Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Actually, as you can see by reading my post again, I never mentioned at all what I believe or what my opinions are on the topic. I never made any argument about climate change or what I believe we can or can't do about climate. I was just pointing out the flaws another member made when (most likely subconsciously) implying that nature and man are separate entities, along with informing that their opinion about how and when people should move from their home and how important one's home is, is only an opinion and doesn't add anything useful to the debate about global warming, and may even be insensitive.

 

lol...thanks...I did read it differently. But I agree...we are part of nature the way I look at it... Sometimes all that means it the best we can hope for is to go along with the flow.

[unclebuck]

I'll believe the world is cooling when the glaciers start growing instead of receeding. I've spent plenty of time in the high country and can tell you they are moving the wrong way.

 

Also there are quite a few pollutants in the snow up there -somewhat surprisingly - they are more exposed to the jet stream and socalled pristine areas are actually reasonably contaminated.

 

Also not that it matters , I know CO2 is what gets everyone excited, but shouldn't we try to do something about pollution that accompanies the co2 released when burning fossil fuels. Otherwise lets just kill the clean engery debate and go full bore with cheap coal power if it doesn't make any difference to anyone! I could use a break on my power bill.

[calkid75]

I actually would not consider man being all that natural with all we do to the earth. If you want to know my real belief it is that the real problem with the earth is over population. The only real solution to all our environmental problems is to reduce population, not a very easy solution. I believe that problem with the most invasive species (Man) is that we have found ways to stop nature from balancing by removing us. I also believe that sometime in my expected lifetime (50-60 years) nature will have some revenge, some kind of disease or similar that removes a significant % of the population of the world. This is nothing to look forward to just something that I think we can predict will happen. (In the past we have had this and large wars do just such a thing.) I also do not think we need to protect a way of life, man has always adapted and disappeared. It is NATURAL, man just tries to stop nature all the time. I think if one looks at the history of most people you will find that they roamed or moved for food and other needs. Only in most modern times do we stay in one place and have stuff brought to us.

 

Just my (radical) opinion,

Guy

 

 

Quite telling, I believe, of certain groups of people and how they view the world. Notice that by saying 'when NATURE changes the situation' that is mutually exclusive from being man-made, and is acceptable. You specifically pointed out that you don't believe global warming to be caused by CO2, so I'm assuming you believe it's from some other 'natural' cause, am I right? If so, when did we forget that we humans are part of nature, and are natural as well. The whole argument that we don't need to protect the way of life and the historical conditions of a certain group of people because it's all a 'natural' change doesn't hold up, because if caused by human beings, it is therefore natural as well.

 

If you still believe what you wrote, even when considering humans part of nature, then it boils down to an opinion, the opinion that environment shouldn't be protected for a people's historical way of life to survive. And it's your right to have that opinion. Not that it really means much, it's just one opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else wants/does/should be forced to assent or agree. Pretty arrogant to believe that what you believe is what should be imposed upon others, especially when historically other peoples have felt much more akin to a thing called 'home' than 'we' do in the present day, and that having to leave that home and community to somewhere else is more than just getting used to a new piece of property.

 

So what is it: You think that humans are not part of nature, and thus global warming, being natural, is acceptable and the Inuit should move? Or is it that you do believe humans are part of nature, and that global warming, being natural (and therefore possibly man-made) is acceptable, and Inuit should move because we're not going to do anything to help?

Just curious.

 

[reevesr1]

The last (9th) comment by Scientist on the Steve Janke article pretty much sums up the stupidity of this debate..........."I'm a scientist and therefore I know what's right and what's best and you're just a hack who knows nothing"..........If the point of Janke's column on idealists wasn't clear to begin with, Mr. Scientist sure drove the point home in spades.......

 

I gotta say I found Mr. Janke's article extremely disappointing. The jist was what? Conservatives are mostly realists in the best sense of the work and liberals are mostly idealists in the worst sense of the word? Not too damn surprising coming from a conservative paper.

 

The world needs idealists and realists. No political party (or I should amend with mainstream political party) has a monopoly on either. To imply they do is pretty myopic on the part of Mr. Janke. But it's easy for him, since I'm sure he considers himself a conservative realist.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I'll believe the world is cooling when the glaciers start growing instead of receeding. I've spent plenty of time in the high country and can tell you they are moving the wrong way.

 

Also there are quite a few pollutants in the snow up there -somewhat surprisingly - they are more exposed to the jet stream and socalled pristine areas are actually reasonably contaminated.

 

Also not that it matters , I know CO2 is what gets everyone excited, but shouldn't we try to do something about pollution that accompanies the co2 released when burning fossil fuels. Otherwise lets just kill the clean engery debate and go full bore with cheap coal power if it doesn't make any difference to anyone! I could use a break on my power bill.

 

Some of IPCC own studies showed that some glaciers are getting thicker but still receding. In fact their mass is growing even though only one indicating shows shrinking the assumptions may be wrong. More studies are needed.

 

Also the shrinking Antarctic glacier was shown to be doing so not due to warming. Surface recorders showed a slight cooling over the study period. That glacier is suspected on shrinkage due to warming of the Earth...from within. Volcanic sort of thing.

 

Some glaciers are growing. The IPCC refuses or scientists are scared or unable to release studies that try and explain why some grow, some shrink and some stay the same.

 

I can't understand why this is.

[SupremeLeader]

Some of IPCC own studies showed that some glaciers are getting thicker but still receding. In fact their mass is growing even though only one indicating shows shrinking the assumptions may be wrong. More studies are needed.

 

Also the shrinking Antarctic glacier was shown to be doing so not due to warming. Surface recorders showed a slight cooling over the study period. That glacier is suspected on shrinkage due to warming of the Earth...from within. Volcanic sort of thing.

 

Some glaciers are growing. The IPCC refuses or scientists are scared or unable to release studies that try and explain why some grow, some shrink and some stay the same.

 

I can't understand why this is.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

SupremeLeader...

 

Please take the time to read this article. He articulates the dilema I face with trying to rationalize the IPCC...

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ed-science.aspx

 

 

The media is very apprehesive about talking about this. They have been some of the first to buy this story and flog it hard...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/26/c...#socialcomments

 

I expect a tidal wave of accusations. The IPCC will certainly come back and say it is all out of context...an excuse for every thing...but at least now...even if some still want to believe I hope people will keep their eyes open and be more critical about what they hear and also the IPCC will be FORCED to cooperate with scientists that have a different perspective and will not be ostrasized like Suzuki etc. all wish would happen.

 

Sun

********************************************************************************

P.S.

 

Skewed science

Posted: November 26, 2009, 8:05 PM by NP Editor

climate change, University of East Anglia, Phil Green

A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data

 

 

By Phil Green

 

The global average temperature is calculated by climatologists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The temperature graph the CRU produces from its monthly averages is the main indicator of global temperature change used by the International Panel on Climate Change, and it shows a steady increase in global lower atmospheric temperature over the 20th century. Similar graphs for regions of the world, such as Europe and North America, show the same trend. This is consistent with increasing industrialization, growing use of fossil fuels, and rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

 

It took the CRU workers decades to assemble millions of temperature measurements from around the globe. The earliest measurements they gathered came from the mid 19th century, when mariners threw buckets over the side of their square riggers and hauled them up to measure water temperature. Meteorologists increasingly started recording regular temperature on land around the same time. Today they collect measurements electronically from national meteorological services and ocean-going ships.

 

Millions of measurements, global coverage, consistently rising temperatures, case closed: The Earth is warming. Except for one problem. CRU’s average temperature data doesn’t jive with that of Vincent Courtillot, a French geo-magneticist, director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris, and a former scientific advisor to the French Cabinet. Last year he and three colleagues plotted an average temperature chart for Europe that shows a surprisingly different trend. Aside from a very cold spell in 1940, temperatures were flat for most of the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil fuel use grew. Then in 1987 they shot up by about 1 C and have not shown any warming since. This pattern cannot be explained by rising carbon dioxide concentrations, unless some critical threshold was reached in 1987; nor can it be explained by climate models.

 

Courtillot and Jean-Louis Le Mouël, a French geo-magneticist, and three Russian colleagues first came into climate research as outsiders four years ago. The Earth’s magnetic field responds to changes in solar output, so geomagnetic measurements are good indicators of solar activity. They thought it would be interesting to compare solar activity with climatic temperature measurements.

 

Their first step was to assemble a database of temperature measurements and plot temperature charts. To do that, they needed raw temperature measurements that had not been averaged or adjusted in any way. Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to one of the ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the recent hacking of CRU’s computer systems) “there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.” Jones refused Courtillot’s request for data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto third parties.” (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said something very different: “I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,” referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)

 

Courtillot and his colleagues were forced to turn to other sources of temperature measurements. They found 44 European weather stations that had long series of daily minimum temperatures that covered most of the 20th century, with few or no gaps. They removed annual seasonal trends for each series with a three-year running average of daily minimum temperatures. Finally they averaged all the European series for each day of the 20th century.

 

CRU, in contrast, calculates average temperatures by month — rather than daily — over individual grid boxes on the Earth’s surface that are 5 degrees of latitude by 5 degrees of longitude, from 1850 to the present. First it makes hundreds of adjustments to the raw data, which sometimes require educated guesses, to try to correct for such things as changes in the type and location of thermometers. It also combines air temperatures and water temperatures from the sea. It uses fancy statistical techniques to fill in gaps of missing data in grid boxes with few or no temperature measurements. CRU then adjusts the averages to show changes in temperature since 1961-1990.

 

CRU calls the 1961-1990 the “normal” period and the average temperature of this period it calls the “normal.” It subtracts the normal from each monthly average and calls these the monthly “anomalies.” A positive anomaly means a temperature was warmer than CRU’s normal period. Finally CRU averages the grid box anomalies over regions such as Europe or over the entire surface of the globe for each month to get the European or global monthly average anomaly. You see the result in the IPCC graph nearby, which shows rising temperatures.

 

The decision to consider the 1961-1990 period as ‘normal’ was CRUs. Had CRU chosen a different period under consideration, the IPCC graph would have shown less warming, as discussed in one of the Climategate emails, from David Parker of the UK meteorological office. In it, Parker advised Jones not to select a different period, saying “anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted.” That’s hardly a compelling scientific justification!

 

It is well known to statisticians that in any but the simplest data sets, there are many possible ways to calculate an indicator using averages. Paradoxically, and counter-intuitively, they often contradict each other. As a simple example of how the same data can be teased to produce divergent results, consider the batting averages of David Justice and Derek Jeter. For each of three years in 1995-97, Justice had a higher batting average than Jeter did. Yet, overall, Jeter had the highest batting average.

 

In addition to calculating temperature averages for Europe, Courtillot and his colleagues calculated temperature averages for the United States. Once again, their method yielded more refined averages that were not a close match with the coarser CRU temperature averages. The warmest period was in 1930, slightly above the temperatures at the end of the 20th century. This was followed by 30 years of cooling, then another 30 years of warming.

 

Courtillot’s calculations show the importance of making climate data freely available to all scientists to calculate global average temperature according to the best science. Phil Jones, in response to the email hacking, said that CRU’s global temperature series show the same results as “completely independent groups of scientists.” Yet CRU would not share its data with independent scientists such as Courtillot and McIntyre, and Courtillot’s series are clearly different.

 

At the upcoming Copenhagen conference, governments are expected to fail to agree to an ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Here’s a more modest, if mundane goal for them: They should agree to share the data from their national meteorological services so that independent scientists can calculate global climatic temperature and identify the roles of carbon dioxide and the sun in changing it.

 

Financial Post

Phil Green is a statistician, president of Greenbridge Management Inc. and author of the upcoming book misLeading Indicators.

 

**********************************************************************

 

Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists

Last Updated: Thursday, November 26, 2009 | 7:24 PM ET Comments415Recommend119CBC News

A tractor prepares a field under wind turbines at the Spearville Wind Energy Facility near Spearville, Kan. Wind power has been pushed as a way to fight climate change. (Orlin Wagner/Associated Press)

Climate change scientists are on the defensive after hackers broke into a server of a British climate research centre over the weekend and posted hundreds of private emails that appear to show scientists have overstated the threat of man-made global warming.

 

On Saturday, the University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research centre on climate change.

 

The hackers reportedly stole more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists, and posted about 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents on websites.

 

Skeptics of climate science have seized on the documents — at least some of which have been confirmed as authentic — as evidence that some scientists have overstated the case for global warming and have attempted to manipulate data.

 

But researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have dismissed the posting of documents as an attempt to derail discussions on dealing with global warming in advance of an upcoming global summit in Copenhagen.

 

Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the hackers were selective in choosing documents they believed could be used to make the scientists look bad.

 

"It comes down to politics at sort of all levels, and some of it's nasty and some of it is trying to destroy the message or even kill the messenger so to speak," said Trenberth.

 

In one leaked email, the East Anglia research centre's director Phil Jones wrote that he had just completed a "trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961" in order to "hide the decline," according to a leaked email, which the author confirmed was genuine.

 

Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context.

 

"The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.

 

Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told Reuters the communications posted online "in no way damages the credibility" of the panel's working group's 2007 findings that global warming is "very likely" caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

[Ricinus]

Sun, I have to admire your tenacity on this subject and I do respect your opinion, however the scientific community seems firmly against you.

 

When asked if temperatures have risen compared to 1800s, 90% of scientists said yes.

When asked if human activity is having a significant impact, 82% said yes

When Climatologists only were asked the percentage rose to 97% saying yes

 

I think I'm going to to go with the majority on this as I don't have any expertise in this field.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun, I have to admire your tenacity on this subject and I do respect your opinion, however the scientific community seems firmly against you.

 

When asked if temperatures have risen compared to 1800s, 90% of scientists said yes.

When asked if human activity is having a significant impact, 82% said yes

When Climatologists only were asked the percentage rose to 97% saying yes

 

I think I'm going to to go with the majority on this as I don't have any expertise in this field.

 

Regards Mike

 

Yes...I do find the topic quite interesting. Many people are relying on certain sources which now seem to be dropping sharply in respect in the international community. How far the tide will push will depend upon whether the media deems it will sell more papers than saying the sky is falling. Hard to tell although some are being forced to at least give it shallow lip service.

 

I know for a fact that 90% of all the Earth's experts on Climate did not agree to that statement. In fact if we go back into this Board's archives there was a complete post wherein a huge number of scientists that signed a declaration that they DID NOT agree to the IPCC ascertions and were especially miffed that their names were used in a list agreeing to these findings. The gist of that issue was that these scientists reviewed small parts to paragraphs to chapters and provided comments on the IPCC document. Regardless of their comments for or against, critical or supportive...they were listed as being falsely in agreement. Even those agreeing in concept to a paragraph or chapter were not in agreement with the full premise of the final document.

 

If this is the one defining point that makes you "believe" then I will PM you that particular article when I track it down again. It is actually quite famous... Maybe Terry has it handy. Just because I read SupremeLeader's post for instance...and comment on it...it does not mean I agreed with him in whole or in part. I may have but the point is these leading scientists took great exception to the liberties the IPCC took in using their names to promote this agenda.

 

I would be happy to look at your links to the percentages you have quoted above. :-)

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[SupremeLeader]

Sun, I have to admire your tenacity on this subject and I do respect your opinion, however the scientific community seems firmly against you.

 

When asked if temperatures have risen compared to 1800s, 90% of scientists said yes.

When asked if human activity is having a significant impact, 82% said yes

When Climatologists only were asked the percentage rose to 97% saying yes

 

I think I'm going to to go with the majority on this as I don't have any expertise in this field.

 

Regards Mike

I'm at an end point myself regarding this topic.

 

I am not a climatologist; but I know dozens of people personally who work in not-for-profit scientific research. In my experience they don't lie.

 

Sun, you work in the oil industry. Your entire career is a carbon footprint. Even if the science was 110% irrefutable you wouldn't accept it; it's a threat to you and yours.

 

That's the real issue. A few generations will deplete the world of a major source of it's resources. What about future generations......right, they'll have renewable energy technologies, and the climate will be warmer and better (if you live in a thin band in the temperate zone).

 

I would prefer my off-spring with a stable safe climate and environment, access to a reasonable amount of resources’ so they can build things, and respect for other groups of people around the world and the effect their lives have on others. To me the latter is a better option than to leave them with an inheritance of a big bank account because I raped and pillaged the planet, a climate damaged because I and others chose to deny science, and disrespect for other groups of people world-wide because of my stubborn self-centered attitude.

 

How about this Sun....you make a list of all the Glaciers that are growing (not advancing..growing). I'll make a list of all of the Glaciers that are shrinking. Whoever has the most points wins.

 

Forget it...

I'll just post the link. And you can tell me how this is a lie, a conspiracy, and there are hacked Emails to prove it.

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-...ers-growing.htm

 

See ya later guys, I'm off to the misty mountains for a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

ricinus...

 

Read this...

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...d1-5c755457a8af

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

While SL does not wikipedia...they have put together in interest synopsis... It goes into both sides...

 

...but if you feel comfortable that all your money and risk thereof is being well spent because of "experts" more knowledgeable than you are making the decisions for you...please read this...

 

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

 

This is a quick read on summarizing the scientists for global warming.

[Ricinus]

Well I listen to a Doctor on medical decisions

I listen to economists on the economy

I listen engineers for expertise in their fields

I listen to biologists on biology

Why would I not listen to climatologists on climate?

 

Here you go

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/...lwarmingsurvey/

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Well I listen to a Doctor on medical decisions

I listen to economists on the economy

I listen engineers for expertise in their fields

I listen to biologists on biology

Why would I not listen to climatologists on climate?

 

Here you go

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/...lwarmingsurvey/

 

Regards Mike

 

Hard to really gauge the results on this one.

 

10,257 people with some interest in climate were approached. Not sure where they picked the group from.

 

of which

 

15.5% were geochemists

12% were geophysicists

10.5% were oceanographers

5-7% were geologist, paleogeolgists, hydrogeologists

5% were climatologists. Just to be clear you are relying on 51 people to spend Billions of your tax dollars...

balance were anyone else on their list...

 

greater than 50% were actively doing work on climate research which is interesting since nowhere could I find how they derived their statistical sample. For instance (and I am not elluding this to be the case just something a scientist should ask)...is the study sample biased? Did the list of names come from the IPCC or was it a random mail out to anyone with a masters or Ph.D. in an accredited University? If for instance this survey was sent to only those doing research or affililated with research trying to prove global warming then you would skew the results. Again...I am not saying this occurred...but surveys have to be taken carefully. Understanding only 5% were climatologists and I would not hesitate to assume that all 5% are being paid currently to study global warming...what else could they say? If their convictions fall in that direction it is only logical.

 

anyways of the 10,257 people surveyed...30.7% responded to some degree. I feel that is a good response rate for any survey.

 

One thing that I read was that many scientists that know their own field well would say they see no evidence in their data for global warming. They still however say that since colleges in other areas see evidence then they believe it also. That peer acceptance has some startling flaws insofar as while one side refutes it...they ignore it to follow the masses. If everyone just assumes everyone else believes it then we perpetuate that feeling over and over again...potentially falsely so.

 

As for how many climatologists are out there... ? From what I can see 157 people are driving the ship right now.

 

If 157 doctors around the world said something radical...would people really jump on board that quickly?

[Christofficer]

LOL, are we really going to use CNN as a decent source for anything anyways? I hope not. What people don't understand is this is never gonna change so as long as we're breathing. Our garbage has to go somewhere, we need to cut down trees to make TP and paper, and we need fuel to drive. So I don't see what the huge stink is about, they're basically gonna be taxing us for more useless *hit. The only debate is whether climate change is caused by us or not, which doesn't truly matter in all light of things. Maybe I'm just having a careless and brain dead day today, but I just don't see what this big carbon tax based on these theories is going to do for us when it all comes down to it. It's kinda pointless arguing about something that's never going to change.

[canadensis]

LOL, are we really going to use CNN as a decent source for anything anyways? I hope not. What people don't understand is this is never gonna change so as long as we're breathing. Our garbage has to go somewhere, we need to cut down trees to make TP and paper, and we need fuel to drive. So I don't see what the huge stink is about, they're basically gonna be taxing us for more useless *hit. The only debate is whether climate change is caused by us or not, which doesn't truly matter in all light of things. Maybe I'm just having a careless and brain dead day today, but I just don't see what this big carbon tax based on these theories is going to do for us when it all comes down to it. It's kinda pointless arguing about something that's never going to change.

 

 

 

You are very correct as nothing will change except we will be paying more for things, all based on the greenhouse gasses that each industry/ country pumps out, not pollution.

 

Over the past 20 years the surge in wealth that North America has experienced is unprecedented. This is just a new way for governments and groups with socialist agendas to tap into the wealth and re-distribute it. Yes just another tax. They must have a reason and a scapegoat and this is it..

 

Buy a hybrid, recycle, pay more in tax and for fuel and I guess you are doing your part. All the BS that is being bantered around by bthe big international groups debating this won't make any difference, except a lighter wallet if you happen to live in an industrialized country.

 

 

I guess I am just "dumbing down the discussion" again, eh Supreme Leader?

[bigbowtrout]

..

[Smitty]

Hey Sundance:

 

Let me just say that in the alternate, parallel universe where I'm 13 and hopelessly lost in the woods, I hope you're the bloodhound they send to find me...cause you would. Take that for the compliment I intended it to be.

 

 

As for this debate, despite all the murkiness and the ping pong, I feel very strongly about this: if there is to be a plan and money to be spent, we simply cannot do this without the other big emitters. So count me as voting for a big fat no for spending one cent until I know at least China, India, and the US are going to feel as much pain as us, from a consumer point of view. A costly carbon pan/tax for some emitters and not others will just be totally useless and a waste. Even with everyone on board, it still may be a waste. Like I said, isn't there mouths to feed and clean water to provide to 3rd world countries?...

 

 

 

As usual, waiting for the environmental movement to get a just a tad more real and practical...my tree hugger wannabe heart awaits their inspiration...

 

Smitty

 

 

 

 

[hydropsyche]

Denier is not derogatory term..... you deny global warming.

 

Can I be a Skeptic...or will I immediately be labeled a Denier because the science is settled?

 

The earth is round. I think that’s been settled but I don't believe this science has been. I question the motive of those that say it is (and apparently won’t release raw data) and create derogatory terms to ostracize those that don't believe it is. Or label them bias instead of debating them.

 

This creates distrust in those of us who are not capable of analyze climatology data but are very capable of recognizing manipulative behaviour. The tendency to label everyone who doesn’t wholly agree with something a denier may not technically be derogatory but it does tend to draw a hard line. Black or White. Believer or Denier.

 

If the science hasn’t been settled, then the term Denier, in this context, is intended to be derogatory, imho.

 

[wtforward]

Sundancefisher

 

Your Trojan horse.......ex I would assume rather shortly

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...aked-emails-uea

[Pythagoras]

I'm at an end point myself regarding this topic.

 

I am not a climatologist; but I know dozens of people personally who work in not-for-profit scientific research. In my experience they don't lie.

 

Sun, you work in the oil industry. Your entire career is a carbon footprint. Even if the science was 110% irrefutable you wouldn't accept it; it's a threat to you and yours.

 

That's the real issue. A few generations will deplete the world of a major source of it's resources. What about future generations......right, they'll have renewable energy technologies, and the climate will be warmer and better (if you live in a thin band in the temperate zone).

 

I would prefer my off-spring with a stable safe climate and environment, access to a reasonable amount of resources’ so they can build things, and respect for other groups of people around the world and the effect their lives have on others. To me the latter is a better option than to leave them with an inheritance of a big bank account because I raped and pillaged the planet, a climate damaged because I and others chose to deny science, and disrespect for other groups of people world-wide because of my stubborn self-centered attitude.

 

How about this Sun....you make a list of all the Glaciers that are growing (not advancing..growing). I'll make a list of all of the Glaciers that are shrinking. Whoever has the most points wins.

 

Forget it...

I'll just post the link. And you can tell me how this is a lie, a conspiracy, and there are hacked Emails to prove it.

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-...ers-growing.htm

 

See ya later guys, I'm off to the misty mountains for a few days.

 

Hahaha...I didn't even read the thread. Skipped right to the end, found this and agree whole heartedly. You sum it up very well SL .

 

Thanks for the Led Zep reminder...loading up Goin' to Calfornia right now.

 

P.S. - I haven't found any posts from Fffwx in here but I'm pretty sure I disagree with what ever he is trying to say.

 

[flyfishfairwx]

Hahaha...I didn't even read the thread. Skipped right to the end, found this and agree whole heartedly. You sum it up very well SL .

 

Thanks for the Led Zep reminder...loading up Goin' to Calfornia right now.

 

P.S. - I haven't found any posts from Fffwx in here but I'm pretty sure I disagree with what ever he is trying to say.

 

That's just RUDE !!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have not made up my mind on this, When I hit 100,000 years old, I will tell you what mother nature decided to do.. with or with out our help...

 

But and there is always a but - I do try and keep my CFP as small as possible, while living as well as possible...Smaller car, recycle, sweaters, compost, only the best Cuban cigars, and cheapest beer, and single malt whiskey...

 

 

 

[bigbowtrout]

[TerryH]

Here's another interesting article:

 

Climate change data dumped

 

I especially love the quote from a CRU official: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

 

Ah yes, value-added data. :lol: Terry

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Hey Sundance:

 

Let me just say that in the alternate, parallel universe where I'm 13 and hopelessly lost in the woods, I hope you're the bloodhound they send to find me...cause you would. Take that for the compliment I intended it to be.

 

Smitty

 

Smitty

 

LOL... woof...woof... Smitty...I would not stop till you were found buddy!

 

SL

 

I find it frustrating people believe in any thing blindly that has such a critical impact on their life regardless of which way you travel. I suspect SL has not read any of the reports except for "news" releases.

 

Once I realized that the temperature models used tree ring data as a major data set to "prove" global warming I looked into it a bit more. They did not use all the tree ring data, compile, analyze and interpret and discuss...they instead first THROUGH OUT all data that did not make sense to their hypothesis. As such...as a scientist first and foremost SL you have to be skeptical any time someone proves something in reverse. Make the DATA fit the CONCLUSION.

 

The conspiracies don't prove nothing either way. While the emails prove some intent and planning and is looking extremely fraudulent...your statements about your children's lives is pure and simple the epitome of the religion we now call global warming. You would do anything now to save your kids from boiling alive on the Earth. They may starve from lack of food, freeze to death from lack of enough money to pay for heat or pay for transportation.

 

At the very ultimate smallest benefit of the email leak would be that the pro global warming people can not longer HIDE their raw data from normal course scientific scrutiny and review.

 

SL you deride the oil industry. I have an environmental background and where I work I suspect our environmental concern transcends even your efforts. People that know nothing about the oil industry and how it works should not throw stones in glass houses. How will I be negatively affected in a shrinking supply and an greatly increasing cost due to carbon issues? Are all global warming nuts going to stop driving, flying, having camp fire, running their natural gas stoves and fireplaces, only buy hemp clothing, stop buying anything with foam or plastic in the product. If I see common sense studies and well thought out studies that prove global warming...with my scientific background I will be on board faster than you can say "I love Gore!". I believe you are a teacher. As such I only hope you don't promote propaganda either way and present the information fairly to your pupils.

 

Cheers all.

 

Sun

 

P.S. Anyone seen Smitty? Woof Woof

[Guest Sundancefisher]

That's just RUDE !!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have not made up my mind on this, When I hit 100,000 years old, I will tell you what mother nature decided to do.. with or with out our help...

 

But and there is always a but - I do try and keep my CFP as small as possible, while living as well as possible...Smaller car, recycle, sweaters, compost, only the best Cuban cigars, and cheapest beer, and single malt whiskey...

 

I would buy into that as a UN sponsored Carbon decrease program! I could add in one car family and Ctrain as primary transportation mode.