The Couch

Anthropological Global Warming Busted?

Comments on Anthropological Global Warming Busted?

Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 11/20/09 - 2:35 PM:
Subject: Anthropological Global Warming Busted?
Anthropological Global Warming Busted?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.


The only 'investigation' that should be underway is how and why these charlatans have been hoodwinking the masses.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

"There are passionate opinions on both sides of the climate debate and there will be people trying to knock down the other side," Mr Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, told BBC News.

"If they feel that they can gather inside information on what the other side is up to, then they may feel that is ammunition for their counterargument."

Mr Cluley added that universities were vulnerable to attacks by hackers because some many people required access to IT systems.

"You do need proper security in place; you need to be careful regarding communications and make sure your systems are secure.

"I trust that they will now be looking at the systems, and investigating how this happened and ensuring that something like this does not happen again."


What a load of crap. What 'security' do you need regarding data that is supposed to be describing the state of the Earth--that wonderful spinning globe that WE ALL SHARE?

These people are only concerned about being caught with their pants around their ankles. The only thing warming due to man-made influence is the seats these people are sitting on.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.




This is another extremely relevant issue because it connects directly to the activities of governments in colluding and enforcing restrictive laws and penalties, removing liberties, and increasing the scope of their beauracratic powers, without the consent of the people or the backing of legitimate cause.

If you think AGW is about 'saving the Earth' think again.

It's about establishing a new power structure and another way to extract wealth from the masses and keep them supressed.

And note, this has nothing to do with whether some of our current practices are damaging to the environment or ourselves, or whether we can and should establish more wholistic and sustainable practices. If our current lifestyle is unsustainable, we will burn ourselves out, but we won't be 'killing the planet'. The planet still has the power to wipe us right off the map at any time because we are virtually powerless against the forces of nature--comet, earthquake, tsunami, tornado, hurricane. We can only try to protect against these eventualities and not provoke them by fiddling with dangerous energy weapons (HAARP anyone?).

Something to think about.

8)
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 11/21/09 - 12:36 AM:

www.realclimate.org/index.p...ives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

some relevant excerpts from the above link:

Real Climate wrote:
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment.

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.

food for thought indeed.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
Posted 11/21/09 - 12:03 PM:

The scientific world is a cut-throat one like you wouldn't believe. If scientists reach a global consensus on something it's because there's no way around it, not because they're all involved in a world-wide hush-hush conspiracy. sticking out tongue
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 11/24/09 - 2:17 PM:

The issue here is both the validity of the data often used to support the claim of AGW and the actions of the supposed 'scientists' making these claims based on this data. Both seem suspicious if not fraudulent.

And lets face it, once Hollywood gets involved (Leo, don't quit the day job), you know there's nothing but fluff in there backed by BIG money.


Searchable database of the (alleged) CRU emails:

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



The Dog Ate Global Warming

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=>

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

...





Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, Steve McIntyre (a blog looking at climate data):

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168



And last but not least, let's follow the $$:

RealClimate.com (actively dismissing the significance of this leak) is owned by Environmental Media Services.

Who are they? Read this, now appearing only on Google cache:


http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:__gTbLVdLkcJ:www.epublicrelations.ca/EMS.html+%22Environmental+Media+Services%22+rockefeller&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

Environmental Media Services:
Journalists' resource or special interest group?

(Copyright Public Relations Management Ltd.)

(Original posting: March 2000)

...

On its website (www.ems.org), EMS describes itself as “a resource for journalists.” The site states: “EMS is a nonprofit communications clearinghouse dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues.” For journalists, this appears to be an almost perfect resource. As a non-profit organization, EMS is not tarnished by the crass profit motive. As a communications clearinghouse, it simply sorts and distributes information without passing judgment on it. And, EMS wants to expand coverage of critical issues, a heartfelt motivation of many journalists.

The EMS goes on to say: “We build relationships with top scientists, physicians, and other experts to bring journalists the latest and most credible information … EMS regularly bring together experts from academic, government, business, science, medical and public interest communities for extended briefings with journalists on controversial and/or emerging environmental and public health issues … EMS offers journalists cutting-edge information and direct access to the sources who know the issues best … Our media guides and newsletters have been widely praised by journalists, government officials and scientific leaders … If we don’t know the answer, we will track it down or point you to someone else who can.” All of this makes EMS appear as a solid, unbiased, credible source of information for journalists who are looking for a complete and thorough understanding of an issue.

...

Follow the environmental greenbacks

Environmentalist are fond of encouraging journalists to follow the money trail to find out who’s calling the shots in communications, advertising, lobbying, or public relations campaigns. After all, “He who has the gold makes the rules.” A quick look at some of the sources which pay the EMS bills is instructive.

According its website, “EMS is a nonprofit funded by foundations and individuals working to improve public understanding of environmental and public health issues.”

Here are some of the foundations which have supported EMS:

Rockefeller Family Fund (source: www.rffund.org):


1998 - $25,000
• “Second installment of a two-year grant totaling $55,000 for media services to environmental groups, including staging press briefings, talk show appearances, and formal press conferences. “
1996 - $45,000
• “General support to transmit and amplify the environmental community’s message to policymakers and the general public; and for a special initiative, the EMS Environmental Economics Project, to attack the myth that environmental progress costs jobs and hurts the economy.”
1995 - $25,000
• “General support for this highly professional communications service organization which transmits and amplifies the environmental community’s message to policymakers and the general public.”



The Brainerd Foundation (source: www.brainerd.org):

1999 - $30,000
- “Program area: Communications Strategies. Description: To support EMS’s work in the Pacific Northwest to improve and expand media coverage of environmental issues, while building the capacity for conservation organizations to develop effective media campaigns.”
1999 - $2,000
- “Program area: Toxic Polution. Description: To educate reporters about mining issues and the battle in Congress over the recent millsite decision.”
1999 - $2,000
• “Program area: Communications Strategies. Description: For Environmental Media Services to create a high-impact media plan using the 10th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster to emphasize the continuing threat of oil spills to the Puget Sound region and to influence public opinion in support of immediate action on oil spill prevention.”
1998 - $15,000
• “Program area: Communications Strategies. Description: For seed funding to launch the Western office of Environmental Media Services to raise media awareness of environmental issues, and to empower conservation organizations with their own media outreach.”


Wilburforce Foundation (source: www.wilburforce.org):

1999 - $25,000
- “for the Wild Washington Media Campaign”


W. Alton Jones Foundation (source: www.wajones.org):

1996 - $100,000 (grant recipient identified as Environmental Media Services, A project of the Tides Center)
• “To mobilize a network of scientists to counter misinformation related to envinronmental threats to children’s health, and to encourage responsible media coverage.”


Bullitt Foundation (source: www.bullitt.org):

1999 - $75,000
1998 - $40,000
Grant recipient identified as Tides Center (Environment Media Services)
• “The Tides Center actively promotes change toward a healthy society—one founded on principles of social justice, broadly shared economic opportunity, a robust democratic process, and sustainable environmental practices. Tides Center is the fiscal sponsor for Environmental Media Services, a national organization that offers media skills services to environmental activists and organizations. The 1998 grant supported a project to develop a regional headquarters in Seattle. Three grants were awarded in 1999: a $5,000 grant supports a project to provide media training to activists in Ferry County, Washington; a $10,000 grant supports a project to provide regional media support on environmental issues as part of the World Trade Organization ministerial; and a $60,000 grant supports the overall work of the regional office of Environmental Media Services focused on Northwest issues and organizations. (1998: $40,000 Other Environmental Concerns; 1999: $10,000 Growth Management and Transportation; $15,000 Other Environmental Concerns; $40,000 Public Outreach, Education, and Capacity Building; $10,000 Toxic Substances, Mining, and Radioactive Waste).”

From these few examples, it’s clear that some foundations give to EMS to support specific views on specific topics. Yet, these connections are not obvious on the EMS homepage. Searches of the EMS website failed to find any mention of the grants listed above.

...


Now this info was from a while back, but there's no reason to suppose that things are any different today. Organisations only continue to exist while the gravy train is runnin'.

8)
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 11/26/09 - 10:57 PM:

Monk wrote:
And note, this has nothing to do with whether some of our current practices are damaging to the environment or ourselves, or whether we can and should establish more wholistic and sustainable practices.


Isn't that a major part of any of AGW's argument? There are political and corporate self-interests in place now that stand much to gain through counter-flowing-pro-consumerism propaganda; why highlight this rather than other points of govt. corruption (ex. perverse subsidies)?

No matter who stands to gain or lose from pro or anti AGW propaganda, these are entities of capitalism. These corporations don't feed us truth as much as cheap fodder which endows them with power under a new capitalist paradigm or niche (eco-capitalism). People will continue to get nastily rich through enormous pyramid schemes and propaganda machines and maybe such change will actually benefit us (alternative forms of energy?).


smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
Posted 11/27/09 - 3:21 AM:

That doesn't look like a very strong case against anthropogenic global warming (AGW - I had to look it up), though, phlogi.
- What is the source of those facts and quotations?
- 25 years of research is pure gold. Nobody just hands it over to a competitor or critic. Unscientific? These things are peer-reviewed. It's just that not every dude who tells himself he's good enough qualifies for peer-reviewing advanced climate physics.
- Follow the money? RealClimate is just a website. What about the actors that really matter? A few years ago, it was discovered that the IPCC, the report that uses scientific, peer-reviewed material and then lets politicians scrap all the statements that might raise too much concern. In the US, not only the politicians reviewed it, but energy-lobby were also allowed to censor it. When reading the IPCC reports, please keep in mind that the huge emergency that it displays is a downplayment of the scientific insights. I wasn't allowed to use IPCC as a reference in my papers at the university because it wasn't scientific enough. Because IPCC is subject to such scrutiny, the peer-reviewed scientific articles often seem to indicate more alarming situations.
- I'm quite sure that the environmental lobby's budget is dwarfed by the industry's.


Nihil: Neither IPCC, nor the scientific world can be accused of being very capitalistic. It's actually more of an elitist olgarchy but whatever. I have known/know several scientists and a member of IPCC. When they say something, it's far more solid than 99% of the stuff you read online. Usually they're not the best of communication experts, though, and they tend to let the data do the talking.


Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem, Steve McIntyre (a blog looking at climate data):

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168


For extimation of these parameters in recent time, there are far more methods available than for the old ones Mr McIntyre touches on. Meaning, recent data is far more accurate in the short term. The hockey stick is being 'measured'. Now. There have been accurate temperature measurements for over a century. There have been accurate CO2 measurements for decades. The side-effects are being noted all over the world.

Guys: what makes you so eager to believe that there is a conspiracy here?

Edited by smokinpristiformis on 11/27/09 - 3:32 AM
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
Posted 11/27/09 - 1:09 PM:

Excuse my B.S.

I just think it is possible that there are special interests that will benefit from a change in public opinion about the cause of global warming (goes without saying). Right wingers dislike the implications of anthropocentric global warming since it means regulation and reform of business as usual. A sane discussion of the facts takes a backseat to political hotheadedness.

I do believe in AGW (the concept, not any mouth piece or organization).
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 11/27/09 - 1:57 PM:

Nihil Loc wrote:

I do believe in AGW


That and three clicks of your ruby slippers will get you to Kansas.

rolling eyes
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 11/27/09 - 2:29 PM:

smokinpristiformis wrote:

That doesn't look like a very strong case against anthropogenic global warming (AGW - I had to look it up), though, phlogi.


What the case is, this so-called 'ClimateGate', is that leaked emails show that researchers at the CRU, whose data has been used to spearhead the AGW push, and subsequently impact political policy and big money interests, have been falsifying data.

This along with the scores of researchers already out there who have been saying, all along, that there is no anthropological warming trend according to the evidence.

First of all, the data is being abused to falsely show warming trends. Then this false trend is being associated with increased carbon dioxide levels. And this, finally, is being associated with biproducts of human industry. which brings us back to politics, policies, and the whole green shennanigan. I'm all for living sustainably, but I don't like being lied to and forced to alter my behaviour under threat of 'dire consequences for the earth' when in reality there isn't any.


smokinpristiformis wrote:

- What is the source of those facts and quotations?


Which facts?


smokinpristiformis wrote:

- 25 years of research is pure gold. Nobody just hands it over to a competitor or critic.


That's nonsense. We're talking about climate data here, not the proprietary creation of a new wonder drug. How are researchers in the field supposed to replicate the data and results and continue with the research into the future if the authors (of this fiction) refuse to reveal their sources? Is that what science is really about? That in itself is telling.

smokinpristiformis wrote:

- Follow the money? RealClimate is just a website. What about the actors that really matter?


Seriously???

Hey, the Republican party is just a political party, don't mind what they do or say. Actors are propaganda machines. Their role is to create public opinion. The masses put more trust in a beloved actor who seems genuine than the local politician whom they innately distrust. And there is no question that AGW--socially--has largely been a matter of public relations warfare. It is continuously emphasised by the most dire predictions possible--desertification, famine, out of control storms--all thanks to your SUV and those incandescent lightbulbs.


smokinpristiformis wrote:

- I'm quite sure that the environmental lobby's budget is dwarfed by the industry's.


I think the point is that ultimately the money is coming from the same place, and the people making the money will be the same at the start as at the end. They're just looking for ways to make more money under more controlled circumstances that leave less freedom for the average person to think or act.


smokinpristiformis wrote:

Nihil: Neither IPCC, nor the scientific world can be accused of being very capitalistic. It's actually more of an elitist olgarchy but whatever.


Somehow that doesn't inspire any confidence, lol.


smokinpristiformis wrote:

I have known/know several scientists and a member of IPCC. When they say something, it's far more solid than 99% of the stuff you read online. Usually they're not the best of communication experts, though, and they tend to let the data do the talking.


Isn't this the question here though, that the data has been talking lies due to careful reconstructions, omissions, and fudgifications?


smokinpristiformis wrote:

Guys: what makes you so eager to believe that there is a conspiracy here?


Carbon credits.

Besides, what's to believe? The leaked files seem pretty clear. And they resonate with the voices of AGW dissendents who've been pointing out the shortcomings of the current popular AGW concept for years and years.

Anyhow, I pass this news along to our fair readers to let them know that scandal is afoot. Unfortunately, like all modern-day issues, it is virtually impossible to be objective unless you become a researcher in the field and start from scratch. Otherwise you just have to make up your mind to believe one side or the other based on which argument you've most recently read that seemed most reasonable.

I've read enough arguments that suggest AGW isn't real, and that climate change isn't happening for any currently popular reason. Which leads one to think that human beings really don't know what's up with the weather. We don't even know what the sun is and how it works, and our knowledge of the planet is much much less. We know things piecemeal, in parts, derived from specialisations.

The masses, meanwhile, need 'emergencies' to be motivated to act. If they don't think that the sky is falling, they won't be inclined to do anything different. And that fact is the most useful tool in the propaganda arsenal. 'The earth can't handle any more humans!!' they shout. 'CO2 is warming the planet!!' they cry. 'I better use public transportation', we say, 'to reduce my footprint.'



8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 11/27/09 - 4:52 PM:

In related news:



Denmark approves new police powers ahead of Copenhagen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/26/denmark-police-powers-copenhagen

Felicity Carus
London Guardian
Friday, November 27, 2009

The Danish parliament today passed legislation which will give police sweeping powers of “pre-emptive” arrest and extend custodial sentences for acts of civil disobedience. The “deeply worrying” law comes ahead of the UN climate talks which start on 7 December and are expected to attract thousands of activists from next week.

Under the new powers, Danish police will be able to detain people for up to 12 hours whom they suspect might break the law in the near future. Protesters could also be jailed for 40 days under the hurriedly drafted legislation dubbed by activists as the “turmoil and riot” law. The law was first announced on 18 October.

The Danish ministry of justice said that the new powers of “pre-emptive” detention would increase from 6 to 12 hours and apply to international activists. If protesters are charged with hindering the police, the penalty will increase from a fine to 40 days in prison. Protesters can also be fined an increased amount of 5,000 krona (671 Euros) for breach of the peace, disorderly behaviour and remaining after the police have broken up a demonstration.

The Danish police also separately issued a statement in August (pdf) applying new rules and regulations for protests at the climate conference, warning that “gatherings that may disturb the public order must not take place”.

Earlier this month, the Guardian published a letter by environmental activists that described the new law as “deeply worrying” and called for the Danish government to uphold their right to legitimate protest.

Tannie Nyboe, a spokewoman from campaigning group Climate Justice Action in Denmark, said the new law was designed to control civil disobedience during the summit. “These laws are a big restraint in people’s freedom of speech and it will increase the police repression for anyone coming to Copenhagen to protest. Denmark normally boasts of how open and democratic a country we are. With this law we can’t boast about this anymore.



So please, protest if you must, but not too seriously, otherwise its the clink for you and your wild ideas.

mad
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 11/27/09 - 5:03 PM:

As the drama unfolds...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm

Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News


The supposed e-mails have been widely circulated on the web
Details of a university inquiry into e-mails stolen from scientists at one of the UK's leading climate research units are likely to be made public next week.

Announcement of a chair of the inquiry and terms of reference will probably be made on Monday, a source says.

The University of East Anglia's (UEA) press office did not confirm the date.

But a spokesperson said information about the investigation into the hack at UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) would be made public very soon.

Scientists will be scrutinising the choice of chair and the terms of reference.

One senior climate scientist told me that the chair would have to be a person accepted by both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics as a highly respected figure without strong connections to either group.

BBC News understands that senior individuals at UEA have acknowledged the potential damage to the university's reputation from the CRU affair and are anxious to clear the institution's name.

But there is a risk that some people will not accept the findings of any inquiry unless it is fully independent, as demanded by the former UK Chancellor Lord Lawson earlier in the week.

A petition is running on the 10 Downing Street website calling for CRU to be suspended from preparation of any government climate statistics until the allegations have been fully investigated.

Some researchers would not comment until they had seen UEA's nominated chairman and terms of reference.

But Professor Sir John Houghton, chair of the IPCC's first science panel, said he would not support an inquiry as many of those demanding one were biased.

Phil Willis MP said the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee - of which he is chair - had written to UEA asking for copies of the e-mails and an explanation. Depending on the response, the committee will decide whether to proceed further.

Professor Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, told BBC News there are three key issues:


how did the leakage occur - was there any payment in the process?
the alleged behaviour of the scientists indicated by the e-mails
does this have any impact on the scientific conclusion?
If an independent inquiry encompassed all three aspects, Professor Sir David said he would support it.

smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 11/28/09 - 2:28 AM:

I don't reckon this is a clear cut case yet, Phlogi.
But even if this scientist misbehaved, how could it discredit the trends and conclusions that are being supported by so many data-sets?

Carbon credits.


Taxes would be better, I guess, but the industry has a powerful lobby. You can't get that through yet. We keep hoping though.

The masses, meanwhile, need 'emergencies' to be motivated to act. If they don't think that the sky is falling, they won't be inclined to do anything different. And that fact is the most useful tool in the propaganda arsenal. 'The earth can't handle any more humans!!' they shout. 'CO2 is warming the planet!!' they cry. 'I better use public transportation', we say, 'to reduce my footprint.'


Err.. Yes. All that is true. Except for the more humans bit. There's humans and there's footprint per human. Multiply these and you've got the global footprint. There's two ways to go about this, but I reckon adressing the second is more humane. So please take the bus.

I've read enough arguments that suggest AGW isn't real, and that climate change isn't happening for any currently popular reason. Which leads one to think that human beings really don't know what's up with the weather. We don't even know what the sun is and how it works, and our knowledge of the planet is much much less. We know things piecemeal, in parts, derived from specialisations.

Anyhow, I pass this news along to our fair readers to let them know that scandal is afoot. Unfortunately, like all modern-day issues, it is virtually impossible to be objective unless you become a researcher in the field and start from scratch. Otherwise you just have to make up your mind to believe one side or the other based on which argument you've most recently read that seemed most reasonable.


Tricky thing there. But the case for AGW as you call it is undeniably solid. Scientifically, nobody has been able to drill holes in the logic and the data. Some people might try to discredit the research. But as a whole, it hasn't remotely been in danger of being made invalid in recent years. Au contraire, certainty that this is true has only grown. Scientifically speaking.

As for the sun. We know how it works. Broadly speaking. That's why some lunatics in France are trying to copy it. Once they succeed, all this discussion will be vain. But that'll take some more decades. If not more than a century.
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/01/09 - 10:28 PM:

Smoki,

What are your thoughts on whether global warming can or cannot be reversed. Every so often I read an article that expresses the grim outlook that no matter what we do we can't stop the drastic impact of warming feedback cycles. We are passed the point of no return (ex. increasing loss of massive permafrost soils and diminishing reflective surfaces of the world's ice).

It seems we could just as well choose a fatalist view, in which case we needn't act on the belief that AGW is true. This might work for you Monk. AGW is true but it doesn't matter that its true. thumb up
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/02/09 - 2:43 AM:

Nihil Loc:

To be precise, we are in danger of warming up earth to such a degree that we end up in a positive feedback loop. At some point, warmer climate creates warmer climate. That is, this positive feedback loop wouldn't go on forever, but it could make global warming much worse and much quicker. The more we can slow the greenhouse effect, the better it is. This holds true with positive feedbacks or without. Climate change, the positive feedback loops, we could still slow it down, or perhaps bend it down within a century-wide timeframe. The pay-off is tremendous, but as it turns out, not many people are willing to pay even this "relatively" small price for the sake of the future.
The Hanged Man
New
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 7
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/04/09 - 2:30 PM:

Max von Pettenkofer once drank a vial of cholera bacteria and lived. I suspect that means we should all reject germ theory? Or perhaps we should just accept that data sets will not always be perfectly clear and that even the truth may look false at particular moments. This isn't to say that AGW is definitely the case, but only to suggest that maybe -- just maybe -- the actions of a handful of scientists isn't the evidence we need to decide the issue one way or another.
The Hanged Man
New
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 7
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/04/09 - 2:35 PM:

Here are a couple of interesting articles by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt regarding the leaked e-mails:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/climategate-the-very-ugly-side-of-climate-science/
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/the-global-warming-email-weve-all-been-waiting-for/

Science -- indeed, all of academia -- has always involved a heavy element of bloodsport. But it's only recently that science itself has been under the microscope, so to speak.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/08/09 - 2:37 PM:

And to further illustrate what a bunch of nonsense the whole climate change political movement is:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

[Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesbrough: A town of about 150 000.]

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.


The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/08/09 - 2:39 PM:

A further problem with this movement is that science really is irrelevant. We have people talking about 'climate criminals' now ffs. Once the politicians get a hold of something like this, it becomes used as another tool of supression and repression, taxation, manipulation, and abuse of authorities. Big oil or Big Green--which one will you be a slave to? Its slavery either way, because ultimately those in the drivers seat cannot create any other possibility.

mad
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 12/09/09 - 3:40 AM:

A further problem with this movement is that science really is irrelevant.


I'm sorry? How so?

It's true, the western politicians are out there trying to protect you from the evil big green conspiracy. Just look at how they are doing it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8402502.stm

I'm sure the climate change thing is really a method of the rich governments to keep you down.
I know because smart governments would keep you gently going with their flow by upsetting the whole world with an acute monumentous problem. They certainly would not keep you docile by telling you that everything is alright and you don't need to change anything and there really is nothing to worry about.
raised eyebrow


Edited by smokinpristiformis on 12/09/09 - 3:53 AM
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.