Climategate

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by TheU

i dont reserve the lemmings comments to people here, that goes for the majority of people who dont stay informed about anything. go ahead and ask 20 random people you find on the streets or at your job or at school if the global average temperature has gone up in the last 10 years. im willing to bet 90%+ will all say the temp has gone up. global warming and climate change have occurred, but the idea that man made co2 has raised temperature due to greenhouse gases being increased can't be true if we cotninue to add more co2 every year to the environment yet the temp has now stopped going up and will infact soon be going down. its a rational statement and theres no rebuttal to it yet. so what do climatologists do when the data doesn't match the theory? they try and prove the theory other ways by twisting projections. that's not science.

Anyone who can write an entire paragraph without a single capital letter surely must be the best person to explain to us capital-letter-using-yokels how science works.

[TheU]

oh god the lowest form of internet debating, my punctuation. really? well, look, if i offended anyone, i am sorry. im quite passionate about this subject... and im just going to pass on commenting further, we might as well be debating what is better; coke or pepsi

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by TheU

oh god the lowest form of internet debating, my punctuation. really? well, look, if i offended anyone, i am sorry. im quite passionate about this subject... and im just going to pass on commenting further, we might as well be debating what is better; coke or pepsi

I am not debating this with you. I think I more or less agree with your viewpoint, but sometimes I am not sure because what you are saying doesn't make sense.

I am simply pointing out that if you can't be bothered to create what most of the English speaking world calls a sentence, perhaps people won't be taking your scientific insights in the serious manner you think they deserve.

I do wonder, since you claim to be passionate about this subject, where your opinion stems from. Most of the websites posted that support your position in this thread are hardly what most people would refer to as credible.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am not debating this with you. I think I more or less agree with your viewpoint, but sometimes I am not sure because what you are saying doesn't make sense.

I am simply pointing out that if you can't be bothered to create what most of the English speaking world calls a sentence, perhaps people won't be taking your scientific insights in the serious manner you think they deserve.

I do wonder, since you claim to be passionate about this subject, where your opinion stems from. Most of the websites posted that support your position in this thread are hardly what most people would refer to as credible.

honestly a few years ago i downloaded 2 movies to watch when i was bored; an inconvenient truth, and, the great global warming swindel. i really liked al gores movie, then, i watched the great global warming swindle (coming into it with a very skeptical mind) and was blown away. it was very convincing because it presented data, graphs, scientists and professors, while truth was a politician selling a point of a view like a politician. after that i did some online reading and i was pretty much sold. this last summer a friend of mine who has a math degree from u of c and now is in UBC law got annoyed with all my chirping and we spent an hour googling data from the last 150 years people have put into graphs and reports etc. he was a staunch climate change guy, i mean hard core. in 60 mins he went from being hard core "this is our problem we made it happen" to "well maybe we didn't cause it but perhaps our co2 is not letting it slow down like it should be". not exactly a huge turn around but when people take the time look at the graphs, data, read about the hockey stick graph, its really hard to say that people are solely to blame (if it all).

and thats really what im driving at here... humans really didnt cause this last warming, imo.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheU

oh god the lowest form of internet debating, my punctuation. really? well, look, if i offended anyone, i am sorry. im quite passionate about this subject... and im just going to pass on commenting further, we might as well be debating what is better; coke or pepsi

I personally am not offended at all and could care less if you can write a word or not. I am a little ticked that you wouldn't try to answer my questions since you were the first to try and debate me.

In the end does it matter if warming is caused by humans? does it make the current and up & coming planetary problems any easier to deal with if we aren't responsible?

When the melting of glaciers and ice fields in the Himalayas is complete and 40% of the worlds population is without drinking water will you feel ok with their suffering because you believe it's not our fault?
When the polar bear and others become extinct because of no arctic ice will you just use Darwin's words (survival of the fittest) to make you feel ok?
When the coastlines of eastern Canada and the USA move inland a few miles I'm sure you won't mind a few extra tax dollars off your paycheck to help the relocation of 10's of millions of people.

I'm no scientist either but only a blind idiot can't see that there are big problems with our little planet and "IMO" we are the ones who accelerated them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by TheU

i dont reserve the lemmings comments to people here,

Translation: "I'm not just rude on the internet, but also in real life."

Anyway, forget global warming for a minute. Do you think we should try to cut consumption and pollution, or should we keep polluting more and more every year?

Even if we aren't causing the climate to change (I happen to believe we are), shouldn't we at least try to slow down all the burning of oil and coal because it's bad for reasons other than climate change?

[TheU]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Translation: "I'm not just rude on the internet, but also in real life."

Anyway, forget global warming for a minute. Do you think we should try to cut consumption and pollution, or should we keep polluting more and more every year?

Even if we aren't causing the climate to change (I happen to believe we are), shouldn't we at least try to slow down all the burning of oil and coal because it's bad for reasons other than climate change?

Yeah pollution sucks for sure. We should all be driving electric cars right now, the only reason we aren't is oil is like heroine. All I'm saying is, we aren't ruining the planet.... we're just ruining it for us (lung problems etc)

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by TheU

honestly a few years ago i downloaded 2 movies to watch when i was bored; an inconvenient truth, and, the great global warming swindel. i really liked al gores movie, then, i watched the great global warming swindle (coming into it with a very skeptical mind) and was blown away. it was very convincing because it presented data, graphs, scientists and professors, while truth was a politician selling a point of a view like a politician. after that i did some online reading and i was pretty much sold. this last summer a friend of mine who has a math degree from u of c and now is in UBC law got annoyed with all my chirping and we spent an hour googling data from the last 150 years people have put into graphs and reports etc. he was a staunch climate change guy, i mean hard core. in 60 mins he went from being hard core "this is our problem we made it happen" to "well maybe we didn't cause it but perhaps our co2 is not letting it slow down like it should be". not exactly a huge turn around but when people take the time look at the graphs, data, read about the hockey stick graph, its really hard to say that people are solely to blame (if it all).

and thats really what im driving at here... humans really didnt cause this last warming, imo.

Interesting - while I'm not a hard-core advocate of either side, I thought "the Great Global Warming Swindle" was even worse than Gore's movie when it came to misrepresentation of data. I gave up watching part way through because all I could see was data being taken out of context or misinterpreted. That's the problem with a lot of scientific debates being brought to the internet these days though - someone can present something and surround it with a bunch of technobabble and the average layman (or even a scientist from a different field) can't readily tell which argument to believe. It takes many years of training and experience to understand a complex science like climatology. Some people say the "University of Google" lets anyone become an expert, but in my opinion most of what people learn there is wrong.

[T@T]

Here is some facts on our planet's history as we know it:

Dispute away.

1. The Earth was formed about 4,540,000,000 years ago.
2. In the beginning, the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen (less than 1% oxygen pressure).
3. Early plants started to develop more than 2 billion years ago, probably about 2,700,000,000.
4. Through photosynthesis, plants uptake carbon dioxide into the biosphere as organic matter, and release oxygen as a byproduct.
5. Through geologic time, oxygen accumulated gradually in the atmosphere, reaching a value of about 21% of atmospheric gases at the present time.
6. Through geologic time, surplus organic matter has been sequestered in the lithosphere as fossil organic materials (coal, petroleum, and natural gas).
7. Early animals (the first organisms with external shells) started to develop around 600,000,000 years ago.
8. Animals operate in the opposite way than plants: they take up oxygen, burn organic matter (food), and release carbon dioxide as a byproduct.
9. Early humans (Australopithecus anamensis) began to develop about 4,100,000 years ago.
10. Cool climatic conditions have prevailed during the past 1,000,000 years. The species Homo sapiens evolved under these climatic conditions.
11. Homo sapiens dates back to more than 400,000 years.
12. Estimates for the variety Homo sapiens sapiens, to which all humans belong, range from 130,000 to 195,000 years old.
13. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was as low as 190 ppm during the last Ice Age, about 21,000 years ago.
14. The last Ice Age began to recede about 20,000 years ago.
15. The agricultural revolution, where humans converted forests and rangelands into farms, began to develop about 10,000 years ago.
16. The agricultural revolution caused a reduction in standing biomass in the biosphere and reduced the uptake of carbon dioxide in midlatitudinal regions, indirectly contributing, however so slightly, to global warming.
17. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased gradually from a low of 190 ppm 21,000 year ago, to about 290 ppm in the year 1900, i.e., at an average rate of 0.00478 ppm per year.
18. The industrial revolution, where humans developed machines (artificial animals, since they consume fuels, which are mostly organic matter), began in England about 240 years ago (1767).
19. In October 1999, the world's population reached 6,000,000,000, which is double that of the year 1959 (the doubling occurred in 40 years).
20. The world's population is currently increasing at the rate of about 80,000,000 per year (about 1.2 %).
21. The current world population is 6,781,000,000 (September 1, 2009).
22. The global fleet of motor vehicles is estimated at 830,000,000 (2006).
23. The global fleet of motor vehicles has been recently growing at the rate of 16,000,000 per year.
24. Motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, and scooters) account for 80% of all transport-related energy use.
25. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was at 290 ppm in the year 1900, rose to 316 ppm in 1959, or at an average 0.44 ppm per year.
26. Measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide since 1959 (316 ppm) have revealed an increase to 387 ppm in 2009, or at an average 1.42 ppm per year.
27. The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased an average of about 1.8 ppm per year over the past two decades.
28. The concentration of carbon dioxide increased 2.87 ppm in 1997-98, more than in any other year of record.
29. The year 1998 was the warmest of record. The year 2002 was the second warmest (to that date). The year 2003 was the third warmest (to that date). The year 2004 was the fourth warmest (to that date). The year 2005 equaled 1998 as the warmest of record. The year 2007 equaled 1998 as the second warmest of record. The ten warmest years in history have occurred in the twelve-year period 1997-2008.
30. About 75% of the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
31. The remaining 25% is attributed to anthropogenic changes in land use, which have the effect of reducing the net uptake of carbon dioxide.
32. Anthropogenic changes in land use occur when forests are converted to rangelands, rangelands to agriculture, and agriculture to urban areas.
33. Other patterns of land degradation--deforestation, overgrazing, overcultivation, desertification, and salinization--reduce the net uptake of carbon dioxide, indirectly contributing, however slightly, to global warming.

[TheU]

ugh did you spray your post with chloroform T@T?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheU

ugh did you spray your post with chloroform T@T?

Being a Dexter/CSI fan I use Luminol, it lights up the important parts.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Translation: "I'm not just rude on the internet, but also in real life."

Anyway, forget global warming for a minute. Do you think we should try to cut consumption and pollution, or should we keep polluting more and more every year?

Even if we aren't causing the climate to change (I happen to believe we are), shouldn't we at least try to slow down all the burning of oil and coal because it's bad for reasons other than climate change?

Even if I believed the man caused global warming myth I wouldn't put a moments effort into curbing consumption. Curbing consumption would reduce the price of a barrel of crude. Also it would decrease Canadian wealth because until a cheaper source of energy is found carbon burning is the basis for all industry. What curbing consumption here or America wouldn't do is curb emissions. The available crude would be purchased by other countries who are expanding their GDP. More than likely carbon emissions world wide would increase because the countries who purchase what Canada/USA didn't consume would likely have lower emissions standards.

If Canada wanted to curb world consumption they would leave more of it in the ground.

Cutting emissions through research and implementing higher emission standards as the technology advances is something Canada can do. Less pollution is never a bad thing. But this idea of carbon rationing will only decrease Canadian wealth. It will solve nothing and lessen our ability to compete globally or respond to climate change in constructive ways.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

i watched the great global warming swindle (coming into it with a very skeptical mind) and was blown away. it was very convincing because it presented data, graphs,

LOL. Sucked right in when the graphs and data were all and have been proven to be doctored to fit an agenda. They even made a graph up!

Here .... a brief summary of some of its distortions and misrepresentations. Sorry to ruin your day.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...le-440116.html


Did your skeptical mind question why every graph shown in the documentary stopped at 1980?
And their claim about volcanoes emmitting more co2 than fossil fuels. What did your skeptical mind think of that?
What did your mind make of the graph presented that had a completely wrong timeline on one axis? Intentional deceit or just an unfortunate accident?

[TheU]

no different than the BS in al gores movie, a few mistakes doesn't change the fact that tim ball, ian clark, and other scientists, not a politician, are in the movie and present a better argument with sun spots as the cause. my day is far from ruined my friend

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

no different than the BS in al gores movie, a few mistakes doesn't change the fact that tim ball, ian clark, and other scientists, not a politician, are in the movie and present a better argument with sun spots as the cause. my day is far from ruined my friend

Ermmmm, a few mistakes = deliberately knowingly presenting graphs and data to "convince" people like you.
Gotta hand it to them though. They sure did a good job!

Originally Posted by TheU

it was very convincing

Course it was ....... to you. Can I sell you a car?
"The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel."
LOL

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Even if I believed the man caused global warming myth I wouldn't put a moments effort into curbing consumption. Curbing consumption would reduce the price of a barrel of crude. Also it would decrease Canadian wealth because until a cheaper source of energy is found carbon burning is the basis for all industry. What curbing consumption here or America wouldn't do is curb emissions. The available crude would be purchased by other countries who are expanding their GDP. More than likely carbon emissions world wide would increase because the countries who purchase what Canada/USA didn't consume would likely have lower emissions standards.

If Canada wanted to curb world consumption they would leave more of it in the ground.

Cutting emissions through research and implementing higher emission standards as the technology advances is something Canada can do. Less pollution is never a bad thing. But this idea of carbon rationing will only decrease Canadian wealth. It will solve nothing and lessen our ability to compete globally or respond to climate change in constructive ways.

WOW!!

For someone who still believes Eve was made from Adam's rib your incredibly selfish.

Big fail dude

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheU

no different than the BS in al gores movie, a few mistakes doesn't change the fact that tim ball, ian clark, and other scientists, not a politician, are in the movie and present a better argument with sun spots as the cause. my day is far from ruined my friend

Did you take the time to read the list I posted?

I'm starting to think your like Calgaryborn in a religion thread

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Even if I believed the man caused global warming myth

Once upon a time there was a climate scientist called Noah. No-one would believe him.

He also liked to build boats .......... BIG boats.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Ermmmm, a few mistakes = deliberately knowingly presenting graphs and data to "convince" people like you.
Gotta hand it to them though. They sure did a good job!



Course it was ....... to you. Can I sell you a car?
"The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel."
LOL

I bet they even drugged all these scientists and professors... the s.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

I bet they even drugged all these scientists and professors... the s.

No they just duped them and completely misrepresented them.

Some snippets of a letter sent to the production company post airing from Carl Wunsch (one of the scientists you refer to).

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ge-3/#comments

All in all a completely dishonest production with doctored and falsified data.

But ... hey at least they "blew you away" and "convinced" you!