| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Not directly associated with "Climate Change", but here in Central Florida we have a problem with high mercury levels in our now increasingly polluted freshwater lakes...between the pollution and the long running drought, over fishing, encroachment of exotic species and utterly shameful resource "managment"...it's enough to make you puke...the once mighty Okeechobbee is nothing more than a huge cesspool. But that is directly associated with climate change. Every dollar that is spent on controlling CO2 in a Cap & Trade ponzi scheme is a dollar that will NOT go toward cleaning up anything else. | ||
| Sifo |
This leave me just about speachless. More from the programming comments...
EDIT: Here's another related quote...
(Message edited by SIFO on November 25, 2009) | ||
| Doughnut |
If I smoked weed would this make more sense or be funnier? | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
Sifo,  When "scientists" claimed water vapor (clouds) and CO2 (what we exhale and plants inhale) are considered "pollutants", I knew this was a false religion. They just went full retard. | ||
| Sifo |
WTF! 
| ||
| Hex |
Doughnut, I recommend you try some and find out for yourself. Seriously, it takes years of diligent practice to really appreciate it's medicinal effects, don't let the first time scare you off. | ||
| Sifo |
If I smoked weed would this make more sense or be funnier? I have no doubt that this would be funny when a bit buzzed! | ||
| Sifo |
Kevin Trenberth is one of the lead authors of the IPCC AR4 report. Does this description of climate understanding sound anything like what we have heard from the IPCC? Note that the date of this email is very recent too, so it isn't an issue of "we have learned so much since then". Oh wait! We have learned so much since then! We've learned how to hide the decline! It is actually scary that they are talking about geoengineering when we don't have an understanding of the system. That to me seems like an insane idea. I hope I can find out who the Tom is in this email. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
They couldnt call it global warming anymore, real people with brains were questioning the validity of that name, especially when there is snow this year in Odessa in October. Go look at a map, its far south, and in what is normally a marine moderate zone. | ||
| Rocketman |
And Rocketman just proved my point. He is actually saying we should go with the fraudulent science just in case the fraudulent science somehow proves itself to be true. I want scientists to be real scientists, especially when they are doing it on my dime! How do we know though that the other side aren't just as fraudulent? For all we know they might be using an imprecise or different formula, getting their results above board so to speak, but they too might have doubts in their formulas and not be telling us / anyone. Maybe their emails haven't been hacked yet? Rocket | ||
| Sifo |
How do we know though that the other side aren't just as fraudulent? For all we know they might be using an imprecise or different formula, getting their results above board so to speak, but they too might have doubts in their formulas and not be telling us / anyone. Maybe their emails haven't been hacked yet? Rocket Great question. Before I answer I want you to keep in mind that the folks involved in Climategate are among the most respected scientists in the field of climate science. On the flip side we have scientists such as Hans Svensmark. He came up with a crazy idea that global temperature was affected by cosmic rays. He got his theory from a correlation of sun measurements vs. temperature. His theory deals with cosmic rays causing clouds to form more readily. He came up with a lab experiment that would test his theory. He published his work in a science journal and made details of his work freely available. Very quickly these same scientists that are involved in Climategate attempted to discredit his work. Many of the points they made were quite accurate. Svensmark went back to figure out where he had gone wrong. This cycle happened a couple of times and each time the theory became more robust. This can only happen when details of the work are made available. This is how science is done. There is no need to hack or leak his work. It's freely available. Interestingly Svensmark's theory predicted that during a period of low sun spot activity the Earth would go into a cooling phase. It's also interesting to note that the recent decade where warming has leveled off and has actually cooled coincides with a long period of virtually no sun spots. If you had been following the climate blogs while Svensmark was getting the bugs worked out of his theory you would have found incredibly derogatory things being said about him by the very scientists that are so secretive with their own work. True science will stand the test of skeptics. What we are now seeing revealed is work that didn't even stand the test of the believers. Svensmark is just a single example of many BTW. Climategate also seems to be an example of many on the other side. | ||
| Sifo |
Before we have to deal with studies done by "big oil"... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p apers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Studies by big oil are a drop in the bucket. Interesting report. | ||
| Sifo |
As long as Trenberth is coming up so much in these emails it is interesting to go back in history a few years. Trenberth was a lead author on the IPCC AR4 report. Chris Landsea was a respected scientist at NOAA working on hurricane data. Trenberth was so misrepresenting Landsea's data in the IPCC report that Landsea decided to quite and publish a public letter of resignation. Remember how AGW was going to cause hurricanes to get worse and worse. Here's the back story.
And we are expected to take these guys seriously.  | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Rocket, I think you're missing the point. There has been NO global warming for at least a decade. Perhaps, longer. I'm just too lazy to go check right now...lol. Anyway, that's the big deal with these emails. The scientists know this and can't explain it so they sought to skew the data to continue to support their lies. | ||
| Aesquire |
The U.S. national Solar Observatory reported in 1998 that the sun was warmer. Then went back to work. It got less active. There's a cycle to it. Solar flares & sunspots apparently ( see Svensmark's work ) affect upper level clouds. It is well known that solar flares send out gusts of increased solar winds, subatomic particles that impact the Earths magnetic field. Where they leak inward near the magnetic poles, you see Aurora. Svensmark's work shows that when the Sun is less active, it not only reduces solar flux, ( radiation that hits the Earth ) but reduced the field density of the magnetosphere, reducing it's ability to deflect Cosmic rays. Cosmic rays ( very energetic particles probably accelerated by galactic magnetic fields ) cause cloud formation in the really high parts of the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight before it can either hit the Earth of warm the air in passing. So, we've been getting colder for 10 years. Hopefully the normal solar cycle will continue, ( without hicups, as have and will happen ) and we'll get warmer again sometime in the next decade. (Message edited by aesquire on November 25, 2009) | ||
| Sifo |
Now the boys down under have been caught cheating on the data! What a week! http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/ 2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-tem perature-faking.html Happy turkey day everybody! | ||
| Sifo |
These NZ boys are just brutal! | ||
| Cochise |
Plus one on the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change. The "proof" of Global Warming, is just as far-fetched as the "proof" of evolution. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"Doughnut, I recommend you try some and find out for yourself. Seriously, it takes years of diligent practice to really appreciate it's medicinal effects, don't let the first time scare you off." That explains quite a few things. There really is a reason they call it dope. G | ||
| Aesquire |
Evolution is proven by the fact that a naturally occurring weed, found on multiple continents, can produce durable cloth, strong rope, & a drug that helps nausea, pain management, and philosophical & physical pleasure. No, wait, that's proof of divine intervention.  The good news is, IF they (governments) actually respond to the evidence of fraud, and dump the bullcrap aspects of this scam, but continue a search for cleaner energy, & a cleaner environment, we won't have the massive economic disaster that will happen with the con men ruling with an iron fist in a "for your own good" glove. Too bad the IF is so unlikely. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Global warming? October 31 Sochi, Russia On the Black Sea  No global warming this year  | ||
| Bjbauer |
Fudging or falsifying data is a "mortal sin" for a scientist. If true everyone involved should be fired. There is no doubt that the climate is an incredibly complex and dynamic system. I would love to believe we are not dealing with human influenced climate change (warming). It is obvious, although sometimes anecdotal, that we seem to be warming regardless of temperature measurements. Melting glaciers and ice caps, changes in flora and fauna distribution even the later freezing and earlier thawing of the lake I live on seem to point to warming average temps. Whether we are dealing with warming or cooling the question is what is mans influence and can we do anything about it. There is little doubt that we have caused much of the increase in CO2 levels. The question is to what effect. If the earth is cooling due to other factors perhaps greenhouse gases are helping to mitigate it or the other way around. (the warming is being mitigated by the other cooling effects) Assuming that man made greenhouse gases are not a good thing why not move to curb them? If for no other reason that to be prudent. Even if the current levels are not as bad as widely believed at some point they most certainly will be. One thing is for sure. We need honest, unbiased information and opened minds. | ||
| Madduck |
Greenhouse gases are not the man made problem that could be changing the environment. The depletion of fish stocks in all the oceans is a huge potential contributor to "climate change". The other man-made contributor is the concentration of particulates in the atmosphere. think diesel ships hauling goods from china to us. That sea lane did not exist 20 years ago and does show up on satellite. Particulates from diesel needs real study. It wouldn't hurt to start measuring the natural variations in heat ouput of the earths core. all of the climate models treat that as a constant and they are likely to be wrong. Burning of the tropical rain forests should be stopped immediately. About the only thing the developing world could do to help the planet without huge disruption in econmies. Follow chinas lead as they have the longest recorded history and may have a better idea of how to proceed as they have a foot in both the developed and underdeveloped economy camps. the odds of the USA/europe coming up with a solution are vanishingly small. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
So if I'm not stupider than everybody else, or a communist naysayer, or someone who's just missing the point, it all boils down to one very simple question. Who do you choose to believe? I have no answers to this question as I don't have enough grasp of the complex issues involved to be able to make such a judgement. I doubt that many do, which is why all the interested pressure groups trot out their own tame "expert" to bolster their point of view. Climate change? it's a load of hot air! | ||
| Rocketman |
Maybe the truth is, the scientists doubt themselves and no one really knows anything with any certainty. And now one camp of thinkers will use these emails as a tool of ridicule in an effort to support their beliefs against those of opposite beliefs. But the reality might well be, they don't know either. The question is, what are these peoples motives? Saving the planet? Glory? Funding? It comes to something when we can't trust science. Or is that scientists? Rocket | ||
| Aesquire |
It comes to something when we can't trust science. Or is that scientists? Political science. While pollution is a real problem, especially in poorer countries, ( China is a real mess ) the Global warming guys went from science to politics. While big changes in pollutants and the laws regarding them require politics, the "environmental movement" has been political & not honest from the beginning. See DDT bans & the 10+ million people who dies from malaria who didn't need to. Even when the "science" was KNOWN to be faulty, these people persist in the politics of the ban, to the detriment of mankind, and the betterment of their ego's. Throw in the political aspect of the "green party" as a tool of the SVU/KGB/NKVD/Cheka ( same guys ) and you have a recipe for evil. As has been said by smart people above, we have problems, and they are not being solved as the Global Warming guys use all the air in the room to push their agenda. For a great example of political idiocy, see the food into fuel thing in the U.S. Alcohol is a viable, but imperfect fuel, and making it from garbage is a great idea, but making it from corn? that's politics, and has led to food price rises that have hit the third world way harder than here. Motives? all the things you list, Rocket, plus a self loathing/guilt from being rich ( Anyone in the U.S. or even England is rich compared to most of Africa ) and a deliberate attack on western industry by the old Soviet system & now Russia, the big oil & natural gas exporter. I may be paranoid, but they are out to get us. Just not with large fleets of nuclear bombers anymore. ( the fleet is smaller, and gas pipeline shutdowns don't invite MAD ) | ||
| Gregtonn |
"Particulates from diesel needs real study." If anyone would choose to research it they would likely find that particulate from burning jet fuel, basically diesel, is the largest contributor to atmospheric pollution. G | ||
| Blastronomer |
Wow. As a science teacher, I hardly know where to begin to address the truly depressing level of scientific illiteracy that is contained in this thread. Here goes... 1. Scientific uncertainty: Science has always included a certain level of uncertainty (no pun intended). Science is not an attempt to "prove" things, it's actually more correctly thought of as a method of "disproving" things through careful and rigorous methods that are open to all for scrutiny (peer review). In fact, the mistakes or "faked data" that Sifo references are a perfect example of how science is supposed to work. However, the existence of uncertainty within a specific theory, does not disprove the theory in entirety. The classic example of this is gravity. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how it works, but I challenge anyone to claim that it doesn't exist. We can measure it, make predictions about how it affects objects, and even experience it on a personal level. It's true there is a great deal of uncertainty about the climate, however, there is an incredible volume of evidence that supports the theory of a rapidly changing climate. 2. Common misconceptions: Climate vs weather - These are commonly confused as being the same thing. Weather is a short lived, localized phenomenon that occurs in the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere. Weather is affected by climate which is the long term average of weather conditions such as temperature, precipitation, humidity, cloud cover, wind direction and speed, etc. in a given area. People often offer anecdotal evidence against climate change. For example, here in SE Michigan, we had an unusually snowy winter last year. Some may say that this "proves" that climate change isn't happening. This is just plain wrong. When we speak of climate change we are speaking of changes on a global level not a local one. 3. The Carbon Cycle: Carbon, like all elements cycles through the different earth systems. For example, atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 is absorbed by plants during photosynthesis. Those plants may be eaten by an animal which has now taken that carbon into its body. That animal may be eaten by another or simply die of old age and decompose adding that carbon to the soil. In that way, carbon moves from one place to another. Sometimes, carbon my be locked up in one place for a very long time (millions of years). This is known as a reservoir and includes things such as limestone (a form of the mineral calcium carbonate CaCO3) and fossil fuels (coal and petroleum) which are composed of hydrocarbons (long chains of carbon and hydrogen atoms). The fossil fuels we use for energy were formed over 360 million years ago during a time called the Carboniferous Period when the climate was much warmer. The earth was covered by great swaths of tropical forests and swamps extending much farther north and south of the equator than they do today. Those forests and swamps absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and locked it away in the form of biologic carbon. Naturally, that carbon would have remained locked in the earth in the form of coal for hundreds of millions of years. The problem is that humans have interrupted the carbon cycle on a massive scale and are literally digging that carbon out of the earth and putting it back into the atmosphere by combusting it for energy. 4. The real uncertainty: There is no debate among climatologists about the warming of the climate on a global scale. However, there is debate about whether that warming can be attributed to human activities (anthropogenic climate change) or naturally occurring cycles outside our influence. It's a matter of causation vs correlation. Just because two data sets are statistically correlated, does not prove that one causes the other. This is where more research is needed. 5. Why not take action?: Suppose we assume that climate change is anthropogenic and we proceed with actions to limit our effects. Would we really be worse off if 100 years from now we determine that it was a naturally occurring cycle? I would argue that no, we would not. In fact, we would be better off. Switching to cleaner energy sources benefits all of humanity in more ways than I care to list at this point. Think about the way in which harnessing the energy in fossil fuels allowed the industrial revolution to happen. Switching to new, LIMITLESS, clean energy sources such as solar would spark a new resurgence in industry and manufacturing. We are on the verge of the next industrial revolution if we make the right decisions. 6. EARTHLINGS UNITE! Regardless of political or religious affiliations we all share the same planet and resources. If you took the time to read my admittedly lengthy post, you may assume that I am some sort of "liberal hippy treehugger". I am not. I am however, a believer in the power of science to make sense of the world and improve our standard of living. Science is apolitical. It is not about undermining religion or tradition or pursuing a secret agenda. It is about evidence and the evidence points very clearly to the fact that humans are having a negative effect on the planet. We can choose to ignore the evidence or act on our current understanding. Choosing to ignore it will only lead to further degradation of our one and only source of life.} | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Blast, tell me something new. Attempting to hide or cover up data is not the same as proving or disproving a thesis. This goes way beyond " uncertainty in a theory". I'm surprised you can't see the difference. You're right, this particular incident does not disprove man-made global warming but it's also true the debate is not over no matter what Al Gore says. There is no debate among climatologists about the warming of the climate on a global scale It's my understanding the globe has been cooling over the last decade which is why some are attempting to "fix" the data. Perhaps, I'm not reading from the same textbook as you. Science is apolitical. My Lord, did you even take time to read the article? What's the UN - a social club? You don't understand people with a statement like that. Why not take action? Depends on the "action" you're promoting. I'm not in favor of raising my energy costs two grand a year in some BS carbon trading scheme ,that does nothing to solve the problem, in order to placate you conscious. | ||
| Bikertrash05 |
Blastronomer is right. "Science is not an attempt to "prove" things, it's actually more correctly thought of as a method of "disproving" things through careful and rigorous methods that are open to all for scrutiny (peer review)." The so-called "climatology scientists" were doing the opposite, they were attempting to prove their theory (even if it meant falsifying data) and not letting peers review their findings. |
