be planned for; rising sea levels as a result of ice cap melting causes coastal peoples to move to higher, often less productive ground, fishing and agricultural practices must change, etc., etc.
An entire nation, the Maldives, will disappear beneath the sea if sea levels continue to rise.

In other words, planning and action is called for regardless of the causes of climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:41 PM

Climate is always changing, it's hard to refute on any side of the issue.

All the (undisputed) extra human released carbon in the atmosphere has to have some impact. What will be that impact be, is something more complex to accurately predict. Atmospheric, land and ocean processes that determine climates around the world are complex. There are many theories what result one could expect...made more complex because we have never been at this point before. Warming, cooling, extreme storms, local differences are all cards in the deck of many wild cards.

I also suspect potential changes and impact could differ, depending where you live. Remember, longer term climate change amd short term-local weather are different matters.

Who has a better chance at predicting a possible outcome? I'd put my money on international, peer reviewed scinece versus industry funded and often non peer reviewed science. Though, the latter always has a place to play....(just as stopped watches are right twice per day).

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:19 PM

Since Doug is getting little selective snippets from FOX or NewsBusters or whoever, here is the full email that he quoted above (the author is Kevin Trenberth of NCAR):

------------------------
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin
----------------------------------------

If you don't get it, the first bit is tongue in cheek - making fun of exactly the people who confuse climate with weather. Then it gets serious. But cleverly edited, it sure is damning isn't? This is why the full emails are online (see my link above) - so people with half a brain can do their own fact checking. But a lot of people won't want to be bothered with fact checking. The snippets fit their politics much better than the full quotes with context references, and links.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:02 PM

It is more than climate change. It is global warming. There are industry paid hacks who refute what most reputable scientists have warned us about.

The majority of scientists are of one mind on this subject. You will always find someone to
refute them for ideological reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 03:01 PM

So saith many people with tremendous expertise in this field and no political axe to grind. Forget Al Gore - he is not a scientist. Now, follow the money. Is there more money behind the research scientists (who are usually way under-funded by government grants) or the spokespeople for the fossil fuels industry?

What on earth is the possible motivation for the huge, global, cross-cultural scientific conspiracy that you deniers are proposing?

Guest_racer nails it above:
"We are burning millions of years of stored energy from the sun in a span of about 200 years"
How can that not have a huge effect?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,racer
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:55 PM

It doesn't make sense to wait for proof that this isn't just a temporary warming period. The only proof of that will come when the temperature starts going down again; which will surely happen, but we might be gone by then.

The scientists might watching closely (and studying) because they cannot believe that we have done this so quickly.

I actually had to research this very thing in college. The most compelling eveidence that I saw was several graphs that represented several different models of the prospective (the graphs were generated about 20 yrs ago) temperature changes. I don't remember what all of the models represented, but one was humanity's contribution (characterized by relatively rapid upward shift in temperature), and one was a combination of all the sources (which obviously had the same rapid shift). Then over the proceding several years after that, they tracked the actual changes and compared them to the models. The actual changes followed the model that included our contribution to global warming a lot more closely that I would have thought possible.

I have met many people that believe global warming is a hoax, and none the people that I have asked about this base their opinion on research. When presented with the choice between research and "I believe what I believe and I believe what's true", I will go with the research.

We are burning millions of years of stored energy from the sun in a span of about 200 years, and it's still not enough. We are also splitting atoms to run our steam plants (which produce ~60% waste heat) The only way heat leaves this planet is through radiation (convection and conduction require a medium). The planet is getting warmer because the heat input is greater than the heat output. If it wasn't the greenhouse effect, it would be something else.

---

Record setting highs and lows are symptoms of a dynamic system that is being hit with something overwhelming enough to disturb the equilibrium.

Example: If I blow on a spinning top, it will dance back and forth spiral around a bit, but as long as I keep blowing on it, the overall trend will be to move in the direction that I am blowing; it will do so very erratically though.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:48 PM

So saith, TLA. End of conversation eh?

One of the emails intercepted read, "We cannot account for the lack of warming at the present time, and it's a travesty." Gives you a lot of confidence in the "science" behind the predictions, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:44 PM

Oh--one of those 'the debate is over' statements. It seems to me I heard that from a politician with self interests in promoting man-made global warming. It's all polemical at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:32 PM

"If, on the other hand, a scientist or a group of scientists prevent irrefutable evidence that climate change is caused by human habitation..."

They have. The only objections are political, not scientific. It is easy for demagogues to make it look like there is still a debate.

Now go look up the "Precautionary Principle".

There is no longterm downside to reducing greenhouse gas emissions - even if you refuse to understand current climate science. There are potential huge, humanity-threatening downsides to ignoring the warnings of climate science.

Anyone with children or grandchildren should be ashamed of themselves for falling in with the political demagogoues.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 02:06 PM

And you believe (because that evidence appears irrefutable to you, Bill D.) that the scientists that "will 'find' data that prove anything" could not possibly be those who have presented the Al Gore type evidence? Right?

I don't go along with those who believe doing something rather than nothing makes sense. The cost of making the changes required is entirely too high. If, on the other hand, a scientist or a group of scientists prevent irrefutable evidence that climate change is caused by human habitation (and they haven't yet because they are still "studying" the situation)and that the changes required are possible, THEN we should turn our attention to it. IMO too much credence is being paid to evidence that is still suspect to start making those changes now.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 01:14 PM

"How can one tell if those evidence and math DO so indicate, if the data and the analysis of the data are not presented in an honest manner?"

Where is the assumption that any serious amount OF that data is not being presented honestly? Why would anyone think that science, in general, is being dishonest?

There ARE scientists that will 'find' data that prove anything...for the right price... but who is willing to fund lying except those with short-term monetary interest in denial?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Stu
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:50 PM

"Note: if they could accurately forecast the weather six weeks in advance, to say nothing of a hundred years, I think their forecasts of gloom and doom might have more credibility."

Climate changes study is NOT about predicting the weather (that's meteorology), it's about looking at the fossil, historical and extant records to assess the possibility of the planet warming or cooling, which in turn effects the weather.

I don't know much about the first two, but have come across Palaeoecology in my studies and trends and variations leave their mark in the rocks, in mud and ice cores that any number of scientific disciplines examine to recreate the past. Despite this apparent doctoring of the figures there's a huge amount of evidence for global warming and a substantial amount of evidence that it's man-made.

So let's say we invest large amounts of money and time in creating electric cars, exploiting renewable energy, taking our custodianship of the planet seriously and changing the way we live to lessen our impact on the environment, who looses? New technologies and industries will spring up when the old energy order is finally consigned to the slag heap where it's heading anyway. It's win-win; why question the wisdom of doing this as part of our progress as a species?

One more thing. What if the deniers are wrong? Most on this board won't be immediately effected by the consequences, as usual it'll be the poorest and most vulnerable that suffer first. So we can keep our cheapo flights and 4x4s and watch the people of Bangladesh drown and die on the BBC and Fox News. Isn't that worth avoiding at any cost - even being wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:49 PM

When experts disagree, always go with the worst case scenario. For example, imagine you are laying across a railway track. An expert comes along and says, "You're quite safe to stay their mate, there hasn't been a train along here in years". Then, a second expert comes along and says, "You better move. There'll be a train coming along shortly". What would you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:41 PM

"[The]evidence and physics and chemistry and the math involved all indicate that human activity is making things worse, and possibly interfering with those natural cycles."

How can one tell if those evidence and math DO so indicate, if the data and the analysis of the data are not presented in an honest manner? The ends do not justify the means, no matter how well intentioned the prevaricator may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:34 PM

"I believe that ..."

It is important to have a good, solid reason for ANY belief.

I 'believe' because I see the majority of serious, competent scientists asserting that in spite of natural cycles, the evidence and physics and chemistry and the math involved all indicate that human activity is making things worse, and possibly interfering with those natural cycles.
Thus, I assert that it is best to err, if we DO err, on the side of caution.

Some merely 'believe' it's rubbish because they don't like the implications.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 12:33 PM

GUEST TIA: I'm with you! I believe the discovery of the emails written from some scientist researchers to others may be just the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended).

A lot of money rides on the truth, and I fear that it might not be impossible to determine what the "real truth" is. Those who strongly believe in the "favored" findings by many (but certainly not all)researchers appear anxious to squelch any findings that are contrary to the "accepted" ones. Skeptics, like me, are derided even for questioning the dire projections. Note: if they could accurately forecast the weather six weeks in advance, to say nothing of a hundred years, I think their forecasts of gloom and doom might have more credibility.

Congressional investigations are being launched to attempt to get to the bottom of the leaked emails. I say right on!

As others have pointed out, a lot of cost will be required to adhere to the "fixing" of the problems world wide if the "crepe hangers" are correct. However, one should also consider the amount of research dollars being paid to the scientific researchers will lose should they be proven wrong. They DO have a dog in the hunt.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:49 AM

I agree that data manipulation=lying.
Also selective presentation of data=lying.
And, I think it is important to know who is doing these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:38 AM

I have no vested or monetary interest in the theories of man-made global warming. I do believe we may be in a period of global warming, though recent evidence is not clear (except here in Los Angeles). I believe we were in a period of global cooling thirty-five years ago. I believe that climate change is a natural phenomenon which has been going on since the creation of the planet.

While we are always shown the dire result of glacier recession, we are never shown the glacier growth going on behind those same and other glaciers.

Finally, I believe that no matter how well-intended the cause (and I'm not sure man-made global warming hysteria is one of those) it is not honest to manipulate data to make one's hypothesis seem credible. That is called lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:32 AM

George Monbiot wrote about this in yesterday's Guardian. He admitted that it was a blow, but doesn't in any way invaloudate scores of other findings that point only to one thing, global warming with human derived emissions as a major contributor.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:30 AM

Sorry - here is the clicky

searchable archive of the "scandalous" emails

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:29 AM

The global climate change skeptics like to focus on a single piece of information and beat it to death, while ignoring all of the other competing data that create the big picture.

This "scandal" fits the pattern perfectly - focussing on several phrases (out of context byt the way) in 60 Mb worth of emails dating back to 1996.

Some of the emails will be (and should be) embarrasing for the authors (e.g. crass comments following the death of a well-known climate change skeptic), but a few dozen words (among millions) from a single institution (among thousands) simply do not change our understanding of the physics.

The evidence for global climate is overwhelming even if we were to throw away everything coming out of CRU. But instead of throwing it all out, or simply believing the denialist scavengings of the emails, CRU has put them all in a searchable archive, so you can judge for yourself.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

I would love to see the denialists (e.g. Heartland Institute) post all of their internal emails from the last 13 years. Wonder what we could scavenge from those!?!?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:18 AM

Ask the glaciers and Polar bears if the data is faked. IT IS getting warmer.

Even if the data WERE erroneous, doing stuff to guard against warming, like burning fewer fossil fuels, would benefit us!

Most of the denial of warming is perpetrated by those who have a monetary interest in NOT believing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:15 AM

I've been following it... there's quite an uproar over it, as well there should be if differing views have been censured....as they allegedly have...

also what ever happened to the antiwar movement ?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:11 AM

"It may sound like a thriller, but The Copenhagen Diagnosis is not an enjoyable read. It's a stark update on the state of our environment in time for next month's summit on climate change in the Danish capital.

In the report, an international team of climate scientists warns policy-makers that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at the extreme end of predictions made only in 2007, and that natural CO2 sinks such as oceans are becoming saturated.

Also, sea level rise is almost 80 per cent higher than some predictions, says co-author Tim Lenton at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

The team stresses that even a little warming could cause irreversible melting of ice sheets and turn dense Amazon forests into dry savannah grassland. "We may be heading towards these climate 'tipping points' earlier than we thought," Lenton says. The report calls for drastic action, including cutting CO2 emissions to almost zero by 2100 to prevent catastrophic climate change."

Subject: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Mr Happy
Date: 25 Nov 09 - 11:06 AM

In news lately, some inference that climate scientists may have manipulated finding to prove their case?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

I don't know, does anyone?