Climategate

Danno

I think the clue is with the shark in the last photo Dolan!!! :P

Danno

Danno wrote: »

I think the clue is with the shark in the last photo Dolan!!! :P

Yes I know the original picture was a joke.

I was just commenting on the reply....

steamjetjoe

Min wrote: »

I am a skeptic for a while now.

I remember in the early 80s at school and learning about global cooling and that a possible ice age was not that far away, then it flipped and it was global warming and it was out of control.

I'd say the 'sky is falling in' crowd are out of control.

I can also remember being taught that we are heading an ice age:eek:

Just to put this into layman's terms for me.

1. Someone hacked into some scientists emails
2. These emails contain evidence that the whole human, man made global warming agenda is a scam?
3. If this is true, why the hell are RTE, SKY NEWS, CNN, & FOX NEWS not carrying this story?

asdasd

for me.

1. Someone hacked into some scientists emails

Correct

2. These emails contain evidence that the whole human, man made global warming agenda is a scam?

No. It proves, if anything, there was some data manipulation.to over-egg the pudding. I think that human warming is happening.

3. If this is true, why the hell are RTE, SKY NEWS, CNN, & FOX NEWS not carrying this story?

Just saw it on Channel 4.

swe_fi

Firstly, I like the expression human warming

Secondly, there is no global warming going on. You can think what you want but it just isn't true. It creates jobs though, and meetings, which is nice. I'm not even going to try to back this up, because the truth is out there. We live on about 20% of a huge planet in space, we are like 6 billion people little barely 2 meters tall, a few cars and planes etc...please...it is not going to make a difference. I believe in smog in towns...eh...cities.. like tokyo but global warming, no way.

This line is priceless
"3. If this is true, why the hell are RTE, SKY NEWS, CNN, & FOX NEWS not carrying this story?"

They probably will but more from a perspective that it is a novelty "mad scientist" story, "ho ho"

asdasd

Secondly, there is no global warming going on. You can think what you want but it just isn't true.

There is warning going on.

Asdasd is neither an alarmist, nor a denialist. he wont have this.

sunset

BBC Newsnight have just had a discussion on the leak. CRU, at University of East Anglia, admit to the emails but claim that they use words such as 'trick' in a casual incorrect way. However, it was notable that none of the lead scientists involved in the emails took part in the discussion to justify what they did. The explanation offered would have been more convincing if they had made it themselves, instead of an alternative senior professor. Other points discussed briefly were the unavailability of the original data to any other scientists who have tried to verify the data and concern for the integrity of science and how science is conducted.

This actually means that the quality and accuracy of the original data has never been verified through a proper (independent) peer review process. And yet the IPCC has stood over the data without comment for years! Why, I wonder?

Orchard Rebel

Just a few questions to the deniers on here:

(1) How does some poor science at UEA prove conclusively that man-made climate change is a myth?

(2) If man-made climate change has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, why should those denying it not be subject to the same burden of proof?

(3) If we follow your assertions and reject the theory of man-made climate change and subsequently you turn out to be wrong, are you willing to accept refugees from countries who are adversely affected by it?

I'm not saying that you are wrong (far from it) but the cynic in me can't help feeling that - human nature being what it is - the fear of the losing big cars, cheap air travel and the ability to leave all your electrical equipment on all night is sufficient motive for many people to adopt the same "me first" attitude we've seen in other parts of our society and reject man-made climate change, even if the science was overwhelming.

For the moment, I think I'd prefer to reduce CO2 emissions and be wrong than do nothing and be wrong - at least until the deniers themselves can prove beyond reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is a myth.

asdasd

(2) If man-made climate change has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, why should those denying it not be subject to the same burden of proof?

The burden of proof should be greater on people who suggest a new hypthesis, and who are demanding the takedown of the entire Western Economy to pay for something that may not be true, at all ( I believe it is happening but is trivial).

we've seen in other parts of our society and reject man-made climate change, even if the science was overwhelming.

Most people who reject climate change have mathematical degrees, while the typical sociology degree holders are certain ( look at this forum - the more technical posters are dubious).

As for what our carbon foorprint: i live with 3 people and have no car. Trust me my carbon foot print is a tiny fraction of Prince Charles, Al Gore; and even the Hadley centre boyos are a major multiple of that.

I think we should do something. Just in case. The solution, though, needs to be taken out of the anti-capitalist refugees from hippydom and communism, and to people who can do stuff: fusion, wind technology, nulear, geo engineering, GM foods to trap more Carbon etc.

otherwise, and this is what bugs me on the thing, we are being lectured to by corrupt scientists, and Guardian readers. They can f*ck off.

Orchard Rebel

asdasd wrote: »

The burden of proof should be greater on people who suggest a new hypthesis, and who are demanding the takedown of the entire Western Economy to pay for something that may not be true, at all ( I believe it is happening but is trivial).



Most people who reject climate change have mathematical degrees, while the typical sociology degree holders are certain ( look at this forum - the more technical posters are dubious).

As for what our carbon foorprint: i live with 3 people and have no car. Trust me my carbon foot print is a tiny fraction of Prince Charles, Al Gore; and even the Hadley centre boyos are a major multiple of that.

I think we should do something. Just in case. The solution, though, needs to be taken out of the anti-capitalist refugees from hippydom and communism, and to people who can do stuff: fusion, wind technology, nulear, geo engineering, GM foods to trap more Carbon etc.

otherwise, and this is what bugs me on the thing, we are being lectured to by corrupt scientists, and Guardian readers. They can f*ck off.

Well I'm a Guardian reader but I wouldn't lecture anyone on this other than to offer the opinion that it's too big a decision to get wrong. For that reason I don't think that the deniers should be subject to any the less scrutiny than those advocating climate change. Whilst the battle rages, I'll continue to reduce my CO2 where I can - as you say, just in case.

Orchard Rebel

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

Just a few questions to the deniers on here:

(1) How does some poor science at UEA prove conclusively that man-made climate change is a myth?

It doesn't, just in the same way as the claims that climate changes are man-made were never conclusively proven.

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

(2) If man-made climate change has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, why should those denying it not be subject to the same burden of proof?

Only an independant unbiased comprehensive study can get anyway near answering that, even then it may have inconclusive results.

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

(3) If we follow your assertions and reject the theory of man-made climate change and subsequently you turn out to be wrong, are you willing to accept refugees from countries who are adversely affected by it?

Proving that the future changes were/were not manmade would be as equally contentious. As for refugees, that's scaremongering.

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

I'm not saying that you are wrong (far from it) but the cynic in me can't help feeling that - human nature being what it is - the fear of the losing big cars, cheap air travel and the ability to leave all your electrical equipment on all night is sufficient motive for many people to adopt the same "me first" attitude we've seen in other parts of our society and reject man-made climate change, even if the science was overwhelming.

For the moment, I think I'd prefer to reduce CO2 emissions and be wrong than do nothing and be wrong - at least until the deniers themselves can prove beyond reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is a myth.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour for energy conservation, just believe that carbon taxation is daylight robbery and one of the biggest con trick of the modern age (after overpriced houses).

asdasd

I'll continue to reduce my CO2 where I can - as you say, just in case.

Sure, the secondary advantage of that is that we are less reliant on oil.

I like new technology anyway, being a engineer, so I like solutions rather than lectures, I like the Prius for instance. Just good technology. And the new lights. Etc.

swe_fi

People recycle (i hate those 3 bins with a passion) because it is good for the environment. All it is really good for is the feel-good ("inner-peace-effect") factor which does more for the environment that any actual recycling act
- inner peace = lower avg heart-rates = less heart RPM = less warming (simple physics)
I don't think there are enough shall we call it climate change deniers to counteract he inner-peace-effect with the anger-effect (anger=faster heart beats= more heat) reaction to the stupidity of the recycling actually taking place so all in all it will not increase heat.

Recycling is pretty much never environmental-neutral. The only thing def worth recycling is aluminium (it takes less energy to recycle than to make new). And i am not talking on a small "me"-scale ("Well, I bring my bottles/plastic to the recycling point on my recycled cardboard skateboard, that I then recycle and skip homewith my hemp rope")

Asdasd sorry I honestly don't mean to pick on (on your 3000d post and all) you but you said Prius. Prius is probably one of the biggest arguments for being against against climate-change hype. I agree it is on a technological level a little bit interesting but so ugly & boring. And celebs have them as some token "I care" thing.

I do care about the environment by the way but more from an astethic perspective. The forests (where there are any) are so badly looked after here. My point here is if the forests were more respected (looked after, "groomed") people would respect them, use them for recreation and would probably not be chucking their takeaway supermacs bags out their SUV windows becuase, it looks so bad. Same thing with lakes.

swe_fi

swe_fi wrote: »

People recycle (i hate those 3 bins with a passion) because it is good for the environment. All it is really good for is the feel-good ("inner-peace-effect") factor which does more for the environment that any actual recycling act

So do I, but I cut out the middleman, I've converted an old "Stanley 8" range by fitting a second heat exchanger, into a "secondary water heater" I now burn all the domestic waste, it gives me free hot water and reduced oil useage and I don't have to pay for a bin lorry to come and collect the rubbish.

Transporting waste around the place is imho a greater waste than burning it at home.

Orchard Rebel

Deleted User wrote: »

Proving that the future changes were/were not manmade would be as equally contentious. As for refugees, that's scaremongering.

Thanks asdasd and dolanbaker, just playing devil's advocate. On the above point, dolanbaker, the intention wasn't to scaremonger but to question resolve. Whilst the sceptics (a better word than "deniers") on this site have strong scientific credentials to back up their scepticism, there are plenty of deniers out there who don't and it is perhaps those to whom that particular question is best put.

swe_fi

Dolanbaker: So do I, but I cut out the middleman, I've converted an old "Stanley 8" range by fitting a second heat exchanger, into a "secondary water heater" I now burn all the domestic waste, it gives me free hot water and reduced oil useage and I don't have to pay for a bin lorry to come and collect the rubbish.
<<< I like this, that is the exact right approach. It is practical & cost-saving and less harmful (net effect) on the environment. Purists would probably tell you to fit a catalytic converter on the Stanley exhaust though. I used to have a solution like this but the only risk is getting carried away and throwing pretty much anything in there (I like fire).

By the way someone said about referring to the right source etc (or something to that effect), excuse my ignorance but I am not going to do that, because doing this will not change any preconception (even if I/You know they are "correct") = I am as good a source as any web-link / article.

Debating is good & fun.

Min

Global cooling say Russians could be the real trend - three years ago.

"On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century," said the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences' astronomical observatory.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

Deep Easterly

asdasd wrote: »

there hasnt been an La Niña in the last decade.

late 2008 into 2009 had a marked La Nina, although it was never a "super" one.

asdasd

oh, right.

And temperatures fell, didnt they?

Orchard Rebel

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

Thanks asdasd and dolanbaker, just playing devil's advocate. On the above point, dolanbaker, the intention wasn't to scaremonger but to question resolve. Whilst the sceptics (a better word than "deniers") on this site have strong scientific credentials to back up their scepticism, there are plenty of deniers out there who don't and it is perhaps those to whom that particular question is best put.

Fair enough, just seen so many scaremongers in the recent past making outrageous claims about the outcome of global warming.

Deep Easterly

asdasd wrote: »

oh, right.

And temperatures fell, didnt they?

Not really, they more leveled off more than fell. I think there is a possibility that the rise in Arctic Ice during 2008 was due to the last La Nina but that is something I am not sure about.

Deep Easterly

Just been watching a "Climate Change" expert, a one Kieran Hickey from NUIG on Primetime. Blaming the recent heavy rain on Global Warming. I find this both insulting to me and to the people who have suffered terribly over the last week with flooding. He is just exploiting people's misery to push this concept further in my opinion. What these people want and need is help, not to have Climate Change rammed down their throats.

I wonder were the drier than average months of both September and October down to Climate Change? Were the frontal waves that passed over Ireland last week directly attributed to climate change? They can be easily explained from a meteorological perspective, so I would be interested to know how Global warming actually caused the conditions to occur?

Anyone?

sunset

There is no scientific basis for attributing recent flooding to the theory of global warming. Indeed one of the current problems of climate science is that global warming appears to have taken a holiday. Since this thread is concerned with 'climategate', some of the text from the emails which have been made public through the leak at CRU is informative:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming:but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

and,

"..we can not account for what is happening in the climate system.."

Both of these are from email extracts sent to Paul Hudson, the 'weatherman' on the BBC. You can find them on his blog. The point is, far from there being any certainty, there is massive uncertainty at the heart of the CRU about finding trends in global temperatures. This does not disprove their theory, but it does demonstrate aspects of the huge uncertainties it involves. Since the global climate has not been warming for many years, anything that is happening now can hardly be attributed to it!

Well now that the hacked emails thing has blown over we can get back to business

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

^^ Its all much much much worse than predicted.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well now that the hacked emails thing has blown over we can get back to business

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

^^ Its all much much much worse than predicted.

And after a few years of punitive "carbon taxation" they'll turn around and say "look the taxes worked, it's cooler!" :mad:

Redsunset

CLIMATEGATE-a summery for the layman.


Emails and files related to top scientists that support man made global warming theory were released in the hacked files. These scientists have authored/co-authored many of the studies relied on by the UN IPCC, and world governments. The studies have been used to pronounce global warming an immediate, and therefore taxable, threat.

Here are some of the highlights of the documents released.

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.

Redsunset

Catchy Climategate-(HIDE THE DECLINE) video skit.:D

http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param

Redsunset

Get your T-shirts,5 for a Euro............:D

Son Of A Vidic

Thank God they are exposed with the lies and deceit. Nothing will change though because Governments have now realised the wonderful 'screw' factor associated with the climate change myth. The potential for taxes and stealth taxation is to wonderful for them to ignore. So we are all still 'screwed'.

medicman2009

medicman2009 wrote: »

Thank God they are exposed with the lies and deceit. Nothing will change though because Governments have now realised the wonderful 'screw' factor associated with the climate change myth. The potential for taxes and stealth taxation is to wonderful for them to ignore. So we are all still 'screwed'.

You're not wrong there

PS: there is a parallel thread in the soc/green issues forum that may be of interest to some folk here.

Even there the sceptics are getting the upper hand, but you may be right it's too late to stop the politicians (& "green business") from screwing us.