Climategate

[HPLovecraft]

I don't think germs cause diseases because I can't see them.

I think the government is planting me with nanobots that make me sick so they can get rich off the pills they sell me.

Ka-ching.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

More:

Furthermore, WND research on the EU emissions trading system continues to suggest "follow the money" may explain the enthusiasm the U.N. has shown in pursuing global caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis.

Last week, WND reported a Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with ties to IPCC Chair Pachauri stands to make several hundred million dollars in carbon credits simply by closing Corus Redcar, a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs.

Another carbon trading scam tying back to Pachauri involves Great Britain's richest man, Lakshmi Mittal, an Indian citizen who resides in London.

Mittal stands to gain a £1 billion windfall, not from the operation of his ArcelorMittal steel company, but from carbon credits given his company – at no cost – by the EU emissions trading scheme.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=118953

Looks like an interesting article, but I got sidetracked by the 2012 survival information on that page, and then practically swallowed by Pat Boone's ingenious plan for surviving the impending financial catastrophe. I can't wait to read what one of their featured authors has to say about how a banana disproves evolution.

You must be able to come up with something better than WorldNutDaily.

I know I know, I'm attacking the messenger and not the message bla bla bla. Those people are ######ed. If you trust anything they say, you, uhm, shouldn't.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Looks like an interesting article, but I got sidetracked by the 2012 survival information on that page, and then practically swallowed by Pat Boone's ingenious plan for surviving the impending financial catastrophe. I can't wait to read what one of their featured authors has to say about how a banana disproves evolution.

You must be able to come up with something better than WorldNutDaily.

I know I know, I'm attacking the messenger and not the message bla bla bla. Those people are ######ed. If you trust anything they say, you, uhm, shouldn't.

Random conspiracy theories lacking any references or sources whatsoever are always 100% true, didn't you know? Because that's less insane than the opposite belief.

[Flame Of Liberty]

2012? I got sidetracked by 75% off on ship cruises, but whatever...

They are referencing a TimesOnline article, this article is referenced many times all over teh interwebz, google search shows it, but the link doesn't work (at least for me, I get the 404 error). Hmm...

[Thor]

I think this settles the debate, sad you guys forgot about this.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think this settles the debate, sad you guys forgot about this.

Somali pirates are doing their very best to curb Global Warming!

[Ryan Coke]

Well, it's settled. Anyone who questions the link between pirate demographics and global warming is anti-science, anti-earth, and anti-children. The science is sound.

Love the chart, it has clarified a lot for me.

[Devils'Advocate]

The funny thing is that I spoke with the Somali "environment minister" (quotes since Somalia's government holds no real power) before he went to Copenhagen, and I congratulated him on his countries efforts and showed him the chart. He laughed, but he may have been just being polite....

[Thor]

One of my favorite astro physicists, talks smartly about the discussion without over reaching.

If everyone can agree on this, then the question isn't whether putting carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is going to cause a greenhouse effect: it does. (And people contending otherwise, like this, are wrong, and now you know why.) The real question -- the only one up for debate -- is this: how much of an effect will adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere cause?

Scientifically, it is no longer a question of whether global warming happens when you increase carbon dioxide in your atmosphere: it does. It's now a question of how much carbon dioxide will lead to an unacceptable level of warming for Earth, and what -- as the only species on the planet capable of doing something about it -- we're actually going to do.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...l_agree_on.php

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Thor

One of my favorite astro physicists, talks smartly about the discussion without over reaching.


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...l_agree_on.php

A scientist can quite easily create a mini-greenhouse effect of his or her own by simply doing what John Tyndall did years and years ago. How people can still argue over whether carbon dioxide, methane, etc., can create a greenhouse effect is just beyond me. And some still do. I think many of these people mistake the greenhouse effect being the same as global warming, when they are different things, although inter-related.

[Thor]

Well its like two guys yelling at each other from extreme ends while the rest of us sit in the middle shaking our heads.

This debate has gone from important to muddled, confused and to put it mildly, wildly partisan.

I mean I do worry about our contributions to the warming, am I as freaked out as most are about the possibilities of what that means? not really. But I don't want the debate to be talking points or people just reading web pages that support their view without the seeking of truth being their end goal.

I mean whats sad is that lamens are all now thinking they are experts and because some emails and the greed of people has then apperantly to them turned all of the science into junk. When the truth is we have a lot to worry about, whether we are seeing the start to an incoming ice age to us putting the planet on a tipping point; either of which would mean disastrous consequences for this planet.

I want reasonable discussions, reasonable solutions to start moving us towards green energy, smart and intelligent use of our resources and especially protecting our fresh water and oceans because if we don't we are creating some very major future problems for our future generations.

Thats not hippy thinking its not lets panic and bankrupt our nations over it, its not lets make people rich on carbon trading crap, its just common sense.

But its hard to get that discussion going because of the damn noise from the extreme sides of each point of view.

Its very frustrating.

[Pastiche]

As our briefing explains in detail, most research supports the idea that warming is man-made. Sources of doubt that have seemed plausible in the past, such as a mismatch between temperatures measured by satellites and temperatures measured at the surface, and doubts about the additional warming that can be put down to water vapour, have been in large part resolved, though more work is needed. If records of temperature across the past 1,000 years are not reliable, it matters little to the overall story. If there are problems with the warming as measured by weather stations on land, there are also more reliable data from ships and satellites.

Insuring against catastrophe

Plenty of uncertainty remains; but that argues for, not against, action. If it were known that global warming would be limited to 2°C, the world might decide to live with that. But the range of possible outcomes is huge, with catastrophe one possibility, and the costs of averting climate change are comparatively small. Just as a householder pays a small premium to protect himself against disaster, the world should do the same.

This newspaper sees no reason to alter its views on that. Where there is plainly an urgent need for change is the way in which governments use science to make their case. The IPCC has suffered from the perception that it is a tool of politicians. The greater the distance that can be created between it and them, the better. And rather than feeding voters infantile advertisements peddling childish certainties, politicians should treat voters like grown-ups. With climate change you do not need to invent things; the truth, even with all those uncertainties and caveats, is scary enough.

Read this article.



http://www.economist.com/displayStor...most_commented

[Pastiche]

Hey where's zulu with the drive-by posts?

here's one, exonerating the East Anglian scientists in question.

No wrong doing no climategate: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1519115/

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,” adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.”

[mikey_the_redneck]

Of course a bunch of government hacks are gonna say that it was all legit with no wrong doing. Lies.....

Why?
.......because they are still going to jam cap/trade and carbon taxes down North America's throat.....they just need to push the message enough in the media to make people jump on board.

I see they are going from global warming to climate change....and now back to global warming again?

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Of course a bunch of government hacks are gonna say that it was all legit with no wrong doing. Lies.....

Of course you'll say that, lies... Why? You're just a big oil shill paid off to spread disinformation.

Prove me wrong.

[FlamingStuffedTiger]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Of course a bunch of government hacks are gonna say that it was all legit with no wrong doing. Lies.....

Why?
.......because they are still going to jam cap/trade and carbon taxes down North America's throat.....they just need to push the message enough in the media to make people jump on board.

I don't get it. What incentive does a branch of the UK government have to lie about this? Why would they do it just to 'jam' a carbon emissions solution down the throat of North America when they are also one of the top polluters in the world? In my view, it might be true that any solution would be more painful for North America because we probably one of the worst offenders. But, then isn't it just fair that we should be taking more responsibility for solving the global warming problem?

[mikey_the_redneck]

The UK will be part of the cap/trade and carbon tax system. They are no different..

Taking more responsibility for pollution (skeptic of global "warming") should be our top priority throughout the planet...

However, the cap and trade system does not accomplish that. There must be better options that don't involve squeezing the middle class for every penny they have.

The only people that will benefit from cap and trade are bankers, Al Gore, John Kerry, Maurice Strong and the boys......they will be rolling in our dough...

[Pastiche]

More on the report finding no malfeasance:

The inquiry panel looked at 11 CRU publications from the past 20 years, spent days talking to the researchers and looking at other documentation, and concluded that if there was any malpractice at CRU they would have detected it. They found no such thing. Instead they found “dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers ill-prepared for public attention”.


The panel did express considerable surprise at the fact that the unit did not collaborate closely with professional statisticians. This is despite the fact that their work was “basically all statistics”, as one member of the panel, David Hand, of Imperial College, London, put it. The report found that the CRU scientists would, had they been more comfortable with statistics, have done some things differently. But the panel doubted that using better methods would have materially changed their results.

http://www.economist.com/science-tec...=features_box3

[Jetsfan]

Save the Earth ... or else

Like every self-appointed messiah before them, these militant environmentalists view with chill contempt those others who cannot see their truth, who won't bow to their self-assigned imperatives. It's not just that they won't abide those who differ from them. They want them actively punished.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-p...tml?id=2917986

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by FlamingStuffedTiger

But, then isn't it just fair that we should be taking more responsibility for solving the global warming problem?

This is a dream, you aren't going to solve global warming (climate change). It is happening anyways regardless of our contribution to it. Climate change is a fact of life, it is a driving force behind evolution, it is one of the reasons humanity flourished....some were down the line we are F'd no matter..earth is not an accomodating place for settling species.