Slashdot Mirror
New Batch of Leaked Climate Emails
New submitter kenboldt writes "Someone going by the alias 'foia' has dropped a link to a zip file containing thousands more emails similar to those released in 2009. There are apparently many more which are locked behind a password, presumably waiting to be released at some time in the future."
The University of East Anglia has released a brief statement indicating that the emails were probably obtained during the 2009 breach and held back until now as "a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy."
...just try to stir up some controversy to re-awaken the crazies.
The previous leaked e-mails had two results:
Sham news reporting like Fox News cherry-picked out-of-context blurbs that made it sound like the scientists couldn't agree on anything.
Real news reporting actually read all the conversations and saw the conclusion was that the scientists were unanimous in agreeing that climate change is real.
That they'd do a second leak proves that the leakers are morons who think this offensive sound-bites Fox reports will have some kind of impact, whereas the actual content of the e-mail will reaffirm what everybody already knows. Climate change is real and these upcoming leaked emails won't change anything.
Also I love that Fox sympathizers have to commit a crime (hacking into an institution) just to get ammo which they mistakenly think will bolster their "cause". If they had the brains to actually read the emails themselves, they'd see it hurts them.
If they are so infuriated about the timing they could publish the emails themselves in less sensible times, thus evading some of the shitstorm and gaining back a bit of reliability.
Right, because last time around, it turned out that there was a big conspiracy and lots of people got fired and no one believes in global warming any more.
oh, wait, that's exactly what didn't happen.
FOIA = Freedom Of Information Act
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Are we forgetting that the Koch brothers funded a separate study that pretty much confirmed the results? Crazies will be crazies, but I don't expect reasonable persons to be swayed by this.
Enough to shift public opinion, which is all you can ask for.
Long ago, the emails have just demonstrated that the people pushing it understand that perfectly well.
As things stand not one of the models that foretold our doom has held up over time. What we get is every 10 years a new set of predictions and models explaining why the last 20 years models and predictions weren't correct but we are still doomed anyway.
And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.
Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:
"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."
Listen, I'm all for the publication of the data and methods these scientists are using. But what exactly is releasing internal e-mails supposed to accomplish? Acting all righteous about "hiding the decline" and then you turn around and censor what you release?! That's pretty funny to me. Who do you think climate change is going to hurt the most anyway? My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet? Or the truly poor people? You know that subsistence farmer in Africa or China where a drought, famine or conflict could wipe him out at the drop of a hat? When times get tough, I'll have to give up my XBox Live Gold Account ... what the hell is someone living on less than $2 a day going to do?
It'll probably turn out like the UN anyway where the US pays $362 million and China pays $29 million so that's some pretty flimsy motivation there when the wealthiest nations will most likely be footing the bill.
My work here is dung.
No it didn't
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Climate scientists are providing context to the leaked emails here: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=9931
Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.
That's a nice article you linked there. Richard Muller? Maybe you bothered to follow up with what he actually found? The rest of Slashdot did and I think you might be interested in it.
My work here is dung.
No, it's just more confirmation that these guys don't know why things are but are far more concerned that the number deliver the right message.
Mister Limbaugh, could you please restate that in English?
what I dont get is why you rely on a biased source to tell you "nothing here" instead of taking an objective look at the gift given to you.
In other words - go read the fucking emails and then try to claim they are taken out of context or whatever other excuse you have. These guys are dirty and they have been caught with their pants down. How can you ignore this. What are you afraid of?
If they were secret Bush emails, you would be all over it.
"Climategate II"?
Seriously?
Who's behind this garbage, Hollywood?
[End Of Line]
The issue is that a set of emails can not counter all the other evidence and research. If I falsify tests on gravity and write some emails about it, does this mean that gravity is not a universal constant? The mentality of people who pounce on these emails as proof that "global warming" isn't real are the same ones that used snow storms as proof. They totally miss the overall picture.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Whoopie, another batch of incriminating emails for the alarmists to explain away. Furious spin doctoring has already commenced. True Believers continue to deny the reality of the ideological slant which has distorted climate science for the political gain of such luminaries as Al "the Bore" Gore.
This event helps highlight the difficulty in approaching any non-trivial problem in an unbiased way. The problem is less about the science than it is that the researches were clearly biased and pursuing specific results. The fact that others have claimed to reproduce the results does not lend credibility as long as they fail to acknowledge their bias and operate in a fully transparent way.
Whether you agree or disagree with the question of human affected climate change you really can't deny the fact that these folks are heavily biased toward a specific outcome for their research.
KK4SFV
Unreal how some think "deniers" believe that climate change doesn't exist. The earth's climate has been constantly evolving over billions of years.
Problem is we've been able to accurately measure the minuscule changes in climate for about 50 of 14 billion years. Second problem is we have absolutely no idea what climate changes the earth can sustain and which ones the earth cannot sustain.
Still no definite answers here. Some of this junk research "confirming" that climate change exists adds confusion to those not smart enough to understand this.
Apparently there are 1/4 million more emails protected by a pass phrase. Much discussion over at www.wattsupwiththat.com revolves around just how easy it is to crack a pass phrase. Some opinion is that, since there are encrypted and unencrypted versions of the same email, it should be easy. Other opinion is that the password will never be cracked?
Ok slashdotters, how easy is it to crack a passphrase?
I read through all of the highlighted quotes, 90-95% of it is more of the same stuff, climate denialists trying to find hanging material in the lines of innocent men. But there are a few quotes that were worth leaking, particularly under the "religion" and "the cause" sections. It's worrying that so many climate scientists have a professed personal interest in the outcome of their experiments turning out to support the theory of global warming. If any outcome should make them happier, they should be happier to prove themselves wrong, both because that's where the really interesting results (and Nobel prizes) come from, and in this case it would be good news for the human race which is mostly still hemming and hawing over whether to take this carbon emissions thing seriously.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hi, I might be able to answer that. Basically, he's reiterating commonly known conspiracy theory in that AGW is a platform of fear used to further the agenda of wealth redistribution. For example, the carbon credit trading scam.
Life is not for the lazy.
Bad Astronomer: Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet?
This imagery reminds me of the humor style of the guy who does The Oatmeal.
*oh my god, a girl is trying to talk to me on Slashdot, quick, reply with something that will impress her!*
I also snort.
My work here is dung.
Is climate change caused by humans? Is it a natural cycle?
Fuck that godamn question.
Here's what's happening right now: our fucking boat is sinking. Instead of trying to keep it afloat we're arguing about wether it's a pilot error or an iceberg.
Stop arguing about pointless shit and stop doing everything we can. If climate change is our fault, then we can probably also reverse it before it's too late. If it's a natural cycle that could possibly wipe out all humans from the surface of the planet, then we need to fight even harder against it.
I don't understand this fucking laid-back attitude from both camps.
Look moron, there's no grant money for disproving gravity yet there's plenty enough for the other way around. And you gravity believers try to equate us to nazi sympathizers by calling us gravity deniers. We're gravity skeptics, and we're just waiting for conclusive proof to make a decision. Most gravitymongering hype is bullshit and it's all just being pushed by media profiting off fear and politicians profiting off pro-gravity legislation. So until we hear from neutral sources unanimously coming to a consensus, we will rationally remain in doubt.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
This is what your climate skeptic had to say
"... "back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."
So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.
Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.
"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1eTMUgUpc"
No, they aren't, and no, they haven't.
And no, I'm not wasting my time with this because like most intelligent adults I already understand that having doubts is what people who are right do. Having doubts is scientifically valid. It's how science gets done, not religion.
Having no doubts and exuding false confidence is what people who are wrong do all the time.
In other words, shove those fucking emails up your ass. They do not mean what you desperately wish they mean. Global warming is a done discussion. Governments and corporations are already moving to adapt -- except for a few parasites like the Koch brothers (who are funding much of the anti-science "research" that you are lapping up so eagerly), who simply need to be pried off our nation's neck and burned like the blood-ticks that they are.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Because everyone knows those scientists are living in lavish mansions while the AGW deniers are living in straw huts. Moron.
How can you ignore this. What are you afraid of?
I'm afraid of you and your histrionic tactics and misinformation, Mister Beck.
Stop muddling this argument with verifiable facts. Global Warming activists hate it when you show them facts.
My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet?
This imagery reminds me of the humor style of the guy who does The Oatmeal.
*oh my god, a girl is trying to talk to me on Slashdot, quick, reply with something that will impress her!*
I also snort.
I just snorted milk out my nose!
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
providing context
Your weasel word detector should have gone off right there.
should be all that's needed to be said.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
"Americans' sense that Global Warming is the least of their worries right now continues to rise..."
-B-
It wouldn't help the cause.
There is no "other side" to the climate debate. There is a widely accepted set of facts, and there are professional doubters employed by the industries who stand to lose money if they are required to behave with even a smidgeon of responsibility towards the communities they are polluting and damaging with their pollutants.
There is no fucking "other side" to this debate. Climate change IS NOW HAPPENING. There is no longer any reason to dispute this subject because the signs are obvious. I grew up in Colorado in the 1970's and 1980's. When I go back there now, it is totally fucking unambiguous to me that on a global scale the temperature is rising. Look up from your feet at some previously snow-capped mountains -- it's not that damn hard.
Large-scale glaciers calving off into icebergs. The polar sea is now navigable for greater and greater periods of the year. If anything the prognostications of climate scientists have been overwhelmingly vindicated well ahead of schedule.
If you think there is another "side" to this, I would like you to produce the science that they are doing. Scientific papers, evidence -- ANY DAMN THING that contradicts the current accepted model.
I submit you will find exactly DICK in that regard. Except for the fictional natterings of Bjorn Lomborg (not a climate scientist in any way shape or form) you are not going to find much.
But if you do, bring it, mofo. Bring it the fuck on.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
What is a "Global Warming activist"?
There's just as much, if not more, grant money for people who prove climate change ISN'T man made. You don't think the oil companies aren't at the head of a VERY long line of corporations that would pay handsomely to any scientific group that could actually prove that?
There's no need to falsify info proving global warming if it would be easier to produce evidence DISproving it. Certainly not for financial reasons.
-B-
The issue is that a set of emails can not counter all the other evidence and research. If I falsify tests on gravity and write some emails about it, does this mean that gravity is not a universal constant?
Erm. To be pedantic: No, it's not a universal constant. It's a fundamental force... totally different!
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/frozen_planet_freezes_out_clim.php?page=all
They are acting like its because of everyday scheduling concerns, but notice that ALL of the networks which chose to remove an episode singled out THAT particular one. BBC refuses to name the other countries that won't be seeing the AGW episode, but we know that Discovery Channel (e.g. the USA) won't be broadcasting it... surely it would upset advertisers (e.g. US Chamber of Commerce, who have become active denialists) to show that episode.
This and the emails are part of an effort to keep AGW from becoming a major election issue at a time when it is tangibly starting to hurt Americans.
I remember a time when the /. crowd was mostly skeptics regarding global warming, hybrid vehicles, recycling, etc...
/. crowd has gone through a transition.
/. crowd yet, but I feel like I'm getting closer to figuring out the latter. When that happens, I guess I'll stop commenting.
That was about 3 years ago.
I wonder if things have changed because people have changed their minds, or if the
Personally, I'm still skeptical of claims I can't personally quantify. And I haven't been able to quantify global warming or the
Look moron, there's no grant money for disproving gravity yet there's plenty enough for the other way around. And you gravity believers try to equate us to nazi sympathizers by calling us gravity deniers. We're gravity skeptics, and we're just waiting for conclusive proof to make a decision. Most gravitymongering hype is bullshit and it's all just being pushed by media profiting off fear and politicians profiting off pro-gravity legislation. So until we hear from neutral sources unanimously coming to a consensus, we will rationally remain in doubt.
Wait, now I'm confused - you are still using 'gravity' as a replacement for 'climate change', right?
Given that there are morons that don't believe in relativity it's not impossible that a thread about climate change has attracted actual gravity deniers.
And you just proved his point.
Being rationally in doubt is good. But it will be hard to prove GW.
So, in the mean time, are you
A: driving a reasonably fuel efficient car and otherwise trying to lighten your impact or
B: driving a toy hauler truck or suburban to get yourself ( and only yourself ) back and forth to work saying "bunch of hippy GW , hope they enjoy my extra smog"?
emt 377 emt 4
Your source proving the fraud accusation?
Last I checked, Mann had been cleared by not one, not two, at least t-h-r-e-e different boards of inquiry.
Except the oil companies are making a fortune out of 'Global Warming' by increasing their prices and governments are making more from 'Green Taxes'?
If I falsify tests on gravity, and claim that gravity is increasing due to pollution, and claim that the increase will kill all life on Earth... Then help start a whole new industry (that I have an invested interest in) combat the issue... then emails leak where I talk about falsify the tests....
Nobody would argue the existence gravity... but people may be a tad upset that the trusted scientific base fudged figures for personal reasons.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
There's just as much, if not more, grant money for people who prove climate change ISN'T man made.
Where?
You don't think the oil companies aren't at the head of a VERY long line of corporations that would pay handsomely to any scientific group that could actually prove that?
Oil companies grew to love 'Global Warmnig' when they realised it makes oil more attractive than coal.
After all, that's why Margaret Thatcher pushed it in the first place; it was another stick to beat the coal mining unions with.
I have no clue how this is controversial, or dox dropped, or anything relatively interesting.
Well, unless you're a conservative, in which case any information can be tarted up and made up of whole cloth to indicate that human-caused global climate change is good.
Incidents of scientists self-checking and verifying is a sign that "their story is collapsing", as all conservatives know that facts are never confirmed, they're created from whole cloth.
Maybe you should just do some reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Start with #1.
Congratulations on proving his point.
Maybe if you could REFRAIN FROM SHOUTING and use fewer profanities, you'd have more credibility. And if you wouldn't treat it as a black and white, this or that issue, it would also help your case. But no, you fall exactly into the flamewar stereotype.
As an aside - what exactly is the "currently accepted model?"
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Nha we are way past the desperate methods of the anti science luddites.
1. Gather lots of damaging information on the target
2. Release part of it, wait for your target to play its hand, establishing its explanations in public
3. Release more of the information that contradicts the established explanations
4. Repeat if possible
The old 60 Minutes format just aired once, allowing for the possibility of the damage control spin to stick in the public's mind after the airing. But this method, made famous by James O'Keefe in his ACORN videos, gives a chance to expose the spin itself as a lie, making the target look even worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki /List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific _assessment_of_global_warming
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001317verification_of_1990.html
Those are the IPCC predictions from 1990 out to now. Gee for some reason we are well under the temperature they predicted.
Or Hansen's 1988 model
here
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
Oops
This is what your climate skeptic had to say
I don't understand, that's not my climate skeptic, you linked to an article from 2004 written by Richard Muller. I merely provided you the results of his research, I didn't even indicate whether or not I sided with him!
So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.
What the fuck are you talking about? You brought Richard Muller into this conversation -- are you "the greens"? Furthermore, you used an article he wrote seven years ago to summarily discredit everything apparently even somehow validating "the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing." What the hell, man?
Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.
"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped. Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1eTMUgUpc"
When you identify me as a "green" that you "can't talk to" I don't know why I continue to help you but here's another article you might find informative that follows your Daily Mail article by a matter of hours. It's a little more valuable because instead of it being some news organization (WSJ, Daily Mail, whoever) hell bent on making a story and cherry picking comments to make them sound the most inflammatory, it's actually Judith Curry actually telling you how she actually feels. She has reservations and that's good but she opens with:
I had a 90 minute meeting with Richard Muller this evening. I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on.
My work here is dung.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
certainly sounds convincing!
More emails eh? Probably they were all hacked by Rupert's gang. That's why he shut down his little paper in England so quickly.
Can't wait to see if Penn State is able to maintain the Piltdown Mann coverup and data buggery with its disgraced President gone. Whatever happens in the future, the past alarmism has been a fraud wrapped in a conspiracy to varying degrees tacit and otherwise. At least the Pennsylvania guv showed some integrity.
I'm sorry, but #1, you had about 20 years to educate yourself on this issue. #2, there are plenty of rational discussions around this that are polite, fact-based and available online. IPCC reports are one. The NOAA studies are another. Those are just two samples out of a good dozen. There's a huge host of information available if you want to learn.
If you are still complaining that you don't understand the topic at at least a basic level, it's because you haven't been trying. And quite frankly, I'm tired of lazy people complaining that they don't know what's going on, and then voting based on sound bites they heard on CBS. You don't know what's going on? STFU and look it up.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'm tired of the distraction, the ridiculous ploys on all sides to muddle and obfuscate.
To the people doing research, I say stop "believing in" what you do or attaching any "moral justifications or superiority" to your work. The instant you shift your perspective from objective investigator to champion of justice, you lose any ability to have a clear and objective conversation about what's actually happening. Now, more than ever, detached, clear, investigation is essential. No matter how bad the truth is, you'll only make it worse by trying to scare people or force outcomes. Be transparent, publish everything (including the stuff that doesn't fit you expectation) because we live in a powerful and chaotic environment and our theories are incomplete and anything you hide to protect your intellectual fiefdom, will prevent us from resolving the real situation and give the silly gits ammunition to justifiably counter you.
Now, to the silly gits... I am sick to nauseous of those who blindly follow indefensible belief systems including most organized religions, political systems and social orthodoxies. Wealthy and powerful people have spent billions to ply the nation with pure propaganda as news. These folks are so addicted to their wealth and power, that they will gladly see the world burn down, or the middle class vanish from the earth in a mindless attempt to wrest that last final milligram of worth from the naked earth. Sadly there are vast seas of silly people dancing to the music played by these despots because it agrees with their belief system, no matter that the very air and sky around them screams they are fools. I say to you "WAKE UP" that smell of roasting pork is your ass on fire. Get a clue, hell get two, they're small. Put your beliefs aside. Bother to look for the unadulterated, unvarnished truth. You don't even have to go very far. Look outside and notice that your garden will begin blooming nearly a month earlier than 50 years ago, weeks earlier than even 20 years ago. You think your garden is in on the scientific conspiracy??? Damned garden!
Last year humanity put more greenhouse gas into the environment that ever before in history. Period. You can't argue with that, Its like trying to argue the sun hasn't risen, you just look stupid trying. I get it, really, you're just sticking to your ideological guns. Its just this whole "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" thing doesn't impress the rest of the folks who actually have their eyes open while they're driving, in fact you're scaring us just a little. Loosen up that grip on the shotgun Willy, take a deep cleansing breath, then sit down with a cup of hot tea and talk with one of those whipper snappers with the weather vanes and the Doppler Radar about why he thinks the world is warming up. He'll probably mention all kinds of science stuff like physics, meteorology, biology, ecology, chemistry and archeology. Just be quite for a moment. Let it sink in. Now if you still think the world is flat, go out play, at least you gave reality a fair shot.
By the way. we used to think that humanity couldn't possible impact anything as large as the oceans either. There are now places in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans (and I mean big place, like country big) that you can almost walk on the plastic junk and pollution. This is complicated stuff people, but if you just do the simple math, and have a talk with someone who vaguely understands how the planet works (or at least our best approximation at the moment) you'll understand why the folks who do the research are saying what they're saying. We are in trouble. We also have ways to solve the problem. It means we'll need to take responsibility for what we do. You know, take appropriate actions immediately, come up with inventive new technologies and economies, all around cool stuff. It also demands that we tell the people who are fighting so hard to keep their wealth and power that they should invest in the future instead. That way they'll get to keep their wealth and power and we all won't have to ride the earth into hell like Slim Pickens on the A-Bomb in Dr. Strangelove.
Disagree.
I don't see what one's credibility has to do with the language one uses. Credibility comes from having data that backs one's position, and there's lots of it for climate change, including multiple groups that came up with the same conclusion.
But it is a black and white issue: it either happens or it doesn't. I don't understand what would constitute an acceptable way of putting it in your view.
I won't pretend that his language or his attitude are appropriate or helpful to situation but I can understand the frustration. How long can most of us talk about evolution with a creationist before we start to show how exasperating the whole argument is? How long can we talk about vaccines and autism without losing our cool a little bit? Or about the moon landings being a hoax? Or that electric fans can cause deaths in enclosed spaces.
On the one side there is a body of evidence supporting the theory that doubles every time you look at it, on the other there is... what exactly? Either the doubters chose to believe that tens of thousands of scientists are grossly incompetent or that tens of thousands of scientists are conspiring against the rest of the world.
So yeah, his language is inappropriate, but his message is spot on.
So, now that the original link to the newly released 173 MB ZIP file
no longer seems to work, where can someone get it, today?
IPCC reports are fact-based? Really?
Like the way lots of movie dramas are "based on actual events", probably.
The thinking just doesn't follow...
"Global warming may be a bad thing and would require us to take action."
"Global warming isn't happening because we can't absolutely prove it's totally the fault of human activity."
The results of global warming and the cause of global warming are two different arguments, but it's actually evidence that deniers already know global warming is a real threat by trying to suspend the one argument with another. The difference isn't belief that global warming is happening or not; nobody wants it to happen (assuming it will harm us and we're not including misanthropists), some people are just afraid to admit to themselves that the threat is real.
People are pendulums, you push them away and they'll come right back. You can't just show someone evidence and expect them to rationally use it, you have to let them talk long enough for them to hear themselves be wrong.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Skeptic Argumernt:
Climates changed before.
Science says:
A giant asteroid crashed into the planet.
A better source would probably illustrate you're point better. There are no sources to back the websites claims.
21st Century Renaissance Man
> But if you do, bring it, mofo. Bring it the fuck on.
Exactly.
I'm getting fed up at those who are fed up with those who warn about dangers.
Everybody says "oh, you got to be positive, the future won't be so dim". They said the same in the past and what do we see?
The present is the future we used to say "it will be brighter" -- well, it's not. Our present is pretty bad: we're having all sorts of problems, even climate as predicted by the climatologists and to top it off, we're not solving our social problems... not even what we can control is solved.
No, the future will be bad, and I suppose those who say otherwise are doing so to purchase the means to survival at a lower price. Lyng as always, business as usual. They must even be getting money from the very practices that are dooming us!
I predict things are going to be so bad, governments will pass laws to fix things when it's too late which won't fix anything but will give the misleading feeling that we will be doing something. Maybe even talking about catastrophe will be considered illegal...
Give it a rest.
It might be what they've all been waiting for. Raise the price and horde oil.
This artificial scarcity thing could really work well for them.
US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) keeps track of sea levels over time at various harbors. New York's Battery station data goes back to 1857. While I understand that raw sea level change has more inputs than the CO2 cycle, it is interesting to note that the rise is quite linear at the rate of 0.91 feet per hundred years (0.277 meters per hundred years). There are no unusual changes to the rate during or after periods of rapid CO2 increase (WWII or the post-war boom).
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750%20The%20Battery,%20NY
NON-geek Linux user since 1998
"Enough to shift public opinion..."
That's because people are idiots.
None of which actually cleared him of anything.
And the earth is how many years old?
I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, just that your example isn't a good one given the limited sample set that is your life. If we are being honest, even a few thousand years of recorded history isn't much to go on given the age of the planet. Climate change has happened before, it will happen again. Some of it will be because of us, some will not.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
You refer to it as "climate change" when there has never been a period of non-changing climate, as well as proving his point perfectly regarding politics/sides. There should be an internet Darwin award for something that stupid.
Someone with a high school diploma.
When I go back there now, it is totally fucking unambiguous to me that on a global scale the temperature is rising. Look up from your feet at some previously snow-capped mountains -- it's not that damn hard.
I would, but a) I don't live near any mountains, and b) it's way to cold to go outside right now.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
University of East Anglia scientists used Tree Rings to infer global temperatures for ca. 1000 years. However, beginning around 1950, tree rings show an erroneous global cooling trend. We know this "global cooling" is erroneous because weather stations show global warming is real. The phenomena is known as the "Divergence Problem". Concerned that the erroneous cooling trend would be misrepresented by climate skeptics, they hid the divergence problem by bolting on 50 years of weather station data to the end of the Tree Ring graph; this is the "trick" that was used to "to hide the decline".
so I have doubts about well your point applies to this situation. If it does apply, that may simply point out that Discovery Channel doesn't live up to its name on important subjects, and that they are a bad partner for science shows.
One important question is, with Discovery Channel being part of a large corporation, are they a member of the Chamber of Commerce and what do they think about the Chamber's behavior and position on the subject of AGW?
It took a while to convince myself that this site is serious. Arguing that relativity is a theory promoted by liberals!? But it is serious.
Ok, getting over the hilarity of it, besides bible references and displays of misunderstanding about, some of those issues are quite real. But then, I keep reading just to find that:
No shit! Now I can't stop laughing again... (By the way, that "near" gets there because of a misunderstanding, the reference was arguing about exactly the speed of ight.)
Rethinking email
Probably. But I'm honestly growing a bit ambivalent as to how one should approach people about climate change. Normally, I would say civil discussion is the most effective way to reach someone, but considering the seriousness of the matter, when nothing happens at some point you ought to start getting angry.
If somebody were pouring gasoline onto my house, and were about to set fire to it while insisting that I have nothing to worry about because surely nothing is going to happen, I wouldn't be very civil with them. We more or less have the same situation right now, only at a much slower pace.
By refusing to accept facts and take responsibility for the situation we have created, millions will be forced from their homes around the world, people will die from starvation and floods, species will become extinct, etc. etc.. How can we in good conscience stand by and be civil about it as others spread lies and misinformation for their own personal gain?
So.. you are conceding that you are not behaving rationally. Further, you are explicitly stating that you don't even want to. You just want to rant and flame.
Shocking that other people don't want to listen.
You need to cut Slippytoad some slack. He has some "issues" with reality and anger.
"The oil companies" have been sponsoring AGW research for many years. Don't fall for popular myths, verify facts yourself.
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Petroleum, Department of Energy, National Power, Shell, Sultanate of Oman, United States Department of Energy
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
it's in my head
you sound rather religious.
isn't a good scientist a skeptic?
Please point out where in that letter Chris Landsea says that the data used to write the IPCC reports is incorrect, or even that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are wrong. Furthermore, please point out the peer-reviewed studies that showed that the IPCC reports are incorrect, and where. If you're good, you'll actually come about with about a half dozen studies correcting some details. If not.... well, things about fools and talking come to mind.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Well I've had a login to this site for more years than I can remember and this is the first time anyone has visited chez moi. Welcome to the 350+ members who clicked the link to my blog in the headline post.
I hope that those who disagree with the actions of the 'whistleblower' or 'hacker' will take a look at the other interesting stuff we discuss at the talkshop rather than judge by the single issue of the climategate emails.
These last few years I've been researching the secret life of the solar system and how the various masses and forces in it interact to cause change of various kinds (including but not limited to the surface temperature of planets), and we've discovered some very interesting things. Some of these things are now being confirmed by recent research by NASA scientists.
Please feel free to look around and hang out for a while if you're interested in the near cosmos and our planet's interaction with it.
Cheers
Rog Tallbloke
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
The amount of incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation is approximately in balance at all times. In the absence of a greenhouse effect, the Earth would need to be about 255K to produce enough outgoing longwave radiation to remain in balance. Due to the greenhouse effect, not all of the outgoing radiation makes it to space. To maintain the balance, the Earth must be warmer than 255K so that enough outgoing longwave radiation makes it through the atmosphere and into space. That's why average temperature on Earth is actually around 288K. All other things equal, if the greenhouse effect is increased, the Earth must warm to reach a new balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation. This is as close to fact as science can get, and isn't really up for debate.
The only legitimate argument against warming caused by increased greenhouse gases is that negative feedbacks will decrease the incoming solar radiation. That can primarily be accomplished by clouds and aerosols, neither of which are well understood or predicted by models. However, even with the uncertainty about negative feedbacks, it is very likely that increasing greenhouse gases is resulting in a warming of the Earth.
Just because there is poor agreement on the regional impacts of a warmer Earth does not mean the Earth isn't warming. The increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is largely due to human activities. It's a fact that the model human lifestyle produces large amounts of carbon dioxide. The increase in greenhouse gases is very highly correlated to industrialization.
This is an environmental issue. The preponderance of evidence is very strongly favors that humans are mostly responsible for the warming of the Earth that has already occurred in the past decades and that the Earth will warm at a faster pace in the future if current trends continue.
We should be very concerned. The regional climate changes will likely place greater strain in some areas on the availability of essential resources to support the human population. It is not out of the question that the overall impacts of such a warming could place enough strain on resources that the Earth would be unable to support a human population of seven billion people and growing. Nobody really knows what the impacts would be, but those concerns are hardly unfounded.
This is a sober and factual description of the actual state of the science. It also appears that this answer was not plagiarized from any source on the Internet. Well done.
Possibly, but at least they had the nerve to not post as an AC.
I want verifiable facts regardless of which side of the argument they favor.
Just another day in Paradise
How many thousands of years have whole forests burned due to natural causes? My guess would be enough to release way more greenhouse gas than our burning of fossil fuels.
Your guess would be wrong. The difference being that the carbon is forests is carbon that is already in the carbon cycle. If forests don't burn they eventually decay and release the carbon back into the atmosphere anyway. The carbon from fossil fuels is carbon that has been sequestered from the carbon cycle for in most cases 100's of millions of years or more. So it is carbon that was not in the carbon cycle until we added it back in. The proof of the fact that your guess is wrong is that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has never been above around 300 ppmv for millions of years but since the advent of human burning of fossil fuels it has risen to 390 ppmv in a bit over 200 years. That is unprecedented in the existence of the genus homo.
Wait, what? You're trying to use a "weasel words" complaint to put forth the radical claim that context doesn't matter, or that when knowledge of context exists it shouldn't be provided?
You, Mr. Coward, are 100% mediocre.
I think his rant was very rational. Sure, it's a rant, but it is based on rationality.
He stated his case and challenged the OP to make his.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
And it doubles to what end?
So they keep accumulating more and more and more and then what? They want a carbon tax? Sure, that will solve it all.
The best thing AGW folks could do is to start press hard for Nuclear energy. It's here, and it's non-CO2. If they stopped trying to tax people and enforce austerity measures and instead said, hey let's go nuclear, then they would get what they want (low CO2 emissions) and the other side would get what they want (no higher taxes or energy cutbacks). Further, the West could go tell the middle east to go fuck themselves.
If indeed AGW is such a threat, such a dire situation, then everyone should be more than willing to set aside their anti-nuke bias and ignorance and embrace it as the one way we can solve this problem.
But if instead they object, then we will all know they've been blowing smoke up our asses.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I can't tell if you're being ironic.
Love the sig though.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
First off,
The mentality of people who pounce on these emails as proof that "global warming" isn't real are the same ones that used snow storms as proof. They totally miss the overall picture.
There are idiots asserting that the random weather of the week proves their point on BOTH sides. Look at the people that think that recent hurricanes are caused by global warming. I've even seen accusations in the mainstream media that climate change has caused earthquakes.
The last batch of emails did not do much damage to the science behind climate change. There were maybe some very minor errors exposed, but no smoking gun, at all. If the first batch of emails had no smoking gun, I doubt the second batch does.
But what the emails DID do was show how much the scientists involved were trying to hold the details close to their chest. Not that their conclusions were wrong, but how they really didn't want to show, in detail, how their conclusions followed from their data. They weren't open, and that's a bad thing in science. Hopefully THAT attitude will change, because that's worth criticizing them for.
Citation please.
One person who's a bit overzealous about an issue now represents everyone?
We need to end all this nonsense about "both sides of the issue". Binary thinking only leads to everyone being wrong. The scientific debate is not if climate change is real, or if humans are causing it. The scientific debate is about how much the climate is changing, and how much humans are responsible for it.
Why do you think Oil Companies would care?
There literally is no way to reduce the amount of hydrocarbons fuels we burn for the foreseeable future; at best we can slow the rate of increase by bringing things like nuclear power online.
In fact, don't many of the "oil" companies own Solar companies?
http://www.laprogressive.com/the-environment/big-oil-controlled-photovoltaic-industry/
Even T Boone Pickens is a big advocate of Wind energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens
With these guys, its not about oil, its about making money. They're covered no matter which way the wind blows (pardon the pun).
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Al Gore.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Congratulations on proving his point.
Maybe if you could REFRAIN FROM SHOUTING and use fewer profanities, you'd have more credibility. And if you wouldn't treat it as a black and white, this or that issue, it would also help your case. But no, you fall exactly into the flamewar stereotype.
As an aside - what exactly is the "currently accepted model?"
SHOUTING IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN SOME DIMWIT THINKS THAT CAPS LOCK MAKES HIM MORE BELIEVABLE.
Yes, SlippyToad is pissed. You get that way when people display wilful ignorance because they're too DAMN PROUD to admit they're WRONG. But he at least kept the ire to a focus instead of indiscriminate lashing out.
If you think there is another "side" to this, I would like you to produce the science that they are doing. Scientific papers, evidence -- ANY DAMN THING that contradicts the current accepted model.
Fair enough, but do you understand that all the examples you gave are really stupid?
Nah! There's a cap and trade treaty covering the release of incriminating e-mails. They probably hit their quota back in '09.
Have gnu, will travel.
Start to inquire with the following:
1. Coal plant operators
2. Coal plant builders
3. Coal mining corps
I can vouch that #2 will give you the money if you can convince them that you're not a fraud, for a reason of having observed one do everything to win favor of crappy populist organizations like Greenpeace through buying their local activists dinners to attend their seminars on how less polluting the new coal plants are. Insider info here.
Fact is, big corporations want to make money in the future in addition to now, and that means cleaning the dirty image that is in the people's (and politicians' who decide on new building permits) minds right now. So if you can do a reliable study that global warming isn't man made, then coal industry will be able to reliably shrink it to a small fraction of the current one, and still make the same profits.
We're talking pretty damn big figures here, all up for grabs. Perhaps the fact that no one has yet succeeded in taking that money is one of the best capitalist-style pieces of proof that it really is likely man-made. Because greed really does motivate people.
The proof that the 30% increased in CO2 concentrations is from burning FF's is found in the ratio of C12 to C13 isotopes in the CO2.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It looks like he chose examples that the dummy he's replying to could actually understand. ANd he is, of course right about the lack of scientific evidence on the other side of he debate.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
There is no fucking "other side" to this debate. Climate change IS NOW HAPPENING. There is no longer any reason to dispute this subject because the signs are obvious. I grew up in Colorado in the 1970's and 1980's. When I go back there now, it is totally fucking unambiguous to me that on a global scale the temperature is rising. Look up from your feet at some previously snow-capped mountains -- it's not that damn hard.
Putting up a wall like this will only serve to shut down all discussion. If you even had a chance to convince people that your side is correct you lost that chance once you effectively said that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.
That being said there are actually very few people who would say that there's no climate change. The debate is not about if there's climate change or not, the debate is:
Now, within those parameters perhaps curbing the production of greenhouse gasses is a good idea but it can't just be assumed. Even if it's found that cutting down on greenhouse gasses is a good solution how should we go about it? Those are the debatable issues.
So take a deep breath, calm down, and have a rational discussion. The rest of us will give you a moment to start over with a clean slate.
Sapere aude!
If you're a liar it's what you ask for.
--
make install -not war
So oil companies are paying for research that makes stuff up to force oil companies to pay higher taxes and leave dirty oil in the ground. Right.
It couldn't possibly be that oil companies are forced to help pay for climate science in public to greenwash their polluting image, while quietly paying much more for fake science that creates deniers like you. Nah.
--
make install -not war
What dirt? Link to some real dirt.
There is none. You are not only a brainwashed ideological climate change denier, you are a denial projector, calling other people exactly what you yourself are.
--
make install -not war
for some time to come.
As long church going morons and big businesses having a business model around screwing up climate control the debate there is not hope.
I guess the only way Americans will accept it when rest of the world imposes sanctions on them. But it will take a long time.
Gravity is not a constant, it is a function of mass/inertia. you may carry on now ;)
To the degree that scientists actually aren't open, it's explainable by a few non-paranoid things:
1. Climate change deniers intimidate scientists. Most scientists aren't very brave, and aren't interested in conflict, especially with the kind of morons they watched punch nerds in high school.
2. Until they publish, scientists don't want to start rumors or make unsupported conclusions.
3. Scientists want credit for their best work, when they release it.
#2 and 3 are common to all science. Science is a balance between cooperation and competition. Especially more recently, with the commercialization of science, many scientists collaborate only more directly, until they actually publish and get credit they can claim.
You said yourself the emails showed no corruption of the science. That is the only potential interest of those emails. The rest is just the way that science is actually done, by actual people who are actually scientists. You want it different, do something to protect them from the costs and risks of sharing too much too soon. I'd like it, but I don't expect it.
--
make install -not war
If the carbon cycle was worth the paper it takes to write two words, we wouldn't have coal deposits or limestone cliffs. It's too slow. Until we started digging the stuff out of the ground, every carbon based life-form on this planet was carbon negative, and even then, we're still carbon negative in the grand scheme of things. While we might be able to put a large chunk of the carbon back into the atmosphere, we'll never get it all (not that we'd want to, anyway: things might get a little stuffy).
Photosynthetic life has been committing slow suicide by depleting its primary "food" source, and then dumping its results "on the ground" to rot. Sure, that releases some carbon into the atmosphere, but methane isn't particularly useful to most life, and the rest winds up turning into coal.
Similar story for those life-forms that use carbon dioxide as building material (crustaceans). They dump their used product on the sea floor and it becomes limestone.
Here's something to consider. Some billion years ago (I don't know the exact numbers, might be just hundreds of millions), the entire world was desert (mostly barren rock, maybe some sand), but plants spread out and converted the world to lichen covered rocks, grassy plains and forests. Now, we have spreading deserts. Why? Sure, we may have started some (maybe even all) of them by cutting down too many trees (and other agricultural practices), but considering what plants did in the past, that should not be the case. For some reason, the plants are unable to overtake the deserts. There are two major differences that hamper plant growth: there's a lot more sand now (shifting sand can bury plants), and there's a lot less carbon dioxide in the air. The plants can't get enough food to grow quickly enough to encroach on the deserts.
We are part of the carbon cycle. Originally, we were on the same "side" as everything else, sucking carbon out of the atmosphere (net, otherwise we wouldn't grow), but now we are on the other "side", pushing it back in.
If carbon dioxide causes (or contributes) to global warming (and that's still an "if") and causes sea levels to rise, so be it (and my butt is maybe 4m above sea level). Sure, rising sea levels will mean less arable land, but higher carbon dioxide levels will mean better growing conditions, so the net might be more arable land.
If the carbon was worth anything, we wouldn't have this discussion because humans wouldn't be able to find enough carbon to put into the atmosphere for anyone to notice. Probably wouldn't have the Internet, either.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Have you been cleared of beating your wife?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Not at all. Saying some rude words in disagreement doesn't make your argument irrational. What they said was completely rational.
Your post, though, does demonstrate that deniers like you are irrational. You claim that that post is as irrational as the ones that can't claim evidence or expertise, that invoke the dumbest fallacies, that are far ruder - an irrational claim. And, since it's so insulting to call someone rational irrational, it's just as rude as the words in the post you replied to. Except that post's words are earned by who they're directed to. Your post's rudeness was undeserved.
--
make install -not war
I thought nuclear was good? Aside from the meltdowns and failures, anyway.
At least, does nuclear not use any hydrocarbons?
They'd also get lots of nuclear's problems. Like the waste, the pollution from making the fuel, the huge costs, the uninsurable risks (that the public pays for). All for an expensive, dirty, dangerous industry.
The fact is that we have much better solutions. Solar and wind already are starting to cost the same as nukes, even as nukes keep their subsidies. That's why people are looking to sustainable replacements, instead of another bad one.
--
make install -not war
.
Jones and his fellow geography lecturers are on thin ice (sic) and they know it.
That happens when there is nothing to clear one off and nothing is found either...
The proof of the fact that your guess is wrong is that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has never been above around 300 ppmv for millions of years but since the advent of human burning of fossil fuels it has risen to 390 ppmv in a bit over 200 years. That is unprecedented in the existence of the genus homo.
What a proper scientist would say, given that data, is: "All we can know from that is that we're in unknown territory, and nothing else yet is proven, or dis-proven."
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Please point out where in that letter Chris Landsea says that the data used to write the IPCC reports is incorrect, or even that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are wrong."
He doesn't say so, specifically, but he strongly implies that it is. And that he quit because he did not want to be part of the process. From the end of his letter:
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
That is not specifically an accusation of incorrect conclusions, but I believe the words "scientifically unsound" are too significant to be ignored. Further, I agree with him that the fact that IPCC allows people associated with it to spread bald-faced lies to the scientific community, and refuses to take action when they are caught, is significant on its own, regardless of the actual contents of the reports.
Further, as mentioned many times in the past, often by the very scientists involved, the "Executive Summary for Policymakers", which is published separately from the main report, often does not accurately reflect the actual science presented in the report. Nevertheless, the Executive Summary, even though published separately, is still part of the official report.
"Furthermore, please point out the peer-reviewed studies that showed that the IPCC reports are incorrect, and where. If you're good, you'll actually come about with about a half dozen studies correcting some details. If not.... well, things about fools and talking come to mind."
I have done so many times here already. If you haven't been around, or haven't been paying attention, well, that's too bad. You can find earlier posts of mine, with links, yourself using Google. I don't feel like spending an hour looking them up again.
You might also consider looking up Landsea's own papers.
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-denver/dr-james-hansen-takes-final-leap-from-scientist-to-activist
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
Feel free to support your claims.
James Hansen, Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
(from a link posted elsewhere in this thread on the millions of dollars Hansen apparently made from his activism while on the public payroll)
it's in my head
> And the earth is how many years old?
As a friend of mine uses to say, "there are people dying now who never died before!" Please use your brain!
> Some of it will be because of us, some will not.
What if natural change is not enough to kill us, but that amount we add -- no matter how minimal -- completes the necessary to drive us extinct? Would you still say we just contributed a little? Why not work towards the opposite and fight the natural trend, dimnishing it, even if just a little? It might be enough to warrant a better environment and the continuation of life as we know it...
I'm doing A but fantasizing about B because I'm tired of the enviro-extremists telling me that the science is settled and denying, or even questioning, their (sometimes) ridiculous assertions is tantamount to being a Nazi.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
While the rest of the world accepts the fact of climate change. Including the government, car manufacturer, and the vast majority of the people. The US population stays on the other side. From an European view it is very interesting that some US politicians can state that climate change is a fraud and still be considered for being president. To us it is something out of the "the world is a disc"-type thing.
You need to get your record fixed.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
My prediction is the exact opposite - things will not be as bad as feared, and AGW denial will likely be illegal in some countries, just as "holocaust" denial already is. The whole thing is far too political to be left to science, and far too serious to allow dissent.
"a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy."
No, it's just more confirmation that these guys don't know why things are but are far more concerned that the number deliver the right message. Anything for the religion of Global Warming.
Actually the claim is very plausible, given that both releases were before big climate conferences. Sure sounds like an attempt to shape opinion.
Here is what our favorite badass tronomer has to say about it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Repeat after me: Base load requirements.
Solar and wind no can do.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Dropping all those f-bombs really increases your credibility.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Show me the source code for their models. Why isn't the source code available for peer review? Why isn't it open source?
Most Americans still believe in Jesus, and a shocking number in Elvis.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Hey DICK FACE,
The controversy is whether we should go BROKE on some fake carbon market when we have NO IDEA in hell whether us paying a CRAPLOAD more taxes will fix ANYTHING.
Get it yet, DICK HEAD?
So, please tell us all from your models, just what the problems will be, like sea level, ice mass, weather, when the CO2 measurements hit 400ppm (now), 500ppm, 750ppm, and 1000 ppm.
Then please tell me from your MODELS is everyone in the US died tomorrow, what effect that would have on worldwide climate change, which last year was global warming.
STFU and quit asking for my money.
"evidence supporting the theory"
You just admitted that it's not a fact. Facts can't be argued and your arguing further proves that nothing has been proven as fact. It's funny that you mention trying to talk evolution to a creationist, because the global warming crowd is acting exactly like creationists.
It's also a fact of human nature that humans need religion, and if they don't get it from church then they'll adopt anything to fill the gap whether it's global warming, veganism, or whatever.
I remember when I only had to worry about Christians trying to ram their beliefs down my throat. All these new religions make me miss when it was just Christians doing it.
There is a narrow set of facts most people agree on: it's getting warmer, the CO2 concentrations have increased significantly due to human activity, and the two observations are probably linked.
The recent huge calving is likely unrelated to global warming. But let's say that it is, let's say all the glaciers in the world melt and the polar ice caps recede as well, and the oceans rise by 1m over the next century, as they will under the IPCC's worst case scenario predictions.
So what? Who cares? What's the alternative? How are you going to prevent it? Is prevention cost effective? There is no widespread agreement on those questions at all.
Is it possible that these things have been occurring in cycles... but is only now track-able due to 21st century technology?
The evidence is only for the fact that human CO2 emissions have caused an increase in average temperatures. There were legitimate questions about that point until a few years ago because the statistical work was shoddy. That's been settled now. But more evidence on that point doesn't strengthen the overall policy arguments for counteracting climate change. Just because humans have caused the climate to get warmer through CO2 emissions does not mean that we necessarily need to do anything about it, or that it would even be beneficial to do something about it.
Although scientists are nearly universally convinced that evolution explains the origin of species, the details of the process are still poorly understood. But we don't need to understand the details in order to know that creationism is wrong. For action global warming, on the other hand, the details matter a great deal in determining whether we can and should act. Depending on the details, reducing CO2 emissions may be effective or ineffective, vital, useless, or even harmful.
This is such crap. The IPCC reports are more accurate than the encyclopedia britannica, and they make very conservative estimates.
The confirmation bias can get so out of hand that is ends in denial and ultimately psychosis. There are guys in psychiatric institutes that think they are James Bond, and there is not way to penetrate the delusion.
If you found a spelling mistake in a dictionary, and all the other 100,000 words were validated to be correct, would you then say the dictionary was a movie drama?
With the correct political motivations, you have already shown your colours.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-denver/dr-james-hansen-takes-final-leap-from-scientist-to-activist
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
Definition of a scientist: A political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Yes, global warming is happening. But nobody has convinced me that it is a bad thing, however. Human civilization has coped with far bigger climate change than even the worst case scenarios projected by the IPCC. Large parts of the Mediterranean have turned to desert, for example, yet we don't exactly think of Italy as a disaster area. People cope with climate change through migration and adaptation, and they cope with it well. We've never really had a stable climate, and it's foolish to think that we can engineer one.
Furthermore, historically, humans have coped with warming much better than with cooling; even a slight drop in temperatures is a major disaster. And even if we could reduce CO2 emissions, the costs are staggering, since most of our economy is energy limited. Food production itself is energy intensive and produces a lot of CO2. If you cut CO2 emissions in half, you put a serious dent into the world economy for the foreseeable future, and that will "force millions from their homes and people will die from starvation".
All this handwringing over climate change seems like middle class angst to me. It's an attempt to control the uncontrollable, a longing for a stability that has never existed and will never exist.
You are not helping. For everyone who grew up in Colorado, I can find someone else who grew up somewhere it is colder now.
What continues to bother me is that the pro-anthropogenic warming guys rarely propose rational solutions. OK, global warming is real. How can we correct it without reducing global population by 50% (not going to happen) or radically disrupt the economy (not going to happen) or prevent any further industrialization of China (also not going to happen)? Maybe when they start answering that question people will start listening. Sure there are proposed solutions to above which fit the bill but they receive little attention. Instead guys like Al Gore propose carbon credits which a) won't work, and b) will make him money.
Antarctic glacial records date back 600000 years and is bloody accurate. This defence is equivalent to looking at video evidence of a murder and saying "yeah, but you weren't actually -there-". It's on the tape. you lose.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
His "message" is that if you disagree with him, he will shout you into submission.
Yes, I know that but it's to "sciency" for some people.
The science isn't settled. Science is never settled,
This concensus that they have reached is the same as all concensus, it's a way to end debate, to shut down the opponent argument and not listen to real science. In fact concensus is the enemy of science, there was concensus that the earth was the center of the universe, there was concensus that the earth was flat, there was even concensus that people should be bled with leaches to balance their fluids and make them well again, and there was concensus in the 1970s that after 40 years of cooling that Global Cooling caused by man made emissions from cars and smoke stacks was going to lead to the next ice age. Then concensus gave us Global Warming in the mid 80s, and now that it's not really warming anymore now the concensus is global instability.
Science on the other hand is about doing an experiment and getting the same result, imagine if you would that nobody liked Newton, he was a jerk, didn't bathe, and was ugly. A horrible dinner companion, but regardless of his lack of popularity we have Newton's laws, anyone, everyone, anywhere can do Newton's experiments and get Newton's results. That is science, not computer models that can't predict the weather next Monday, can't take into account the sun spot cycle, can't take in all the variables of everything that affects the climate. Computer models are not experiments, they are fantasy and who's to blame people out there for being dubious of the outcome when the people spewing that nonsense have so much to gain financially (CO2 Cap and Trade), and the majority of the greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 is plant food, it makes things grow, it doesn't kill the planet!
Aren't we still measuring CO2 in Parts per Million? http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
There is no longer any reason to dispute this subject because the signs are obvious. I grew up in Colorado in the 1970's and 1980's.
The population in the Rockies has changed dramatically since the 70s and 80s. Summit County, for example, is where I grew up visiting several times a year. The total population of the county has grown from 2,600 people in 1970, to 9,000 people in 1980, and 29,000 now. Add in the corresponding boom in tourism at Breckenridge, Keystone, and Arapahoe Basin, and account for the public and private transportation associated with getting people there and back, and the energy needed to get them to and from the ski areas and up the mountain (down is free). There's also been all kinds of construction, which leads to more asphalt, fewer trees, and other heat sinks.
Your example of global warming uses this local climate as observable proof. But, given all that's happened in the time frame you mention, how do you know that the majority of it isn't really just local warming? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your example doesn't necessarily demonstrate your claim.
The common educated doubting counter is: even though we know temperatures are rising globally, can we really prove that they are rising because of mankind's actions, as opposed to a cyclical global temperature swing? Even if we can't prove it, there's obvious benefit to assuming it's true just in case, but it can carry a large cost to do so, depending on what changes you're asking for, without a clear guarantee that the expenditure will actually make a difference. The argument can easily end up going in a circle.
Just keep in mind that, even though you don't believe there is a valid "other side" to the debate, there actually are some questions that aren't answered completely. You've definitely gone extreme to the one side, to the point that you can't even imagine somebody else's perspective.
short term energy storage is a way easier challenge to solve than hundreds of years of guarding dangerous nuclear material. Shit, I can store all the energy needed to heat or cool a house for a day in a tank of water that would easily fit in most homes. have excess energy, charge up your store.
electric cars will have these things called "batteries" that happen to store energy.
smart meters exist now. the internet exists now. energy management software exists... wait for it... now.
and, solar just reached parity with grid power in the northeast. woot! before incentives, even.
repeat after me: by the time you finished building a fancy reactor, you'd be able to utilize renewables more cheaply. good luck finding non-guaranteed private capital getting that reactor built too.
There is another side and for a legit reason. The discussion isn't about climate change.. it's about if mankind is causing it. The earth was not always this temperature. It goes through cycles of warming and cooling. You've heard of ice ages, right? Read this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show "ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change."
And that article is just the tip of the iceberg. There's also Exxon's funding of the infamous Heartland Institute, a "libertarian" anti-science denial shop. Heartland used to deny smoking caused cancer but unsurprisingly switched to denying global warming when their sponsorship changed. Exxon used to fund Heartland directly, but now funds them indirectly through conservative groups like the Scaife and Olin foundations.
It's hard for me to imagine how an educated person in 2011 could have ever been ignorant of how oil companies fund global warming denialism, but now there's no excuse.
I don't know, sounded pretty rational to me. Angry, but sometimes it's rational to be angry.
...nuclear's problems. Like the waste, the pollution from making the fuel, the huge costs, the uninsurable risks (that the public pays for). All for an expensive, dirty, dangerous industry.
The fact is that we have much better solutions. Solar and wind...
Surely you know that the production of photovoltaic solar cells produces quite a bit of highly toxic waste? There's also the fact that both wind and solar have extreme problems providing baseline power and really are only good for supplemental power.
Nuclear does produce waste but it's a highly concentrated waste that can actually be refined and reused. There are also several modern reactor designs that mitigate most of the risk and produce much cleaner waste. The myth of "renewable" energy production has been a black hole that we've poured research and subsidy dollars into, dollars that could have gone toward revamping electrical transmission infrastructure, nuclear generation research, and building the latest and safest reactor designs.
I'm all for solar, wind, etc. where it can supplement baseline electrical generation or provide power in out-of-the way locations but we can't rely on it for all of our energy needs.
Sapere aude!
Global warming is trivially demonstrated. The globe used to be cooler. Now it is warmer. That was easy.
Renewables are like Fusion, except they are only 5 years away...perpetually.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
somebody mod this guy up because he has a fucking clue
Petrol based cars are polluting, that's a FACT, and nobody denies that. Go in LA or in Shanghai, and smell for yourself. And this has nothing to do with GW. Whatever happens, eliminating oil-based cars would be a good thing, but we never hear about acidic rains caused by the excess of CO2 production, or the effect of nasty pollution like benzene. Trying to mix both debate is just wrong and driving us away from the real debate about pollution.
All we really need to look at is the last ~550 million years. That's when atmospheric oxygen levels got high enough for the ozone layer to form and block the Sun's ultraviolet light that kept the land surfaces sterile before.
Look. Even the alarmists called bullshit on Mann's Hockey Stick! LMFAO
date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:34:30 -0400
from: Bob Webster
subject: Re: Greenhouse gas warming question
to: Phil Jones
gimmicks (e.g., the Mann, et al, “Hockey Stick” curve designed to eliminate the inconveniences of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age and to certify a claim of ”unprecedented” for late 20th-century warming) simply ring hollow upon close examination of all other accepted measures of climate history.
The hockey stick is the holy grail of alarmism and you fucktards bought it hook line and sinker! I would like to take this opportunity to say "i told you so bitch!".
The problem isn't to demonstrate GW, or even AGW, everyone that is reasonable agrees both exist, the issue is HOW MUCH, and there, nobody agrees. If AGW is responsible for 0.01% of GW (with the rest of driven let's say by the sun), then there's nothing we can do and we shall adapt to the change. If it's 99%, we should do something.
And that's where the CRU emails are important. They show the danger of cooking the data used for the decision making process, delete points from the curves to show what you want, and escape FOIA requests, if you are working on the side of demonstrating the 99%. I don't mind if you are on one side or another, but please don't tell that it "is trivial" or that it "was easy", because if it was, there would be no debate.
Fast and loose with the evidence and you quote THAT crap? Fuck me.
Lets see, how many citations do ya want?
This...
Scientists from other universities have been threatened as well. One scientist told The Canberra Times, ''If you want to find me, it's impossible unless you make an appointment, sign in with some form of photo identification, and are personally escorted to my door That's directly as a result of threats made against me.''
One researcher told the paper of an instance where her photo appeared in an article promoting a community tree-planting day -- she then received threats of sexual assault and violence against her children. Another scientist received death threats and was advised by police to install a ''panic button'' in his office.
or this, where the fucking threat is on video?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/another_day_another_death_thre_1.php
Anger against scientists involved in the climate debate is reaching dangerous levels and it's only a matter of time before one is murdered, says leading German physicist Hans Schellnhuber. ...
While he was opening a recent climate conference in Melbourne, a man in the front row waved a noose at him. "I was confronted with a death threat when I gave my public lecture," Professor Schellnhuber said.
"Somebody got to his feet and showed me a rope with a noose.
"He showed me this hangman's rope and he said: 'Mr Schellnhuber, welcome to Australia'.
http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-06-12-death-threats-for-australian-climate-scientists
A quick search reveals much more evidence than one denialist blog.
Are you really as inane as you come across with such rubbish?
Show me any death threats made by those who believe the science agaist those that dont,
Try and cite something vaugely credible.....
You can also do it yourself by looking up the statistics for electricity use in the developed world, converting that to a mass of coal burned (allowing for inefficiency of the power plants), converting that to a mass of CO2, and converting that to a concentration in the atmosphere.
I tried this once, and got an amount of CO2 about 3x the actual increase in concentration. I made some pretty big approximations to get there, but it was enough to satisfy me that they're at least order-of-magnitude consistent.
You mean the university cleared itself three times? Wow, amazing.
You are preaching to the choir. I used to look out at the sky near night ( San Diego, so, close to LA ) and see the orange from the smog.
I used to ride a lot in traffic, and never did like the exhaust from cars.
The GW thing is kinda frustrating to me as there are other reasons ( not saying GW isnt important ) to curb pollution.
I remember that Carter tried to take steps to wean us off oil back in the day.
Reagan dismantled it all. "The market fixed it all". ( which was nonsense, price was only the worst reason for getting off oil ).
I am pro-environment, but tired of lame "we will all glow in the dark" stupid arguments against nuclear power. ( rational arguments should be entertained ).
emt 377 emt 4
Where?
Are your really that naive? The oil industry has acted so brazenly in its disinformation campaign, and funding of astroturf and denialist "research". The paper trail is there for everyone to see. "Merchants of Doubt" is a recent history book the chronicles just how perfectly the wool has been pulled over your eyes -- in plain sight!
There's something interesting about the human condition there -- and you are being played by people who understand you better then you know yourself. Of course, this just makes you mad, and you want to say that *I* am the one who doesn't understand. This is called projection.
There is something interesting about the human condition there.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The "oil companies" have also been engaged in a denialists disinformation campaign. The conspiracy is actually larger than just Exxon; however, and includes a powerful block of neoliberal elites. There is a history book called "Merchants of Doubt" that shows the paper trail quite clearly.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
In the country where I live, bush fires output more C02 than the entire population, each year.
And we are one of the higher per capita generators of carbon emissions world wide.
The Lucky Country - Australia!
That may be true. Your population is only 23 million. But when (if?) the bush grows back it reabsorbs as much carbon as it emitted burning. You have a fantastic potential for solar energy though.
OK, I'll give it a shot. You are anthropomorphizing, or projecting, or whatever you want to call it. Suppose that the entire fucking human race scientifically measured, with extreme accuracy, the exact temperature of every speck of dirt, drop of water, plant, mountain, you name it...every inch or cubic inch, whatever, of the earth, ocean, and air, for the next 30 years. (Even though we can't.) Now suppose the data shows unambiguously that say 90% of the planet's surface temperatures (or whatever isn't underground, since we don't live underground) are warmer than they were predicted by most climate models to be.
Congratulations: you have proved exactly that
1. The current models are wrong (since we're finding them to be too conservative, 30 years out)
2. Human observation of a few moments in time produces a hunch which gives exactly no help in figuring out how to reverse the trend.
3. Posters named "SlippyToad" don't grasp the irony of their posts in a world with a land area named Greenland.
Simply put, the data we have now do not go back far enough to establish an accurate baseline for the entire planet. But one such study by Brown University concluded the opposite of your premise - that the surface temperatures of the eastern equatorial Pacific area actually have steadily fallen from 27.5 degrees celsius to 23 degrees today: "Brown University Geologists Create 5-Million-Year Climate Record"
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2005-06/05-106.html
It includes the following:
"This finding, published in Science, contradicts the long-standing notion that rapid glacier growth in the high northern latitudes about 3 million years ago alone set off dramatic cooling of the global climate. The finding shows instead that glaciation was part of a long-term cooling trend."
In other words, the science isn't settled, the scientific results contradicted the then-currently-accepted model, and they were previously wrong.
Also, I am paid by no one to post this or to have any say-so in science or science policy whatsoever, so you're wrong about that too. Climate change has always happened, and your tiresome posturing about it convinces no one, and adds nothing, to the 'debate'.
But by all means, convince me we should do even more damage to the world's economies to appease the screaming cult followers who believe carbon dioxide (water vapor) is a fucking pollutant.
Oh, by the way I just looked at a picture of a snow capped mountain which reminds of a middle finger... so that must be an obvious sign that the planet is telling you to go fuck yourself.
Minor nitpick - I guess that should be C12/C14, as C13 is stable.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Fraudster? Did Watts comment on the mails?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
its easy, really. there have been predictions. these predictions were based on research, information and theory of their time. now enough time has passed to see if the quantitative predictions were accurate. some were, some were kinda, and some werent really that close at all.
what does this mean? our understanding is imperfect. has AGW ever moved beyond a scientific correlation? no. and so, regardless if you believe or deny AGW and friends, the only scientifically honest stance to take is a skeptic.
you might be an optimistic skeptic, or a pessimistic skeptic... whatever, fight for whatever prediction you subscribe to, but dont let an emotional guess take over your mind.
"This is such crap. The IPCC reports are more accurate than the encyclopedia britannica, and they make very conservative estimates."
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? The letter linked to was written by a former IPCC scientist.
How is that confirmation bias? Methinks perhaps you are indulging in a little bit of it yourself.
"With the correct political motivations, you have already shown your colours."
And you have demonstrated very clearly before that you don't understand my "political motivations". Nor have you shown any real link at all between what you claim (incorrectly) to be my politics, and anything I have to say about other subjects.
I am beginning to think you just like harassing me.
How do you know it's "bloody accurate"? (It's a serious question)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf
it's in my head
Perhaps you are right. But it is a straw man argument anyway.
As a scientist, I have yet to see a grant of a governmental organisation that tells me what my results are supposed to me.
OTOH several company grants come with restrictions (i.e. I do not get to publish things if they do not like it).
You may argue that researching AGW may give me more money (actually, cancer research would give me more money, but since that is not really my field...) This might be true for some grants. However, the proposal probably does not specify what I am going to find (otherwise I would not have to do it).
In addition, the vast majority of people I know seldom does exactly what is written in grant proposals anyway (for a number of reasons I do not want to go into now). Which underlines the silliness of trying to regulate the direction of science.
Now you may argue that if I am known as an AGW proponent, I may get easier access to grant money because all the application reviewers are proponents. Well..in case the review is done not anonymously this may be true. But since the reviewers are commonly peers it also means that there are not many "denialist" peers. And they certainly have no financial gain in approving only AGW proponents.
On the other side. If the "denialists" think it is bad to do something against AGW because it costs us so much money, it follows there most be people willing to spend money to have me disprove AGW. They may not be oil companies as you say, but coal companies, but that is totally not relevant for the fact that some people are willing to spend money for it.
Well, on one side you have a bunch of really smart people with some credible-sounding evidence telling us how the climate is GOING TO change, and that most/all of it is caused by man - and most of their previous predictions have been wrong. On the other side, you have another bunch of really smart people who point to all sorts of issues with the foundation of the opposing evidence, but mainly are armed with millions of years of evidence of how the climate HAS changed, even when man either wasn't around or hadn't industrialised.
But sure, compare AGW sceptics to, say, moon landing hoax, tobacco industry-funded pro-smoking studies, or holocaust deniers if your argument is so weak. Better to call your opponent crazy than to bother with rational debate and actual proof. After all that's the whole point of calling them "climate deniers", right?
The conspiracy line seems to get trotted out a lot too, though it almost always follows rambling from the same person that anyone opposing any of the widely-varying, frequently contradictory AGW claims is part of a Big Oil conspiracy.
The other thing that gets trotted out a lot is how there always seem to be billions of scientists that agree with AGW, except no one outside the IPCC is ever named, while anti-AGW has thousands of scientists put their name to the opposing view. Regardless, I don't know any AGW sceptic claim any conspiracy. There doesn't need to be a mass conspiracy when pretty much all climate research is based off the same faulty data set (which omits things like the medieval warm period).
But really, the most telling of all, is how AGW sceptics are always made out to be some rabid vocal minority. Yet if it were true, surely the AGW believers could just ignore them and go about saving the planet. Instead, they insist on persuading others to believe their arguments - the very same people they insist are all on board with the AGW alarmist train. You never see AGW nuts put their money where their mouths are. It's hard to take AGW seriously as an issue when even its staunchest believers don't.
> But if you do, bring it, mofo. Bring it the fuck on.
Suck my cock, Internet Tough Guy, since you're so keen on finding DICK.
And, thus far, quantifiable increases in temperature AND worldwide damage have EXCEEDED his early estimates. But then again, we're afraid of facts, now, aren't we?
A proper scientist is a perpetual skeptic whose job it is to routinely test and attempt to disarm common knowledge, accepting results only through verification, not just once, but endlessly.
Scenario B predicted +1.0C, BEST shows +1.1C by 2011.
"posts bringing up skeptical points have been modded "troll", no matter the quality of the actual content."
No, they aren't skeptical points, they're denialist rhetoric.
This would be why they are modded troll.
But go ahead and give us the content of a troll-marked "skeptical" post and show us the quality of it, hmm?
Life for us humans would actually be getting harder,
and you know things like economies would be shrinking.......
Did you read the letter?
He's complaining about one of the IPCC selected Lead Author was spreading misinformation linking hurricanes and
global climate change to gain media attention.
As bad as it sounds (and it is) this says very little on the fact-basedness of IPCC reports: it's about leadership and
moral integrity of the leaders not science.
Well let's see:
There's three right there. Of course they're covering their butts, they want to keep making money after oil. However, they money they spend funding propaganda to muddy the waters represents a small fraction of the money they receive from governments in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. They have to make sure that they're out of the oil business before the public really understands what they've been doing. As long as the reasonable doubt lingers they won't end up facing massive lawsuits like the cigarette companies eventually did.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity.
Also, can I refer you to plenty of issues with the Policy Summary of the IPCC AR4 which is damaging the real science that is performed in the many, many fields that were reviewed. Statements blaming AGW for everything from the reduction of the Kilimanjero glaciers (it was deforestation) and the reduction in size of the Himalayan glaciers (carbon soot from cookers in China is the main culprit) to the author's missing socks does not help. And before there's a counter that the Policy Summary isn't the document - it's probably the most important part of it because it's what most will read.
I leave the last word to Nils Axel Mörner, was the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden until 2005. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and was leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner studied the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. A bit of a loon about some things, but then many are and he's undoubtedly a sea-level expert.
And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them—none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don’t do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it’s not the first thing.
and
Chapter 11 on "Sea Level Changes" was written by 33 persons; none of which represents actua
Rational thought is the only true freedom
While you are technically correct, there are a large number of people who like and adhere to the idea that global warming is a conspiracy. And anything that props up their belief therein will be taken not as evidence, but as absolute proof that it's a conspiracy and can't possibly be true.
Disagree. Small integrated reactors would solve all of America's energy problems but delete the energy monopolies that ex-government officials post themselves to run. That's why America, as a nation, refuses to invest in nuclear options except in the case of warships, where we have no other choice for power efficiency ratios.
Wind alone is a classic example of lies feeding lies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2910739/Wind-farms-fail-to-deliver-value-for-money-report-claims.html
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews11/110407-wind.html
http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.com/2010/07/scottish-wind-farms-fail-to-deliver.html
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/electrical-power-statistics-renewables-fail-to-deliver-january-2011/
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275673/texas-wind-energy-fails-again-robert-bryce
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/08/17/wind-turbines-how-long-before-the-golden-eagle-is-extinct/
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/08/22/wind-turbines-now-they-are-a-threat-to-national-security/
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46519
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/renewable-power-fail-as-usual-november-2010/
http://wind-works.org/SmallTurbines/SkystreamDeliversLessThanAdvertisedatFrenchTestSite.html
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/why-wind-wont-work.pdf
All you have to do is restrict China's growth to levels about 50 years ago. That should be no problem, I mean they won't care that much. Then the USA will have no problem reducing its growth during the worst recession since the great depression.
After that, the rest of the world is easy!
Regardless of if you believe or not, politically it is impossible to do anything about it. Likely by the time it becomes so bad that the it is politically viable, it will be too late anyway, so why worry about it. Enjoy the good times while you can! :)
Sorry about being a debbie downer, but it is true.
When 1% controls the outcome it is pointless to discuss.
Think about it, the 1% who own everything, who are greedy, are the ones driving growth at all costs. This is how they make money. Do you think they are going to make the paid for corrupt governments cut growth a politically viable alternative? Look at the debt crisis in the USA (and think about really how long it has been going on), and their inability to do anything about it. That is the political masters, financial masters saying, do as you're told, or I'll find someone who will!
I'm not sure what the wealth distribution in China is like, but I am gonna guess it isn't great. I'll also guess that they are not willing to go back to pre-1950 agri-based economy because of what the western world has done with all its growth.
Good luck with all that. I'll probably drink myself into the grave before the end times anyway.
Can we revisit your concern after we deploy 100GW solar in the sun belt to very predictably help meet the peak load?
Well when everyone continues to believe that 60 year old technology never needs to be updated, you get what you sow,
Actually, the "debate" changes based on whatever is most convenient for the deniers. This is commonly referred to as moving the goal posts. There are plenty of high profile deniers who say that the climate isn't changing. There are more who say it's no man-made. There are relatively few who say is will do more good than harm (though this is expected to be the next major position in the gradual retreat).
The simplest method to reduce greenhouse gases are taxes. Society will have to clean up after their mess, we might as well make them pay for it, otherwise we're all going to pay for it. That's the argument Richard Nixon made when he instituted the EPA and it's still true now. It's much better that the polluters pay for the pollution (especially if they try pass the costs to their customers, because that will encourage the customers to deal with cleaner companies). It's simple and effective and will drive Grover Norquist into an endless rage, which is why the Republicans are dead set against it. They don't want to piss off their sugar-daddy.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Wow...I had never heard of the electric fan theory. I just looked into it and found information about South Korea's government touting this idea. That's just...wow. Thanks for that one.
I'm sorry but you just made all that up, didn't you?
Deserts are deserts because they are arid. That means they lack water. Why? Because it doesn't rain enough to sustain a high level of plant growth.
On a grand scale, deserts come and go because the rain patterns change. For instance, a mountain range may pop up and block the wet air so it releases the rain before reaching a spot in the mainland.
If you doubt this is true, grab a book on biology and read up on it yourself, I did that recently, very interesting stuff (my field is computer science).
"Help" peak load, not replace it.
By all means go ahead and develop renewable. But you have to accept and embrace the fact that nuclear is our fastest path to carbon free energy.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Stop muddling this argument with verifiable facts. Global Warming activists hate it when you show them facts.
A Gallup poll of the opinions of the American public reflects the propaganda that big media is feeding to the public. As far as 'facts' are concerned, that is all you can get out of that poll.
Yes, nuclear is an option, and yes, we should explore it objectively (as if that's even possible at this point..), but it is hardly accurate to say that if you accept AGW, it follows that you must endorse nuclear or you are a horrible hypocrite.
The trouble is that there has been so much FUD around AGW that we haven't been able to even have the conversation about what we're going to do about it.
Most likely, though, there isn't going to be one solution. There will be many, depending on where you live. Geothermal energy works great in Iceland, not so much in Arizona. Arizona gets a lot of sun, though, so solar is more feasible there, but not in Seattle. Seattle could use tidal energy, though, which wouldn't then work in Wisconsin. You get the idea - tap into the resource that is nearby.
All interesting solutions. To bad all we get from the AGW community is carbon taxes and plant closings. seems that they are really only interested in bitching about it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Please support this claim.
Because near as I can tell, the only thing you will respond with is a reference to the one email where one guy mentions using a "trick". Which you know, turns out to be a reference to a particular means of formatting data, and not actually any attempt to obfuscate or otherwise lie.
Tell you what - you link to something actually backing up the claims you're obviously holding as a preconceived conclusion, to entice me to actually wade through yet another batch of office chatter among some scientists. Why would I take the word of someone telegraphing that you deny climate change, despite actual scientists practically all agreeing it's real? You people would have me wasting every hour of every day chasing some boogeyman that exists only in your minds.
Give me some evidence that there's some there there. Or shut up already.
--
make install -not war
Acid rain isn't caused by excess CO2. Ocean acidification (which may well wipe out our fisheries) is.
Acid rain is caused by NOx and SO2 emissions. They have been substantially reduced in recent years by reductions of the sulfur-content of diesel, though not eliminated - we just kind of live with it.
It always grows back. The Australian Bush contains many species which have evolved to expect bush fires (seeds which only germinate once fire sweeps through).
Bush fires in the outback are a natural occurrence, and the Bush obviously regrows after they happen. It's a non-sensical soundbite that appeals to be preconceptions.
Wow, it's almost like if you assume the worse and read some random emails out of context then you might be able to prove your preconceptions.
Maybe you'd like to post this compelling reading of yours.
But if instead they object, then we will all know they've been blowing smoke up our asses.
Or 'they' price the cost, both in dollars and carbon, of constructing and operating an nuclear facility a little differently to you..
well, one of the major problems is addressed by working on the grid and adding storage... that's the part I just noted is a very solvable issue. at the very least, very large inroads can be made without any real major infrastructure changes, just changing meters and establishing the communication protocol needed to manage loads along with demand.
that is much easier than making nuclear waste safe.
as for the problems with wind, I dunno that much about building turbines. but again, the cost for solar PV just hit grid parity over 25 years and it's dropping mightily. and, it happens to load match peak demands in most areas (summer cooling) quite nicely. but even if it doesn't match your peak in your area... again, storing thermal energy isn't hard. load shifting is easy. taking time to crank up a backup generator, no problem. You can't time shift the lights, but you sure can chill water at night instead of waiting until noon.
adding wind and other renewables to the mix just adds potential. but solar PV will be a much bigger player, I think. and nuclear will be a dinosaur.
I read the letter years ago.
1000s of scientists (true individualists), 20 years, and 1 resignation.
The issues Landsea raised were public, and relatively minor in the total body of the work. The issues were not ignored, and the wording on hurricane activity was changed after the Landsea incident.
Using this as proof that the IPCC is "wrong" is pathetic.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"1000s of scientists (true individualists), 20 years, and 1 resignation."
See what I mean? You unintentionally admit just how little you know about it.
First, it wasn't intended as "proof" of anything. It was merely an example of behavior that has been reported by many others. "Proof" is something else entirely, and I have no intention of trying to "prove" anything to you. It isn't worth my time.
Second, there have been a number of resignations, not just one. But I'm not going to post each and every one of them for you. Do your own homework. This is Slashdot, not Wikipedia or some university.
Third: "thousands" of scientists? Um, no. Of the 2,500 or so people that have been claimed to be "scientists" that have worked on the IPCC reports, the majority are reviewers, many of whom are not scientists at all. Among them are schoolteachers who have never performed a lick of scientific research in their lives, and even a janitor or two.
Tell you what. Maybe you would like to have a look at this? It contains excerpts from the book "Delinquent Science", a report on the science of the IPCC, by Donna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative journalist. Even better, buy the book.
Maybe it will open your eyes about how things are really done at the IPCC.
Or maybe you don't want to? That old "confirmation bias" popping up again maybe?
There is only one resignation I know of. Some people have made allegations that there were more resignations. This is just an urban myth as far as I can tell.
As for "Delinquent Science", you are part of the "alternative knowledge system" of the right. Where people are entitled to their own opinions AND facts. You are truly worthy of my scorn.
"As for "Delinquent Science", you are part of the "alternative knowledge system" of the right. Where people are entitled to their own opinions AND facts. You are truly worthy of my scorn."
This comment might have some merit if it were true. But I am no more "right-wing" than you are. A good bit less, perhaps.
"The oil companies" have been sponsoring AGW research for many years.
The oil companies have been financing climate research for many years in the hope it proves there is no AGW. You can't prove anything else if you tried.
Fandroids hate facts.
Why do you claim something that is provably wrong?
(example: Shell paying out money to James Hansen in 2009)
it's in my head
Why do you claim something that is provably wrong?
(example: Shell paying out money to James Hansen in 2009)
That's nothing compared to what the professional "skeptics" get (you know, the guys you got that little snippet from, without any context wattsoever) - just that they are in no way accountable. Neither for money, nor for their lies they get paid for.
Fandroids hate facts.
[citation needed]
it's in my head
[citation needed]
Says the guy quoting Anthony Watts who only gives sources that either don't support what he says or are fiction written by his cronies.
BTW, when will his famous "It's all the Urban Heat Islands, I tells yer" paper be ready? It's a bit over due, isn't it?
Fandroids hate facts.
I'm quite sure Anthony takes great care in supporting his statements, as do most others who post on his blog. I'm also quite sure Fall et al. 2011 has been released, and if I recall correctly additional papers are in the pipelines.
(As an example, the BEST papers have been talked about quite a lot without having been published either)
I had a reason for asking you to support your claims. You seldom do.
it's in my head
So where is his quotation? Oh, yeah, right. As for his paper - whoops I missed it. Of course it actually says the opposite of what he has been claiming all the time, but he can't actually admit it.
Fandroids hate facts.
But you have to accept and embrace my opinion that nuclear is our fastest path to carbon free energy.
There fixed that for you. The solar and wind production numbers are north of 75GW in 2011 and will be 100 GW in the next (few) year(s). How long does it take to fast track a new nuclear plant? Let's get ridiculous and say you can do it in 5 years (Jeepers this probably means crappy gen3 technology at best) . Good luck commissioning 500 to 800 reactors 5 years from now to match renewable growth (assuming 600 - 1000mw reactors). Or using 0.25CF for renewables and 0.9 for nuclear, you'll only need 140 - 220 new reactors to match the renewables annual net production! Better get going!