Global warming

[TheJoker]

All one big lump of porker bull****.

Your sources are..?

Climategate wasn't a mountain in a teacup you ****head. It was the reason Copenhagen fell flat on its face.

Climategate is blown out of proportion and misunderstood by any conspiracy advocate. I'm sure the content I'm about to post will not be addressed but here it goes anyway.

So we'll go through the emails which are touted repeatedly as evidence of foul play...

"We both know probable flaws in Mike's recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff" Ed Cook to Keith Briffa, June 17th 2002
Pretty damning, two scientists who know that the data is wrong. Open and shut case, there's collusion right? Read the rest of the email and...
"The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something you actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts."
So they are going to disprove bad science with a detailed study... Dastardly... Quote mining emails can produce all sorts of out of context remarks...

"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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"
Trick (in scientific papers published) means "technique". It's in many papers published by many authors and are readily available to read. Either the people using "trick" in the titles of their paper are admitting to fraud or "trick" doesn't mean what conspiracy advocates imagine it does...
"Hide the decline" doesn't refer to temperature, it refers to the apparent decline in tree rings. We have records of temperatures from 1981 which don't match the results found in tree rings. "Hide the decline" means to discard the apparent decline in temperature found in tree ring records (which do not match actual recorded temperatures at that time).

The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
The author of that quote is referring to the drop in temperature which is readily explainable, we are in the nadir of the solar cycle and it was a La Nina year. The argument in the email was that the CO2 levels should have been able to overcome both of those factors and the Earth should have continued to warm. You can look at the email in the chain directly before and after and they both disagree with the statement quoted above by Kevin Tremberth. Tremberth has published a paper and even provided a link in the exact same email which publicly express the same doubts. How exactly is it a conspiracy and cover up when it's a matter of public record?

So faking millions of points of data in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers with hundreds of authors and making sure all the faked data corresponds with all other faked data to sell a story that is diametrically opposed to reality? Give me a break.

If you think I've been lying then check the use of the word "trick", check the email where "hide" refers to tree rings and check Kevin Tremberth's paper out! I'll even provide a link - http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert...cs09final2.pdf

Thousands of memo's of the PRIMARY research unit used by the IPCC is not a "mountain in a teacup" you dumb bastard.

Name some damning evidence then? Maybe you want to avoid the stuff I already addressed

On top of all that, Pachauri, the head of the IPCC recently admitted that their models were based on faulty and manipulated "science".

That is incorrect. The "Glacier Gate" scandal you are referring to was errors picked up by the IPCC from a report which never claimed the date 2035. The date was first published in New Scientist (not a peer reviewed scientific journal). The IPCC picked the date up from a WWF article and sourced it accordingly with the report. It was an error in fact checking the claims from sources. When the findings were submitted for peer review, the peer review process caught the mistakes. In other words the scientific method worked!
Interestingly enough, none of the errors changed any of the original reports data which still concludes global warming is a reality.

You are disingenuously trying to pass off the admission of one small error in one report as an admission that all of the IPCC's science is fraudulent. The IPCC didn't base any models off the prediction of 2035, so it's errant to claim they did.

But you probably don't know anything about that.

I do know something about "climategate" that you love to refer to. I read the link (about 60-70% of the emails) that you posted for everyone and I hadn't found any examples of fraud other than those I have covered. It took me less than an hour to actually investigate and figure out there was no fraud intended. You're not an unintelligent guy but you need to actually do some fact checking before you make spurious claims.

[Dirt E Gomez]

I've taken a different stand recently; and I want you to honestly think about this. While I believe in global warming it shouldn't matter:

So what if global warming doesn't exist? Is attempting to not pollute as much bad? Do people think pollution is good for the Earth and its inhabitants; regardless of whether it actually effects global warming?

[sigrab]

I just finished shoveling 18 inches worth of global warming from my driveway.

[Disinformer]

I've taken a different stand recently; and I want you to honestly think about this. While I believe in global warming it shouldn't matter:

So what if global warming doesn't exist? Is attempting to not pollute as much bad? Do people think pollution is good for the Earth and its inhabitants; regardless of whether it actually effects global warming?

Agreed.

Even if it doesn't exist, isn't a good thing we are trying to reduce our pollution. Also it is helping create new jobs and create a whole new sector in clean energy. Also it's a good thing the world is trying to look at alternative energy source. Instead relying on its Oil from the most violate place on earth

[mangler jr]

Your sources are..?

Climategate is blown out of proportion and misunderstood by any conspiracy advocate. I'm sure the content I'm about to post will not be addressed but here it goes anyway.

So we'll go through the emails which are touted repeatedly as evidence of foul play...

"We both know probable flaws in Mike's recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff" Ed Cook to Keith Briffa, June 17th 2002
Pretty damning, two scientists who know that the data is wrong. Open and shut case, there's collusion right? Read the rest of the email and...
"The only way to deal with this whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something you actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly stated because of editorial cuts."
So they are going to disprove bad science with a detailed study... Dastardly... Quote mining emails can produce all sorts of out of context remarks...

"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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"
Trick (in scientific papers published) means "technique". It's in many papers published by many authors and are readily available to read. Either the people using "trick" in the titles of their paper are admitting to fraud or "trick" doesn't mean what conspiracy advocates imagine it does...
"Hide the decline" doesn't refer to temperature, it refers to the apparent decline in tree rings. We have records of temperatures from 1981 which don't match the results found in tree rings. "Hide the decline" means to discard the apparent decline in temperature found in tree ring records (which do not match actual recorded temperatures at that time).

The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
The author of that quote is referring to the drop in temperature which is readily explainable, we are in the nadir of the solar cycle and it was a La Nina year. The argument in the email was that the CO2 levels should have been able to overcome both of those factors and the Earth should have continued to warm. You can look at the email in the chain directly before and after and they both disagree with the statement quoted above by Kevin Tremberth. Tremberth has published a paper and even provided a link in the exact same email which publicly express the same doubts. How exactly is it a conspiracy and cover up when it's a matter of public record?

So faking millions of points of data in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers with hundreds of authors and making sure all the faked data corresponds with all other faked data to sell a story that is diametrically opposed to reality? Give me a break.

If you think I've been lying then check the use of the word "trick", check the email where "hide" refers to tree rings and check Kevin Tremberth's paper out! I'll even provide a link - http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert...cs09final2.pdf


Name some damning evidence then? Maybe you want to avoid the stuff I already addressed



That is incorrect. The "Glacier Gate" scandal you are referring to was errors picked up by the IPCC from a report which never claimed the date 2035. The date was first published in New Scientist (not a peer reviewed scientific journal). The IPCC picked the date up from a WWF article and sourced it accordingly with the report. It was an error in fact checking the claims from sources. When the findings were submitted for peer review, the peer review process caught the mistakes. In other words the scientific method worked!
Interestingly enough, none of the errors changed any of the original reports data which still concludes global warming is a reality.

You are disingenuously trying to pass off the admission of one small error in one report as an admission that all of the IPCC's science is fraudulent. The IPCC didn't base any models off the prediction of 2035, so it's errant to claim they did.


I do know something about "climategate" that you love to refer to. I read the link (about 60-70% of the emails) that you posted for everyone and I hadn't found any examples of fraud other than those I have covered. It took me less than an hour to actually investigate and figure out there was no fraud intended. You're not an unintelligent guy but you need to actually do some fact checking before you make spurious claims.

The IPCC is a political body. It is a tool of finance capital. Its leader is tied to many new businesses that have sprouted up the new "green economy". Stuff like auctioning off carbon credits and placing a tax on ice and meat. As well as CO2.

Nothing that anybody in this sector of the green movement says can be taken seriously.

They are compromised as much by their idealogy and thirst for power as they are by grants from private industry.

This is what I think of your data and this bastardized version of science that you put forth.

[JCArky]

I've taken a different stand recently; and I want you to honestly think about this. While I believe in global warming it shouldn't matter:

So what if global warming doesn't exist? Is attempting to not pollute as much bad? Do people think pollution is good for the Earth and its inhabitants; regardless of whether it actually effects global warming?

There's a difference between trying to curb pollution and forcing people to buy hybrid nano cars.You give people like Gore power to dictate what you can and can't do and things can get scary pretty fast. If I want to buy a 1 ton 15 mpg truck and can afford it, who has the right to deny me this choice?? It's all about control with Liberals these days, and never forget that.

[Dirt E Gomez]

There's a difference between trying to curb pollution and forcing people to buy hybrid nano cars.You give people like Gore power to dictate what you can and can't do and things can get scary pretty fast. If I want to buy a 1 ton 15 mpg truck and can afford it, who has the right to deny me this choice?? It's all about control with Liberals these days, and never forget that.

Sometimes the ends does justify the means. Just because you likely don't like Al Gore or his opinions doesn't mean he's wrong. We outlaw smoking in public places and many private businesses for personal health, why can that not apply to somebody's vehicle for more of a global health?

Sometimes stupid people have to have their choice removed. Before you accuse me of communism or something absurd; as is the case with all things there is gray area.

[Akinapepemo]

I've taken a different stand recently; and I want you to honestly think about this. While I believe in global warming it shouldn't matter:

So what if global warming doesn't exist? Is attempting to not pollute as much bad? Do people think pollution is good for the Earth and its inhabitants; regardless of whether it actually effects global warming?

i like this. whether we can make a dent on climate change or not, clean renewable energy is not so bad.

I thought that mainstream media has dropped global warming in favor of climate change as the key concept? that the debate is no longer whether it exists, rather, the issue is now whether it is natural, and if that is the case, can we influence it or not?

[JCArky]

Sometimes the ends does justify the means. Just because you likely don't like Al Gore or his opinions doesn't mean he's wrong. We outlaw smoking in public places and many private businesses for personal health, why can that not apply to somebody's vehicle for more of a global health?

Sometimes stupid people have to have their choice removed. Before you accuse me of communism or something absurd; as is the case with all things there is gray area.

Where will it all stop?? So me driving a 15 mpg truck is stupid because its killing the earth? Ok, Baby diapers are filling our landfills so lets outlaw them, those "stupid people" need to just use rags like the old days.You can keep going and going with what some people think is "stupid" and you end up with ass loads of restrictions, just to turn around and find out that global warming is 100% natural. I think you make the mistake thinking that these politicians actually sit around and fret about our poor little Earth...BULL ****T!! They don't give a damn about it, they fly around in their jets just as much as they always have.

DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF BELIEVING A POLITICIAN!!

[Mares]

it is good the convert to hybrid cars and other fancy green **** like that. But the question is the current cost of that expensive ****. Currently it is not worth to convert imagine all of the people in the planet suddenly converted to this **** and the cost is so enormous it will bankrupt everyone and starve half of us just to do it. For what? so that we could only lower the carbon emission by 1% and lower the suppose to be temperature caused by humans by 0.5degres?. lol
And no matter how aggressive and costly the proposals for limiting human carbon emissions are, it would still have a negligible effect on global climate.