Regional Forums » USA • Canada • Africa • Europe • China • India • Indonesia • Pakistan • Central/South America • Australia/NZ | Algae | Alternative EnergyBiodiesel » FAQ • Production • Cold Weather • Advanced Methods • Business • BioHeat • Vehicles • Marine | Classifieds » Vehicles • Equipment • Jobs • Oil
What anybody with any common sense already knew:
Arrogant puny men do not have the power or ability to change the climate.
Hi Nate,
Havent been here in a while....site is a little tricky to navigate. Hope all is well.
It does appear this little episode drove home the final nail in the coffin for the prospects of an international cap-and-trade treaty. If these guys were so confident in their research, why would they feel the need to collude in the suppression of data that might not support their agenda scientific theory.
This one's for you, jojo.
Guns, Gold, & Gas: the road to 21st century American prosperity
Yeah, keep thinking that as the polar ice melts the north pole becomes an ocean.
I want to be the first to water ski at the north pole. Nate you in?
Seriously thought Nate....the melting polar ice has nothing to do with man. Thats the point. You might as well have said...
"You'll be sorry when the next volcano erupts"
Whatever, Jody. Thanks for the topic. It's not worthy debating with you.
My concern is this has the effect of rendering all Climate Change discussion as bogus - in that because the CRU/East Anglia has been bending data to suit their agenda, automatically everyione will assume any Climate figures are fiddled.
That is the real crime - that over zealous scientists have assumed that fake science statistics are OK, because they cannot be wrong. Genuine open debate is what is required - with open peer review, that includes critique to have an open debate.
Unfortunately there are some who cannot accept that the earth is round, Darwin was right, we're already missing George W Bush and really, truly, don't mess with Tiger Woods' wife*.
Nick
* and I swear I saw Elvis at the junction of Duval Street and Front Street, Key West last night.
Nick Harrington
Greetings Nick. Any talk about climate change is bogus, because it infers man's ability to influence the climate. No need to debate. Planet is cooling and their are no scientists....just political scientists. I've had the good pleasure to learn from my time at the university as an engineering major that a PhD is good for wiping one's backside. It's time to let the old wise men in overalls start calling the shots.
What anybody with any common sense already knew: Arrogant puny men do not have the power or ability to change the climate.
You have got to be kidding. That statement of an absolute is what is arrogant. So you're saying that if we took the nuclear weapon arsenals of the world's governments and detonated them all above ground, that would not change the climate??
Musings from the Chiefio provides a laymans walk through how GIStemp are "filling in the gaps" where no data exists. Well worth a read - a taster:
First, it glues together some added data from Hohenpeissenburg, and from the Antarctic research stations. It squashes together the U.S. data from USHCN with the same U.S. data from GHCN. And to deal with the poor spacial coverage in the 1700’s, it deletes everything older than 1880. (While this gives a smoother spacial coverage, it does not handle the past quite as well; it now “starts history” at the bottom of the end of the Little Ice Age.)
ClimateGate or "bending the facts" as I charitably call it, is becoming an interesting reveal of what our scientists have been up to.
snorth,
The worlds nuclear arsenal? Really? That is your retort? Do any of you guys remember "Bahgdad Bob"?
I do....Bahgdad Bob telling reporters that Iraq was winning and the Americans were defeated.....all the while you could see US tanks in the background. By the way....I remember that being Bahgdad Bob's last press conference.
But dont worry sheep....the far left will dream up their next crisis with which to save you from.
Well IMO and many others see the whole climate change thing a means to make a huge power and money grab, and to hurt western civilizations. Doesn’t take a lot to figure out that the IPCC scientist is being paid to paint a picture they are paid to do. Where do you think they get their money from? Government grants. Pay my salary for 5 years, and I will prove anything you want. All you have to do is cherry pick the data.
Dereck
dereckbc Well IMO and many others see the whole climate change thing a means to make a huge power and money grab, and to hurt western civilizations.
Well IMO and many others see the whole climate change thing a means to make a huge power and money grab, and to hurt western civilizations.
With many Western Governments struggling to find a way to plug the whole in their finances, ClimateChange, Cap and Trade, Green Taxes are a great way of grabbing cash. Just call it a levy for Climate Change and BINGO! here comes the money!
dereckbc Pay my salary for 5 years, and I will prove anything you want. All you have to do is cherry pick the data.
Pay my salary for 5 years, and I will prove anything you want. All you have to do is cherry pick the data.
Was that a offer? I'll start, anyone else?
Derek - please select your chosen challenge!
PS: Service Pack upcoming for URL Last Post by.
Nick, your a funny guy... and i dont just mean lookin.
Anyone who has published knows how hard it is. The scary thing that came out of this recent news is that there may be pressure on some to not publish. I hope that isnt the case because that is where the real facts are brought forward and debated. If anything good happens from this, its likely gonna be more publications for people that really know their stuff to get ahold of the data and methods. If people have data and theories, I say great! publish away. I wanna read and reread.
I would also like to point out that when one publishes data and methods, sometimes the story narrows to try and get as lazer a focus as possible. Much of what I read about in this story is strong minds trying to resolve that focus and not necessarily trying to obfuscate the truth. There is a big difference.
But I also want to point out that alot of cruddy science doesnt get published because its cruddy and not warrented by the experts. Maybe the outcome of this news is that the standard gets lowered so that more people can get a voice into the debate. But that also might lead to cruddy science being passed along as legitimate. That is why publications are so restrictive as its like putting a stamp of approval that at least the science is sound.
CFC, acid rain, dust bowl's, smog ... we have proven that we can change our planet's balance, I dont think its a stretch to think that CO2 and other carbon emissions could also be doing it. Especially when there are so many very smart people that know 10000000x more about our climate than likely anyone reading this cite knows about our clime that say there is a good likelyhood that carbon IS infact changing our climate. Dont forget that our economy is based on free pollution and emissions of carbon, I find it a plausable concern.
Im also pretty sure that you cant just prove anything given an adequate amount of $, except that you cant just prove anything given an adequate amount of $. :)
Lastly, I think that the idea that gov buys climate change profs that will inturn bring in tax revenues is completely baseless conjecture. Climate is more important than pretty much all other issues combined. Computers dont work if you cant feed your people and water washes thru your keyboard. We should be spending HUGE amounts of money to better understand our weather and climate so as to make the best possible decisions that we can. Hiding our heads in the sand and just saying 'no way can that happen' is really not an option given all the data we now have.
flectere si nequeo superos, Achaeronta movebo! -Virgil
Having a PhD and a theory is not a good reason for committing crimes against humanity. This is worse than Enron, Madoff and Hitler all in one.
Funny you should mention Enron. Back in the 90's when a cap & trade system idea was being kicked around, guess who wanted a big piece of that action? Why, Ken Lay, of course!
Assuming AGW isn't over-hyped in the least, I still have a big issue with how these proposed agreements treat 'developing nations.' China is #1 in the world when it comes the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere, yet their caps would likely be less restrictive than the US. I understand China etc. want the developed world to pay a "debt of pollution" because, well, they were unable to achieve the same level of success the Western world reached in the last 100 years or so. IMO that's on China.
I do not want my reprentitives signing onto any agreements that put our nation at a competitive disadvantage.
OK, here's a little graphic to better describe ClimateGate:
My point about Green Taxes are - they are still taxes. I doubt anyone really believes that ClimateChange taxes are really ring-fenced for only green and good works. Didn't Ollie North prove the pont that funds can always be diverted to "other causes"? Betcha the same happens everyday on Capitol Hill - they just don't tell us.
I don't suggest that Climate Change (getting colder/warmer - you choose your favorite statistics) is wholly down to cyclical climate change. Of course we're responsible - but should we all go back to living in caves, grass huts or Days Inn? I just don't think spending billions or squillions to shave a degree off world temperatures is worth the effort. Spend that money developing health care, infrastructure, education, democracy, the destruction of those Scientologist nutters, (and while at it, ban Michael Jackson music) and the world will be a better, safer, more productive place.
I've just run a 5.4 liter Lincoln Navigator around the south Floriday keys at speeds between 45 and 65. A tank of gas cost $50.00, half that that Europe spends - yes - its called taxes. Your average UK rental car is 2 litre, probably diesel, usually a compact. There's a heap of work the USA has to do in its own back-yard before getting serious about more efficient transport.
Nice weather by the way.
Excellent points, Nick. Even the most 'optimistic' hopes for a climate treaty won't move the CO2 emission needle much beyond what Kyoto would have.
So is it worth the cost?
Here's a story from Wired (linked to on CNN.com) on the hacked climate e-mails. They actually have some comments from the people involved (imagine that!).
www.wired.com/.../climate-hack