The eery silence that is ClimateGate

Just heard about this recently and wondered what some of your educated opinions were. Here is mine:

Apart from believing/denying I'm a bit concerned that the media has not latched onto the leaked emails like they latch onto everything else. One would think they would run with this as fast and as far as they could. However it seems that FOX is the only major US news provider to actually air it. This sucks b/c it then becomes a partisan issue and I, for one, do not believe that leaked or hacked emails are a partisan issue. Also just because the means of acquiring the emails may not be on the up and up does not invalidate the content of said emails. In a US court of law they would be inadmissable since they were obtained illegaly but we are not in a courtroom here. Now if it is found that the emails are fraudulent then obviously that should be reported.

So why the silence on this thing? Why did I have to find out most of my information from a Russian TV broadcast via YouTube? Is it one of those stories that is not legit and the news media is waiting for legitimacy before airing? And if this is true then why does the mass media seem to air every other story long before they know or care if it's legit? We've seen tons of stories that have been hyped or exaggerated and aired on every mass media market long before they were scrutinized. Why the sudden turnabout on this story?

I also ask you to consider another situation and think about how the media would react to it. Let's turn the tables and say that thousands of emails were found that showed an attempt to hide the fact that the earth is warming. How would the media react then?

Something's amiss. It would be my estimation that if an agency were merely reporting the news rather than manipulating it they would happily report either event and give them equal fervor and attention. In fact the leaked emails are so huge that one would think if you turn the news on right now they would have some type of extended report and/or a special news show devoted to it. However, this is not the case. And what if, just what if, these emails are not the result of a hacker...but of a silent whistleblower who conveniently left them in public view knowing full well what they were doing? Fact is we do not know but that is when the news steps in and asks a billion and one questions but they have become sadly silent on this issue. That's their job. They take a very small story, realize it's impact, and broadcast it in such a way as to generate curiousity, interest, and of course hype.

So is this story real or is it similar to finding some of our 'work emails' and leaking them onto a public server? We all say things in emails we shouldn't and perhaps we all get a little to zealous about this or that in them which could be taken way out of context. So do you guys think these emails are being taken out of context to prove a point, which would explain the silence, or is there another reason? I'm genuinely interested to see what others think about this b/c I am a bit undecided. The only thing that really scares me about the whole thing is the way the Tea Parties were covered in the news. The coverage of them was clearly biased, on both sides, by all news outlets. The Tea Party coverage in the USA was a prime example of what news should not do. What if this is just another Tea Party coverage?

In general I don't understand the rhetoric and idiocy surrounding the issue. It is clear we can probably generate just as many jobs by continuing to do things the way we do now in the energy sector as we could by finding new energy sources and new ways to generate power. I'm really not sure why either side debates this and the only reason I can see is that our technology is not yet up to the task. The way I see it is this:

1. If we are warming, regardless of the cause, let's reduce emissions and find new sources of energy
2. If we are not warming, regardless of the cause, let's reduce emissions and find new sources of energy.

Heck I just saw the new Star Trek on DVD and I wouldn't mind if NASA came up with an alternate energy source that allowed us to do FTL. Who wouldn't sign up for that space program? :D
I'm all for new stuff....let's just not destroy our economy in the process.

In the end I think this hurts science's credibility which is very unfortunate b/c I believe many of the people involved are working extremely hard on both sides of the issue to come up with the right thing to do or not do.

The effect of human activity on the global climate is so negligible that anyone claiming otherwise is either a crackpot or a Luddite. Do you honestly think that the 5% of total CO2 emissions that humans are responsible for somehow are the cause of climate change? Given that vegetative absorption increases linearly with concentration up to concentrations of 10000ppm (the metabolic cap for C3 and C4 plants, some 20 times higher than current atmospheric concentrations and twice the limit of safe human respiration according to OSHA) the increase is insignificant to the global climate. Human emissions, being aseasonal, may in fact have an even lower impact since they are constant versus the seasonal upwelling of CO2 from natural sources which causes spikes in the atmospheric concentration. Human activity is quite literally nothing but background noise.

>> So do you guys think these emails are being taken out of context to prove a point, which would explain the silence? <<

Yes. I think you hit on the true effect of the emails at the end of your post: "In the end I think this hurts science's credibility which is very unfortunate b/c I believe many of the people involved are working extremely hard on both sides of the issue to come up with the right thing to do or not do." The emails showed a disheartening lack of objectivity amongst the scientists involved. And while what I saw is very much human nature, I think a professional should be better than that.

However, that's not really news. There was no real proof that any of the mountain of evidence that climate scientists have amassed was faked. Even global warming skeptics generally dispute the interpretation of the data rather than the data itself, so I find it highly unlikely that these emails really do anything to actually change the debate. Instead, they reinforce the skepticism of the skeptics about the motives of the climate scientists while the leaking of the emails and uproar from those skeptics just reinforces the perceptions among global warming believers that the skeptics don't care about the truth.

Now, I don't think that the media's reporting would be the same if these emails showed this behavior on the other side, but I think it would be closer than you think. The mainstream media generally follows the conventional wisdom that man-made global warming is real and that prominent skeptics are generally motivated by personal interests. So evidence that was the case would probably get a little more play than the other way around. Still, I did see this story mentioned by major news outlets when it first happened, it's just that there wasn't much else to the story so it was dropped pretty quickly.

And that's where it becomes partisan. There really is a partisan divide when it comes to who believes global warming is a problem and who doesn't. So after the initial reporting of the story, which I thought was pretty standard, it is the opinion shows that keep it going. It is obvious why Fox News' opinion shows would continue to talk about it, but other networks would let it drop. I'm sure if it was the other way around, the opinion shows on MSNBC would still be talking about it to some degree. It's unfortunate, but that's how these opinion shows work.

I think my bottom lines are two things you said, reducing emissions and finding new sources of energy are good ideas regardless, and these emails hurt the credibility of all scientists. Beyond that, I'm not sure there is much of a story.

I think it is bad form to leak the emails. We cannot have truly honest scientific inquiry if an individual scientist cannot take a possibly incorrect, or unpopular position and defend it against peer review to see if the viewpoint is valid or not without it ruining his reputation just because he didn't guess the correct position to take. The scientific method specifically requires trial and error. If you punish people for the error, eventually you will stop getting the trial. Then you are left not with people that make the correct decisions all the time, just a random sampling of people that happened to guess correctly up to that point.

If you take 1024 people, and tell each of them to flip a coin and make it come up heads, after 10 rounds you will have someone who has flipped heads 10 times in a row, but that doesn't mean you have someone who is any more likely than someone else to flip heads on their 11th try. This is why most discoveries are made by a team of two or more people, because one guy takes one position and the other guy takes the other position, and they each take their position personally and argue and debate it until it becomes obvious what the correct view is. Then they both publish the results regardless of which of them took which point. The purpose of science is to find the truth, not to win the debate. That is the realm of primitive stone age belief systems like religion.

One of the big issues was the NZ data being 'massaged' by the scientists. Looked bad that the early (pre 1920s) data had been upwardly adjusted nearly 1 C.

Until you understood that the recording station was moved in the 1920s...(and that this had previously been explained to the same people now accusing the NZ scientists of deception).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

The effect of human activity on the global climate is so negligible that anyone claiming otherwise is either a crackpot or a Luddite.

---

What happened to the temps in the US in the 3 days following 911 (while no airliners could fly)?

I would call that a clearly measurable 'effect of human activity' on the climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by novacain

What happened to the temps in the US in the 3 days following 911 (while no airliners could fly)?

I would call that a clearly measurable 'effect of human activity' on the climate.

---

A single exemplar does not a comprehensive training set make.

There's also indirect human effect on the climate. I may have to find some source if you insist, but it seems the one major contribution by far to carbon dioxide on the atmosphere is livestock (and also the largest collective producer of methane).

...

I do generally seat on the side who agrees we are increasing global warming. The total effect may be small in fact. We don't know for sure. But its dangerous nonetheless due to its cascading potential. That is, we may not need to do much for the climate to do the rest.

But while I have swung in the past between discredit and full acceptance, I've settled down on some middle ground around the whole climate debate. This involves:

- Realizing that never before in recorded human history, the scientific community behaved in such a fashion as to gather a general feeling of discredit, doubt or confusion as they have been doing for the past decade. This saddens me greatly.

- The issue has political implications due to its economical effects. With that, the Climate Change Debate is hardly something that can be discussed dispassionately. And passion has been the greatest enemy of a general consensus in this area backed by hard data and rational thought. Scientists on both sides of the fence are no less permeable to political influence as the rest of us. Those that are, are becoming a rarity it seems... and aren't obviously been given a voice.

- We haven't found yet one single source of alternative energy that can beat fossil fuels in their output vs. cost capacity. Not one. This has been leading to the single largest collective scientific effort in human history. I can't remember ever before in human history such a large number of countries and individuals working for the same goal. And while most of it is a race backed by business motivations at the private and public sectors rather than a competition or cooperation, it is still worth a mention. And I can only dream of the day we will get there.

- Perhaps equally important, if not more, to alternative energies is increasing the efficiency of our current fossil fuel usage. While we already can get the nice curly lamp bulbs, that's far from what I think should be happening. If it is indeed true we cannot get any more efficiency from the internal combustion engine, then we will have to agree this >100 year old engine must be decommissioned and something new that uses fossil fuels needs to be devised somehow. Is there any work being done in this area?

- I'm not concerned with reactions to Climate Change ruining our economy. For one, it seems they have been stimulating the economy, instead of halting it. There's a whole large scale market (complete with consumers, businesses, products and whatnot) out there, where before there was none. And all seems to indicate this market will keep growing. But mostly because we have to face the fact that if indeed somehow it was proven beyond any doubt we were walking down the suicide path, I doubt anyone would give the Economy a second thought. On the other hand, because it is becoming obvious no one will be able to prove the Climate Change, we will keep doing our Economy as we always did. That is, absorb any crazy idea as far-fetched as it may be, and make money of it.

The entire issue is 100% about money, and enforcing more total control of the people at the bottom of the stack, myself being one of them.

Anthropomorphic climate change? Yes... Very possible, indeed, likely. Due mostly to WATER VAPOR and Deforestation. It has absolutely nothing to do with Carbon. But now we can set up stock exchanges to trade made up 'Credits', with no basis behind them.

Sounds like a global version of Derivatives to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

There's also indirect human effect on the climate. I may have to find some source if you insist, but it seems the one major contribution by far to carbon dioxide on the atmosphere is livestock (and also the largest collective producer of methane).

---

Yeah because the thousands of volcanoes in the world don't put out any carbon dioxide or methane whatsoever.

Human activity includes livestock, and still doesn't make up more than 5% of total global emissions. I agree with rdrast, it's 100% about money, and making the common man feel less bad about having nothing while the top 1% have whatever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

A single exemplar does not a comprehensive training set make.

---

So it is not a valid example because you say it is not?

Any chance you could provide data/studies/etc supporting your hypothesis that contrails do not effect temps? (rather than name calling and dismissing facts / arguments you don't like)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

Yeah because the thousands of volcanoes in the world don't put out any carbon dioxide or methane whatsoever.

---

The worlds climate system is capable of capturing/fixing a limited amount of CO2.

Any excess CO2 released but not removed from the atmosphere goes where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

Human activity includes livestock, and still doesn't make up more than 5% of total global emissions.

---

And the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 38% above pre-industrial levels.

Did volcanoes start producing more CO2 suddenly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

I agree with rdrast, it's 100% about money,

---

Do you think fossil fuels are going to get any cheaper, EVER?

Factoring in the cost of pollution caused by fossil fuels to the end price, compared to renewable sources, is required to allow an accurate cost comparison and true competition in a free market.

But that would require the US consumers to pay the real cost for energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by novacain

So it is not a valid example because you say it is not?

---

You cannot use a single data point to draw a conclusion.

Quote:

---

The worlds climate system is capable of capturing/fixing a limited amount of CO2.

---

Technicalyl limited yes, but that is nto the same as a fixed amount adn no more. As the concentration increases so does the capacity to fix the co2.

Quote:

---

Any excess CO2 released but not removed from the atmosphere goes where?

---

Man doesn't release enough CO2 to effect the atmospheric levels by any significant amount.

Quote:

---

And the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 38% above pre-industrial levels.

---

So has volcanic activity.

Quote:

---

Did volcanoes start producing more CO2 suddenly?

---

Obviously that is one source. Other sources are increased biological activity due to the increased temperatures caused by increased sunspot activity. Higher temperatures also lead to higher rates of errosion, another major source of CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...ansmission.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:So...ty_Proxies.png

Quote:

---

Do you think fossil fuels are going to get any cheaper, EVER?

---

That is irrelevant and off topic, as is the rest of your argument.

I supplied an example, not a 'single point of data'.

Solar radiation has increased less than 0.1% since Maunder Minimum and general scientific consensus is that is not having the effects you attribute to it.

Also as much of solar radiation was not detectable with out satellites, so the science is open for much more interpretation than other data sources (as a few decades of data is meanigless in this context).

I think this graph clearly shows that sunspot activity (which has been recorded for centuries) is not solely responsible for the increase in CO2 and temps.

File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [note how sun spots decrease this century but CO2 and temps increase.]

It is taken from the same Wiki page as yours. The same page that states your idea (that solar activity is to blame for increases in CO2 and temps) is not supported by the data.


The cost of fossil fuel has everything to do with this discussion. If the true cost of fossil fuels (inc pollution) was used, renewable energy sources would be much more attractive and would be better funded and utilized.

Using a variant of Pascal's Wager, it is clearly in our best interests to move to a carbon trading economy (even if Global Warming is not the threat science considers it to be).



EDIT: Please post a link showing a ~40% increase in volcanic activity, no data source I can find supports your statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by novacain

I supplied an example, not a 'single point of data'.

---

An == one == single. Learn to use a thesaurus.

Quote:

---

Also as much of solar radiation was not detectable with out satellites,

---

You can't have it both ways. Either you can state fatually that solar radiation has only increased 0.1% or you cannot. If the instruments cannot detect the full spectrum then the results cannot be called accurate.

Quote:

---

I think this graph clearly shows that sunspot activity (which has been recorded for centuries) is not solely responsible for the increase in CO2 and temps.

---

I never said any one cause was solely responsible.

Quote:

---

It is taken from the same Wiki page as yours.

---

That's odd because I didn't post a page, only a link to the graphic.

Quote:

---

The same page that states your idea (that solar activity is to blame for increases in CO2 and temps) is not supported by the data.

---

I never stated that increased radiation is responsible. I stated that increased temperatures are partly responsible for increases in CO2, and that increased volcanism is also a contributing factor.

Quote:

---

The cost of fossil fuel has everything to do with this discussion.

---

No it doesn't. Whether a litre of petrol costs 1 yen or 1000 euros is irrelevant to the effect its combustion has on the environment. Do you somehow think that charging 1000 euro for a litre of petrol somehow makes it contain less carbon?

The assertion that expensive fuel prices would decrease consumption of petroleum demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of both the actual consumption of petroleum and capitalism in general. In the last 10 years fuel prices have tripled and consumption has increased. Fuel accounts for a very low percentage of petroleum use. Most petroleum is used int he petrochemical industry to manufacture things like Ammonium Nitrate, do you suggest we stop using fertilizer and let half the world population starve to death? Because the US and Russia wont be the ones starving, it will be Europe, China, India, South America, Africa.

In fact raising fuel prices will if anything increase consumption as it will increase profits and thus make previously uneconomical deposits worth developing. If you really wanted to decrease petroleum use, put a price cap on a barrel of oil. Ultimately, even assuming current speculation that fossil fuels are causing global warming, they will run out before they can cause any lasting damage to the environment so its a mute point. What isn't a mute point is that if we dismantle our industry we have a much lower chance of ever developing technologies that can replace fossil fuels. Sorry to break the news to you but most groundbreaking discoveries happen in some guys garage (figuratively speaking) where he spends his excess income on his hobby and finds something interesting. Less industry == less disposable income == less innovation. If you don't believe me map the standard of living over the last 40 years against the rate of new technologies. There hasn't been a single new technology invented in the last 40 years while our standard of living has plummeted.

Computers
Cell Phones
Internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

You cannot use a single data point to draw a conclusion.

---

The whole climate change debate is off topic in this thread, which is about the hacked emails and the media's coverage of them. But since we're there, I'd like to point out that this quote above is pretty silly. If a theory states that something never happens, and you have a single example of it happening, then you can fairly draw the conclusion that the theory is wrong. So of course you can draw conclusions from singular examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

The whole climate change debate is off topic in this thread, which is about the hacked emails and the media's coverage of them. But since we're there, I'd like to point out that this quote above is pretty silly. If a theory states that something never happens, and you have a single example of it happening, then you can fairly draw the conclusion that the theory is wrong. So of course you can draw conclusions from singular examples.

---

Yes, but data can be erroneous. This is why repeatability is also a requirement of science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewbuck

Yes, but data can be erroneous. This is why repeatability is also a requirement of science.

---

Of course. But in my mind, stating that you can't draw a conclusion from a single example implies that the validity of the single example is not in question. If there is a question about the accuracy of the example, then that is what should be challenged.

Looking at abachler's original statement, it appears that he embedded a link that more clearly hints at his actual opinion. Now that I can see that link, it makes more sense what his argument is.

Quote:

---

- Realizing that never before in recorded human history, the scientific community behaved in such a fashion as to gather a general feeling of discredit, doubt or confusion as they have been doing for the past decade. This saddens me greatly.

---

And not just the climatologists. I don't trust physicists since 1940s (particularly in light of their Black Hole Machine), brain scientists, geneticists, etc etc.

You think scientists were better before?

Scientists are and have always been people, not robots. Outside influence and subjectivity are always an issue. I'd be shocked if there was ever a time in history when science was more trustworthy than it is right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewbuck

Yes, but data can be erroneous. This is why repeatability is also a requirement of science.

---

I think the controversy over Climate Change among credited scientists (not the general populace who spends most of their time repeating what they hear from their walk of life) has not been much about the validity of the data which can be easily verified, but instead the interpretation of said data.

The problem has been mostly tied to the prediction models being used to support either positions. One cannot support either claim without running the data over prediction models. How else can you say all will be alright in the future or everything will be bad?

And prediction models are... well, 'nough said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

You think scientists were better before?

Scientists are and have always been people, not robots. Outside influence and subjectivity are always an issue. I'd be shocked if there was ever a time in history when science was less trustworthy than it is right now.

---

Maybe you mean to change the last sentence to "more trustworthy"?

In any case I got your meaning. But I don't agree. Science benefited from very serious people doing serious science over the years. What we are witnessing now is serious people doing bad science, which is what worries me.

Examples like the Black Hole Machine are not good. That always happened in science. Pseudo-scientists, wannabe-scientists and bad-scientists being given media time (or being badly interpreted by the media). You always got that. I could go as back as Percival Lowell to give an example of the archetypal wannabe-scientist that gets media attention. But he was never a scientist... he obviously failed right on one of the most fundamental cannons of modern science (the Scientific Method).

I only wished we were more observant of our scientists, their names and their practices. It would a lot easier to dismiss all the "Martian Cannals" and "Black Hole Machines" as not really representative of the scientific community.

But on the case of the Climate Change we have been seeing something new. Well, not new, it always happened in some measure, I would have to agree. But it's a lot more prevalent now. When I see so many top scientists so assured of the results of their models and studies on either side of the fence and them too politicizing their findings, I fear they are forgetting all about... Science, the systematic practice of being in doubt.

No post of mine can address the problem better than how it is discussed here. I strongly suggest a study of the article along with its references. In here you will get a short list of some of the top names involved. Some unknown to me, others well known to many of us.

Global Warming has indeed provoked a divide among the scientific community between a large group who defends it and a small but important group who denies it. I honestly don't care anymore with who is right. The issue in unsolved. It is now a political problem down to the fact in Europe you get all pro-global warming and in USA mostly anti. And until these scientists get their act together and remove politics from the equation, the issue will never be solved.

If you can name me a period in human history where science misbehaved so badly, tell me.

Quote:

---

If you can name me a period in human history where science misbehaved so badly, tell me.

---

Depends on how you define science.

I though I was somewhat jokingly drawing attention to the IMO rather real issue that a) many sciences have reached a point where people just don't get it and have to take the specialists by the word; b) the power and results of scientific knowledge tend to scare people (e.g what could come of genetic engineering, hadron (?) collisions, implanting micro- or nanochips etc), oftentimes not completely without a reason (nuclear armament etc).

As to climate change, humans are capable of completely reshaping the landscape (look out of the window), changing complete ecosystems (mostly destroying) etc. What's so incredible in their ability to affect climate?

Also arguments like "volcanos pollute more than we ever could": so basically we should completely stop caring, since life on Earth could at any time be wiped out by an asteroid collision (which all our nuclear armament might be incapable of avoiding)?

Quote:

---

do you suggest we stop using fertilizer and let half the world population starve to death? Because the US and Russia wont be the ones starving, it will be Europe, China, India, South America, Africa.

---

In nature, I think, population sizes indeed seem to fluctuate. Among animals, if you deplete the energy resources (food), the population size goes down. What makes you think it is natural that there should be so numerous top-level consumers in the ecosystem, and that it should stay like that for ever (until other energy resource is discovered and the numbers rocket again). Also, big polluter == not starving? Indefinitely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Maybe you mean to change the last sentence to "more trustworthy"?

---

I did, thanks.

As to a period where science (or scientists) misbehaved so badly, I would say that I disagree with you on the charge that scientists are misbehaving that badly at all right now. There has always been political influence in science. I can't (and shouldn't need to) recite the many examples of the government or the church requesting specific results to justify an agenda or doctrine. It is the same thing happening here. There is a debate about which side is primarily guilty of this in regards to global warming, and it is almost certain that there is one side more guilty than the other, but even if one side is completely right in their conclusions there will be instances of politics affecting the science itself. It just has to be that way because that's human nature.

That's why I don't consider these emails to be that big of a deal. It's just people being people. In fact, the whole point of the scientific method is to account for human nature and try to, as much as possible, remove that subjectivity and bias from the equation. It's why we use peer-reviewed journals and why we double and triple test studies with interesting conclusions. In fact, it is the rigor with which findings are scrutinized which is big reason why I think science is more trustworthy now. Forget the politics, just looking at the science and the scientific advances we're making right now in human history, and I have to believe that overall things are better, not worse.

Apologies if I've missed some things already discussed -- I have a terrible skimming habit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

We haven't found yet one single source of alternative energy that can beat fossil fuels in their output vs. cost capacity.

---

Nuclear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

However, that's not really news. There was no real proof that any of the mountain of evidence that climate scientists have amassed was faked.

---

Well, the "hockey stick" was certainly an "embellishment".

Here are some items that have passed my view of late, merely cherry-picked from ESR as more middle-of-the-road.

• Hiding the Decline: Prologue
• Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins
• Will the AGW fraud discredit science?
• Facts to fit the theory
• AGW fraud unravels at an accelerating pace
• Facts to fit the theory? Actually, no facts at all!

As he mentions, open source it.

(And I'd prefer some of these questions be answered before trillion dollar economies are turned upside down.)


[edit]As long as I'm at it on ESR's blog, let's throw this one in too:
Why Alternative Energy Isn’t

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

The whole climate change debate is off topic in this thread, which is about the hacked emails and the media's coverage of them. But since we're there, I'd like to point out that this quote above is pretty silly. If a theory states that something never happens, and you have a single example of it happening, then you can fairly draw the conclusion that the theory is wrong. So of course you can draw conclusions from singular examples.

---

A single data point can refute a theory, but you cannot build a logical theory based on one data point unless your 'theory' is merely that someone else's theory is incorrect, which isn't a theory in the scientific sense, but a conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anon

In nature, I think, population sizes indeed seem to fluctuate. Among animals, if you deplete the energy resources (food), the population size goes down. What makes you think it is natural that there should be so numerous top-level consumers in the ecosystem, and that it should stay like that for ever (until other energy resource is discovered and the numbers rocket again). Also, big polluter == not starving? Indefinitely?

---

I suppose you will be the first one in line volunteering to starve to death when food shortages become a reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

- We haven't found yet one single source of alternative energy that can beat fossil fuels in their output vs. cost capacity. Not one.

---

Nuclear and solar. Nuclear emits less radiation into the atmosphere per megawatt than coal or petroleum even if you nuked the plant.

Solar can compete with nuclear in production costs, you just need a lot of land to make it work, and places where there is a lot of land don't tend to be near the places where electricity is consumed. The problem with solar isn't the cost, it's the intentional lack of availability of the panels. There's something like a 24 month waiting period on large wholesale orders from e.g. BP, and yet noone is building new plants to make them more available. The world shortage of polycrystalline silicon wafers doesn't help matters, although again,noone is in vesting in increasing production. Largely because its impossible to get the environmentalists to shut up.

Real catch 22 that one, you cant decrease the use of fossil fuels because the environmentalists protest any new nuclear plant or silicon foundry.

I thought another problem with solar was the cost per kilowatt produced. However I do recall that some lab produced solar panels that could essentially be 'printed' on a machine and reduce the overall cost to nearly overcome the cost per kilowatt issue. But they do take up a lot of real-estate, aren't all that pleasing to the eye, and do not maintain the same efficiency year round.

Wind power is pretty much a commercial joke. They can plaster all the cool wind power commercials on the tube and internet and whatever else they may find but fact is they cannot hope to produce the amount of power required to replace our current power production. Plus they are a huge eye sore, take up a ton of real estate, are extremely annoying to live around, and are not all that safe when they malfunction. There is also the argument that they affect birds but I'm not sure how sound that is since there is a gigantic wind farm back in my home state and having been there I didn't see a mass birdie graveyard anywhere.

I'm all for nuclear and I believe we have found a way to nearly remove the radiation from the waste by bombarding it with x-rays. I'm not sure if this is being looked into or if the hope is we will discover how to mass produce fusion power plants. Perhaps the push is for fusion which would explain why no new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in the past ten years. My home state had 3 nuclear plants and one of them was in my own backyard, per se. We had several field trips to visit it (pre- 9/11) and I used to deliver pizza to the guys that worked there. It was a very cool facility at the time and most of the power produced there was sold to Commonwealth Edison for Chicago b/c there was so much left over after it fulfilled the needs of it's primary power grid. I know that in Illinois the only times we ever experienced widespread blackouts and brownouts were during severe storms, tornadoes, and ice storms. Other than that I cannot recall a single major power shortage in the area. Refueling was a lengthy one-month shutdown process but it was not all bad b/c the time was used to inspect and do maintenance on the other parts of the plant and the reactor. The reactor and plant did not affect the local wildlife and in fact it is built on a small peninsula surrounding a lake which has some of the biggest deer you will ever see in the state. At times they would open it up for hunters (pre-9/11) and there were some big bucks brought out of there and many more that are still there. There was talk that an unsafe amoeba did thrive in the warm waters around the plant but I pulled many fish out of that lake and ate them and did not have any issues. Excellent bass, trout, and bluegill fishing area. And abachler is correct in saying that nuclear power's footprint on the atmosphere and land is next to nil. Overall it's a great source of power as long as the nuclear waste problem can be solved and dealt with. The spent rods are the worst problem but I hear that new designs have all but eliminated this issue but since we have not built any new plants in a long time these designs have not yet been implemented commercially. I'm totally sold on nuclear power and it fits right into the ecosystem. It is not uncommon to drive by the plant I'm talking about and see fishermen on the bridges fishing, boats in the water with fisherman fishing all day long, and deer running to and fro across the property as well as many of the roads and highways in the area. The only issue has been that post 9/11 the plant has been essentially locked down, security tightened to look more like Fort Knox than a power plant, and covered in a veil of secrecy. It certainly does not appear to be a domestic power plant but in fact it is. Unfortunate since it once sported a visitor's center complete with movies about the construction, design, and operation of the plant as well as playgrounds for kids and picnic areas for families. The plant was a big part of my childhood and that plant alone produced many many jobs for the area which improved the local and county economies, strengthened and helped finance the educational system (one of the richest in the state), kept the roads paved, etc., etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

I thought another problem with solar was the cost per kilowatt produced. However I do recall that some lab produced solar panels that could essentially be 'printed' on a machine and reduce the overall cost to nearly overcome the cost per kilowatt issue. But they do take up a lot of real-estate, aren't all that pleasing to the eye, and do not maintain the same efficiency year round.

---

CSIRO is developing printable solar cells that require a much lower active surface (many current cells require >80% exposed to work).

This is a problem in remote arid areas where 'washing' them is an issue. (my trackside systems are mostly solar powered so I understand the real world issues involved).

Plenty of vacant land and sun shine in the outback, right next to heavy industry in many cases.

http://www.csiro.au/news/Trials-for-...lar-cells.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

A single data point can refute a theory, but you cannot build a logical theory based on one data point unless your 'theory' is merely that someone else's theory is incorrect, which isn't a theory in the scientific sense, but a conjecture.

---

You stated;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

The effect of human activity on the global climate is so negligible that anyone claiming otherwise is either a crackpot or a Luddite.

---

I provided an example to refute this claim.

You then said a ‘single point’ was not acceptable.

How many examples do you need before you consider revising your opinion?

BTW if discussing semantics, a ‘climate change denier’ would be the Luddite, as they oppose the introduction of new technology/methods (ie renewable, clean energy sources) in favor of the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

I never stated that increased radiation is responsible. I stated that increased temperatures are partly responsible for increases in CO2, and that increased volcanism is also a contributing factor.

---

An increase in sun spot activity IS an increase in solar radiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abachler

Other sources are increased biological activity due to the increased temperatures caused by increased sunspot activity.

---

I then posted a graph showing sun spots have actually decreased while CO2 and temps increased.

Another ‘single point’ that is not valid?


EDIT: As to volcanic activity increasing and being responsible for the 38% increase in CO2, not according to this site.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06

Solar energy cost is still too high compared to the same amount of energy produced through fossil fuels or energy produced at dams. There's has been some interesting developments though; I recall just recently learning of a solution to store energy during the day and release it at night through the use of something as simple as salt. It's not surreal to expect more developments in this field. After all, the combined energetic input from our sun as it reaches the earth is higher than that of all the rivers and oceans times 10 or so I seem to recall.

As for nuclear...

Hmm... that's where we get political again. I must confess I have been slowly shifting my opinion about it. But I base that on what I hear about the developments on the field in terms of safety. But the question can then be posed to you exactly the same way as some of you pose it in terms of Global Warming: How much of that is merely propaganda, fake, false or unverified claims?

You can produce all sorts of references. But like with the Global Warming I'd be free to ignore or defy their validity with as many bad arguments as most of the debate around Global Warming. And all because Nuclear Energy is still a political issue open to all sorts of passionate opinions.

And this is what I think has been stopping the development of this energy source in many countries. I'm however curious too as to why countries that opened themselves to nuclear energy don't build more nuclear plants. I mean it's no secret USA has energetic deficiencies, or that France is very dependent on Russia energy. Why, if it is so miraculous, don't these countries solve their problems with a resource they have easy access to?

Quote:

---

I'm however curious too as to why countries that opened themselves to nuclear energy don't build more nuclear plants.

---

Because it is irresponsible to build an energy source that has waste we cannot safely deal with. We aren't talking about increasing a trace gas like CO2 here we are talking about radiation that without a doubt kills living cells in high doses. I'll take an increase in CO2 over high lethal doses of radiation any day.

My point is that if we do pursue this energy source that more discoveries can be made that will effectively eliminate or reduce the problem of the waste. As I pointed out there have been small advances in the technology but if it became the frontrunner the advances would come more quickly.

There are many possibilities but only a few that are actually real-world solutions. It is my estimation that we should be attempting to pick one or the other real-world solutions instead of focusing our efforts on definite lost causes. Nuclear produces enough power. Solar produces enough power. Advances in either of these could make the technology even more feasable. At the very least it could be small progression where nuclear and solar augment our current power supply and gradually could replace the current coal and/or natural gas power plants. Instead we see waffling about wind, geothermal, and every other type of source that just does not produce enough power. Geothermal is a lost cause b/c it also harms the environment and is a limited resource. It siuffers from land substinence just like oil does (I think that is the term). As heat and pressure are removed from the crust the land above the pockets begins to sag. This is one way that the maturity of oil wells is determined via sattelites. If an oil field has high substinence it is usually a very mature well or one that is about to run dry. Same goes for geothermal energy. We need to pick some valid solutions and stop wasting our time on ACME Road Runner solutions that simply won't work.

And sorry the Prius is not going to save anything. As abachler mentioned fuel is actually one of the smallest sectors of the so-called fossil fuel market. Yet we hear so much focus placed on the sector of the market that has the least impact on the overall so-called fossil fuel economy.

Nuclear power plants take time to build, require special, limited locations and have a limited supply of fuel (~85 years depending on price of Uranium).
I have read that the Chineese are developing a graphite based nuclear plant, making them much safer (as no radioactive steam under pressure), cheaper to build and efficient.

Then we come to waste. Politically you can only lose votes by allowing a nuclear waste dump to be built in your constituency.

We could always shoot the waste into space....(at a mill per kilo?)

Fuel is a issue as much of our food in now transported long distances to allow consistent supply (rather than seasonal availability).

So transport cost is can be a fair percentage of the actual cost of food. This is very noticeable here (where transporting food 100s of Kms by truck is common) and food has increased inline with fuel.

My question is, how come there was widespread drought and heatwaves before the industrial revoloution?

One of the big problems with solar is...

Solar Panel -> Battery -> House

... and those batteries usually have a high cost, full of chemicals and don't last that long in scheme of things (usually 10 years).

I have a friend who is working a coal power station (clicky) at the moment, it was built in the 1980s and puts out as much polution as a few hundred cars a year. The removed soil and left over carbon is also thoroughly processed before being put back. And anyone who complains that the big hole they dig is a twit. The hole is nothing compared to the size of the Earth. My bet is, the amount of people who complain take up more surface area than the hole itself. I'll be supporting coal for as long as my country has lots of it. I'm not giving up my two strokes any time soon either.

Perhaps the real issue is the amount of cars, how often do you see a massive 5 seater car with 1 person in it? 90% of the cars usually :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zacs7

My question is, how come there was widespread drought and heatwaves before the industrial revoloution?

---

The issue is not actually occurence but frequency and severity.

Many systems are built to only just withstand the extreme temps we occassionally get (like buildings are only built higher than the 100 yr flood mark, not the record flood mark).

A few degree (2-5 depending on the numbers you believe) does not sound like much but added to a heatwave we get hot enough to damage vital systems (ie the rails buckling in the story below).

Tracks buckle and so does Connex-run rail system

This happened at only 43 C (109 F).

Computer systems that are built to withstand up to 70 C (rather than standard 35 C), by using industrial grade components, cost ~10 times more (military grade is ~100 times).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula

Well, the "hockey stick" was certainly an "embellishment".

Here are some items that have passed my view of late, merely cherry-picked from ESR as more middle-of-the-road.

• Hiding the Decline: Prologue
• Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins
• Will the AGW fraud discredit science?
• Facts to fit the theory
• AGW fraud unravels at an accelerating pace
• Facts to fit the theory? Actually, no facts at all!

As he mentions, open source it.

(And I'd prefer some of these questions be answered before trillion dollar economies are turned upside down.)


[edit]As long as I'm at it on ESR's blog, let's throw this one in too:
Why Alternative Energy Isn’t

---

While I haven't completely made up my mind on the subject, I read arguments like those in the blogs mentioned above, and then I read those given in blogs like on realclimate.org (like this, this and this), and I just can't help but believe the folks at realclimate. Their arguments are so much more logical and persuasive, I don't understand why global warming skepticism is so in vogue, especially among people who I generally consider to be quite logical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zacs7

I have a friend who is working a coal power station (clicky) at the moment, it was built in the 1980s and puts out as much polution as a few hundred cars a year.

---

Ummm....

The average car emmits ~14 tonnes greenhouse per year (based on 20 mpg and 500 miles per week).

Loy Yang Power Plant uses ~30 mill tonnes of brown coal (dirtier) and emmits >14 million tones greenhouse gasses per year.

So closer to a million cars or over a quater of all vehicles in Vic (2008 Vic. had ~3.8 million registered vehicles on the road).

BTW I have worked at coal mines/dumping facilities in Qld.
The most unpleasant place I have been in the world. Extreme noise, heat and vibration (you get sea sick) working 12 hr days with a bunch of cowboys (the only place I have reported someone for safety issues in the last 12 years).

Quote:

---

Wind power is pretty much a commercial joke. They can plaster all the cool wind power commercials on the tube and internet and whatever else they may find but fact is they cannot hope to produce the amount of power required to replace our current power production. Plus they are a huge eye sore, take up a ton of real estate, are extremely annoying to live around, and are not all that safe when they malfunction. There is also the argument that they affect birds but I'm not sure how sound that is since there is a gigantic wind farm back in my home state and having been there I didn't see a mass birdie graveyard anywhere.

---

Nonsense, 19% of the electricity generated here is from wind power, that's a significant amount.
And your points about nuisance and danger are all moot, 80% of these mills are placed on open water, where they don't bother anybody and won't crash into people, besides, i don't think there has ever been a death in this country due to a windmill malfunctioning. From time to time we hear about a windmill running rampant, but they just seal of the area and wait for the winds to blow off, then they fix it, hardly a big deal?

The only real problem with wind-power is that it can never be the only source of electricity, since there is always a demand for power, but not always wind to generate it from. So wind power needs to be combined with something else to work, or the power must be stored which i would imagine is not feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zacs7

One of the big problems with solar is...

Solar Panel -> Battery -> House

---

That's only in do it yourself solar, industrial solar plants don't use batteries, although they need to be augmented by a more stable source, such as nuclear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by novacain

I provided an example to refute this claim.

---

You provided a single data point and claimed that your theory that human activity effects global warming was thus proven. At this point there is no point in continuing the discussion with you, as you refuse to accept logic and just want to win the argument. I'm adding you to my ignore list.

Global warming has occurred throughout the earths history. The current warming trend is well within the standard deviation of normal temperatures. Therefor if your argument that your single example proves my theory wrong, then my single data point proves your theory wrong as well. You can't have ti both ways and my thoery has 4.5 billion years of proof against your 100 years of conjecture.

Quote:

---

Loy Yang Power Plant uses ~30 mill tonnes of brown coal (dirtier) and emmits >14 million tones greenhouse gasses per year.

---

I assure you that an American power plant would never be allowed to emit that much. There are strict EPA guidelines on what can and cannot be emitted. Most US power plants emit very little for the amount of power they produce. This type of power has been around for 50 years or more so the technology is by now quite advanced. Most of the emissions from factories here have gone through scrubbers and other filtration systems long before they hit the air. Most factories emit some form of steam from production processes combined with very little, if any, particulate matter. The particulates must meet federal regulations. Scrubbers must be changed at regular intervals and filtration systems must be maintained in order to continue operation.

Quote:

---

BTW I have worked at coal mines/dumping facilities in Qld.
The most unpleasant place I have been in the world. Extreme noise, heat and vibration (you get sea sick) working 12 hr days with a bunch of cowboys (the only place I have reported someone for safety issues in the last 12 years).

---

Doesn't sound much different than an American factory. The noise levels at my previous factory were so intense we had to wear ear protection at all times. In the summer the temp would get to 118 F in some places with others being even hotter - namely near the weld line. Safety was of prime importance and we had numerous safety initiatives ongoing at all times. Only 1 person was ever killed in the factory years ago and that was due to an improper lockout procedure. I'm not sure about foreign factories or how business is done in a foreign factory but I assure you that a US factory is both quite safe, clean, and extremely efficient. Cleaning was a regular part of the work day although production always took priority. The factory manufactured very large mining and construction equipment and was actually very impressive. I have never had the privilege of visiting an American auto factory but I did know some who worked at a few like Diamond Star (Mitsubishi) and Chrysler. I've also had the opportunity to work at a plate glass company (PPG Industries) and it was extremely efficient and kept clean as one could expect from a 24/7/365 production line. Everything was automated and safety was of prime importance.

So before people go passing laws about this or that keep in mind that at least here in America we cannot just pollute the air and force miserable working conditions. We have organizations like OSHA who regulate the safety of every working environment. If a company knowingly and willfully continues to violate OSHA standards they can be heavily fined and/or forced to stop production (very rare since most find it easier to comply than be forced) until the issues are resolved. There are also civil suits that can result from unsafe working environments. There were several suits related to mesothelioma resulting from working with asbestos and several parties were awarded huge sums of money. Contrary to popular belief a business and/or factory in America cannot do what they want, how they want, when they want.

We have the EPA who monitors all emissions and output from every single factory and/or production based establishment in the country. It is a federal violation to knowingly and willfully violate EPA standards and it can result in very hefty fines and/or temporary shutdown until the issue is resolved. The EPA can also stop certain products from going to market if they fail to meet regulations.

That plant is a brown coal plant, 3 times as dirty as normal coal. I can't find which US palnts use brown (as opposed to black).

AEP is the largest of the US coal powered power station company. Here is a list of the plants and the emissions data (the highest is over 18 mill tones of CO2).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Electric_Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Doesn't sound much different than an American factory.

---

It is very different to a factory...
Much worse than an iron ore, which tend to not use bottom dumping cars.
PPE is long pants, long sleeve shirt (both with reflective strips), steel caps, gloves, hard hat, glasses, sunscreen 30+ and ear protection (even if working on a laptop in the crib room).

It is an open steel shed, with lots of heat producing machinery, in a tropical climate (high humidity). According to my equipment the max temp last month was 56.1 C (133 F) and ave temp at 1 pm was ~50 C (122 F) and Jan / Feb are hotter.

Everything turns black from the dust and if gets everywhere. Blowing your nose later was 'interesting'...

Aside from the extractors, coal conveyors, generators and train noise you have the jack hammers.
To free the last of the coal 2 operators use jack hammers on the slots each car has next to each of the bottom dumping doors. Up to three trains passing at a time.

Its like being at a rock concert and standing right next to the speakers, the sound hits you in staccato bursts as the jack hammers work the 15 m stainless steel drum sides of each rail car, 1 per minute on up to 3 lines.

Then you have the vibration of the whole building, makes you nauseous after a few hours (like sea sickness). This vibration caused faults in cables running between the 2 IPCs every few months (until I fitted a wireless network so I wouldn't have to go back).

You are not allowed in certain areas if you have a pacemaker or other metallic objects in your body as huge electro-magnets are used to remove metallic impurities before the stock pile.

And half the time you are walking on a steel grate with a 3 floor drop to the coal pits, knowing a trip could take you under the train. Not easy to relax and debug complex realtime code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

While I haven't completely made up my mind on the subject, I read arguments like those in the blogs mentioned above, and then I read those given in blogs like on realclimate.org

---

Might that not be akin to believing tobacco companies' views on tobacco?

• Warming blog RealClimate run by far left PR firm
• ClimateGate Development: CEI Notifies NASA of Intention to Sue - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on National Review Online
  
  Quote:

  ---

  RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website. This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time.

  ---

[/aside]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

I don't understand why global warming skepticism is so in vogue, especially among people who I generally consider to be quite logical.

---

Maybe economically some things don't quite make sense:

Quote:

---

The result will be a global price tag of $46 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose cost findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are to be published by Cambridge University Press next year.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula

* Hiding the Decline: Prologue
* Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins
* Will the AGW fraud discredit science?
* Facts to fit the theory
* AGW fraud unravels at an accelerating pace
* Facts to fit the theory? Actually, no facts at all!

---

Do you really take Blogs with dead links, unverifiable opinions and written by politically motivated strangers as a serious source, Dave?

I don't know, really. But as soon as I read something like:

Quote:

---

“the team” (as the network of professional anthropogenic-global-warming alarmists communicating through CRU likes to style itself)

---

I immediately lose interest. I don't give a rats arse to his opinion. It's clearly been made already. What else can he teach me? Absolutely nothing. And the same would go to anyone so clearly bent in giving credit back to the CRU with such allusive wording.

What?

Everyone is now a private investigator? Let's just call the cops off. Why do we need them? FBI? Bunch of useless fools. You want to know the truth, read the blogs!... For pete's sake! Why do we need to have a formulated opinion on everything even when we can't tell its head from its arse? You really believe a bunch of blogs of questionable motivation and origin have resolved this issue? Only in your mind if you are so inclined.

You obviously linearly (and without any kind og support. Just your "gut") reject such arguments as "these emails were deliberately taken out of context", and you have obviously never heard specialists or scientists talking about their findings or how they so often force themselves into rejecting or doubting them as to further their research or confirm it. Neither you seem to realize that in fact most specialists and scientists are feed up of the way the press and even specialized magazines are handling the global warming issue.

But on the other hand it could be true. It could be true that someone purposedly hacked into their system to find the filth. And that they found a lot of filth and decided to publish it. Even ignoring the obvious question of what exactly motivated someone to hack into the CRU, and forgetting the countless stories in the past of similarly fabricated smear campaigns, I -- you heard it right! -- agree that it may all be true and a few key players in the CRU were paying the scientific community a very bad service.

But then what? Where exactly does that leave us in terms of the Global Warming Theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Even ignoring the obvious question of what exactly motivated someone to hack into the CRU

---

In fact, no!
I don't want to ignore it. If there is one thing that makes my blood pressure rise is conscious ignorance with an intent. The ability some people have of ignoring the obvious and make others ignore the obvious to fulfill their own personal agenda.

No one. But I mean NO ONE, will ever convince me that someone unscrupulous enough to break the law, hack into a private system and read personal information, suddenly turns legitimate by posting an unabridged, non-biased, down-to-the-facts list of emails in order to expose a fraud. Such a fine gentleman, so caring for the public well-being and information simply does not exist in the real world. Only on the minds of those wishing to use that information for their own purposes.

The motivation behind such an act is only too obvious. Call me blind if you will, but without proper investigation from the proper authorities and a definite closure in a court of law or by similar means, I will call bluff on anyone trying to attack or support the CRU.

And leave the bloody blogs out of it. It doesn't suit your character and it insults your intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Do you really take Blogs with dead links, unverifiable opinions and written by politically motivated strangers as a serious source, Dave?

I don't know, really. But as soon as I read something like:



I immediately lose interest. I don't give a rats arse to his opinion. It's clearly been made already. What else can he teach me? Absolutely nothing.

---

Dead links? All of them worked for me.

The opinion is what I was after, on a blog that is not a blog to be a blog, but a blog from a software guy since at least on of the links did discuss the software aspects of this. A blog whose author I am not in agreement with politically. A shot at finding something asking questions -- much like the topic of this thread -- and making a few statements. The handful of links that were there for sources or support I felt was minimal (as opposed to a linkfest). You don't care for the approach; okay, fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

And the same would go to anyone so clearly bent in giving credit back to the CRU with such allusive wording.

---

Good then we can toss out some stuff mentioned earlier:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

(like this, this and this)

---

Quote:

---

noise-generating components of the blogosphere

---

:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

For pete's sake! Why do we need to have a formulated opinion on everything even when we can't tell its head from its arse? You really believe a bunch of blogs of questionable motivation and origin have resolved this issue? Only in your mind if you are so inclined.

---

Do you really believe that vested interests have no interest when their interests are threatened? Only in your mind if you are so inclined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You obviously linearly (and without any kind og support. Just your "gut") reject such arguments as "these emails were deliberately taken out of context", and you have obviously never heard specialists or scientists talking about their findings or how they so often force themselves into rejecting or doubting them as to further their research or confirm it. Neither you seem to realize that in fact most specialists and scientists are feed up of the way the press and even specialized magazines are handling the global warming issue.

---

You seem to ignore or discard the fact that peers -- skeptical climatologists -- exist or have an opinion. You seem to dismiss out of hand something that you have not researched? Or should we both quit this silliness of reading each others' mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But on the other hand it could be true. It could be true that someone purposedly hacked into their system to find the filth. And that they found a lot of filth and decided to publish it.

---

It could also be true that an insider felt obligated to release this information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Even ignoring the obvious question of what exactly motivated someone to hack into the CRU, and forgetting the countless stories in the past of similarly fabricated smear campaigns, I -- you heard it right! -- agree that it may all be true and a few key players in the CRU were paying the scientific community a very bad service.

But then what? Where exactly does that leave us in terms of the Global Warming Theory?

---

How about we do like with the rest of science? Endlessly continue testing and continue to independently verify that it is correct? And if (a) defect(s) are found, correct the theory and/or model?

Verify Newton over and over and over again until an Einstein comes along and says 'uh, that doesn't quite cut it'? No. We should lock up the data and keep the formulas locked away.


Trying to get back to this thread's topic, though, why isn't there curiosity and reporting on this? ABC, CBS, or NBC don't touch it. Yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Monbiot

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them. …

There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

---

I think what is most curious is the fact that so many people seem incurious about the nature of the information contained in the leaked data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

No one. But I mean NO ONE, will ever convince me that someone unscrupulous enough to break the law, hack into a private system and read personal information, suddenly turns legitimate by posting an unabridged, non-biased, down-to-the-facts list of emails in order to expose a fraud. Such a fine gentleman, so caring for the public well-being and information simply does not exist in the real world. Only on the minds of those wishing to use that information for their own purposes.

---

Have you ever heard of Watergate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

And leave the bloody blogs out of it. It doesn't suit your character and it insults your intelligence.

---

Right. Only listen to the ones telling me nothing or that there is no story. No raw data allowed to be pointed to.

Quote:

---

And leave the bloody blogs out of it. It doesn't suit your character and it insults your intelligence.

---

Where else can you go? Mainstream media has written it off and quite quickly I might add compared to how often and how long they run other stories. We care more about Wacko Jacko in this day and age than an obvious attempt to twist data, quell opposition to theories, and essentially force one theory down people's throats even though the data behind it is scarce at best.

When a climate scientist on the other side states in an email that they truly have no real explanation for the warming yet publicly the same people act as if their word is somehow holy and without contestation - you'd think climate science was all about being a religious fanatic. We have believers and deniers complete with a body of people trying to sway the masses based on faith instead of real data. Sounds like a religion to me instead of scientific process.

You can get good information off of the internet without going to the mainstream media for it. In fact you can probably get better, less censored, information b/c the blogosphere pays no attention to who is or is not funding this or that movement. Of course you must use common sense and filter the information...but that is even true with so-called good professional news reports as well. CNN and the likes are owned by people with lots of money and lots of influence and if you claim they are 'neutral' in their reporting then I would say that insults your intelligence. They clearly are not and several studies of various news agencies by universities reveals that 75% of the stories on CNN are lefttist oriented. And this study was done by rather liberal universities. Oh wait they aren't called liberal anymore...sorry...progressive universities. Whatever. Just like global warming isn't called global warming anymore b/c there isn't enough warming to make the name stick. So now it's climate change which is really dumb and akin to saying that I believe that the weather changes from time to time. How stupid we have become.

Can you not see that there is no freedom of information here? Can you not see the obvious attempt to cover up a theory and pass it off as fact even when it has holes in it as big as the Grand Canyon in Arizona? Why are those who ask questions marked as idiots or stupid? Isn't science about asking questions...even questioning known things further to find out more information and make new discoveries? It's not like we are questioning gravity here or the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. We are questioning a theory which last time I checked is perfectly valid. It is perfectly valid for a scientist to go against the norm and question. Something tells me that if someone at IBM did not go against the norm of the day or their ideas were somehow silenced...we wouldn't have the PC. Same idea. When I see a scientist become extremely defensive to the point of calling another scientist names or attempting to tarnish their reputation just b/c they disagree on a couple of things....it tells me that defensive scientist has a whole hell of a lot to hide. If he didn't then his theory would pass the litany of tests and questions and then it would be looked into further. But what is happening right now is essentially the warming side saying...."Just trust us...the earth is warming and if we don't act now we will all die or we will completely mess up the planet'. For all of you who are so dead set against religion yet believe this type of behavior is science I believe you are some of the most religious people I've ever met. As for me I believe in a God that I cannot see and I believe he spoke everything into existence and yet I have no proof and never will. But I'm also willing to admit that is pure religion and not science. If I were to try to tout that as science or somehow try to prove the existence of God when I myself know I cannot and never will you guys would run me off the forums. Quelling opposition or trying to silence the masses and even dumb down the masses so they don't ask questions and just 'accept' your theories as fact is not science. It's wrong, thwarts the whole process, and does not advance knowledge. It's primitive cave-man behavior at best and not very becoming of people who have had more schooling than any of us on the forum and who should know better. If it were not for questioning the world around us there would be no reason to continue studying it. If one man or one group already has the answers and we all should just sit at their feet and listen to the masters taking it all hook, line, and sinker then why study at all? Why ask questions? Why even care?

The real truth must be that their is a ton of money waiting to be made when new green treaties get passed. This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why bills and policies are being rushed through without truly investigating both sides of the issue. I guess a lot of you just can't wait to spend 43 trillion dollars on something we think is occurring. If questioning global warming and/or it's causes makes me an un-educated idiot then so be it. I guess asking questions about why this or that computer science algorithm works makes me an idiot as well. If asking questions and/or questioning proven ideas in computer science makes me a thinking man and a guy who thinks outside the box then how can questioning a theory with less evidence than all that make me a fool?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by novacain

Nuclear power plants take time to build, require special, limited locations and have a limited supply of fuel (~85 years depending on price of Uranium).
I have read that the Chineese are developing a graphite based nuclear plant, making them much safer (as no radioactive steam under pressure), cheaper to build and efficient.

Then we come to waste. Politically you can only lose votes by allowing a nuclear waste dump to be built in your constituency.

We could always shoot the waste into space....(at a mill per kilo?)

Fuel is a issue as much of our food in now transported long distances to allow consistent supply (rather than seasonal availability).

So transport cost is can be a fair percentage of the actual cost of food. This is very noticeable here (where transporting food 100s of Kms by truck is common) and food has increased inline with fuel.

---

The cost of the building is not the issue. Here is a plant (in Scottsboro, Al) that is 85% complete on chamber 1 (for a time, they even had the rods there) and [I think] 65% complete on chamber 2. This plant was to be operational way back in the late 80's (IIRC). I cannot recall the name of the plant, but I do know that $$ had NOTHING to do with it. I remember that there was some huge to-do about this plant and it got stopped by politics. What a shame, too. Georgia Power (prior to it becoming Southern Company) upgraded their coal plant just outside of Rome to make up the difference. Wonder which of these two plants would have caused less environmental issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Can you not see that there is no freedom of information here?

---

You make good points, but let's get one thing straight here. I'm not that far away from your's, Dave or Abachler tune. I just prefer to be more cautious and not entirely discredit a position that keeps being supported by a large number of scientists who are in a position to know better than me.

I haven't ever read any argument that beats the logic of global warming. Not once. This of course doesn't mean global warming (or climate change, whatever) is an inevitable truth. We all are intelligent men enough to understand that. But that alone should also make it very well aware to any of us in this "room", that the contrary is also true.

What I argue against is fixed minds. Closed minds. Opinions formulated on emotion or by political motivations that have nothing to do with hard facts. And most of all, I particularly argue against the indoctrination of those opinions. And it is precisely because this is what global warming has become, that I again say this has become an unsolvable issue. It's no longer about the climate but who can shout louder and gather the bigger flock of sheep.

I'm opposed to anyone, scientists included, who pretends to know all the answers. I'm particularly opposed to anyone who dares to spread those answers as godly truths without making it a case to prove them beyond any doubt through scientific means, and not by campaign ads.

To anyone like that I'll call them a buffoon. No matter what side of the fence they sit. Because Global Warming or Climate Change is not your Monday news sex scandal. It should be discussed only in scientific terms.

Quote:

---

If questioning global warming and/or it's causes makes me an un-educated idiot then so be it. I guess asking questions about why this or that computer science algorithm works makes me an idiot as well. If asking questions and/or questioning proven ideas in computer science makes me a thinking man and a guy who thinks outside the box then how can questioning a theory with less evidence than all that make me a fool?

---

No. That makes you smart and obviously educated person.
What would me you a fool would be believing it's false because it hasn't been proved it's true.

We are on the exact same pitch when it comes to understanding that we cannot believe the press. But that doesn't make blogs any better. And definitely it p...es me off seeing on this thread links to blogs owned by anarchists hackers who think they are now either scientists or accredited investigators. p...es me of because this is how decadent the whole climate debate has become that we even feel such a lowlife opinion is worth quoting, while credited scientists are utterly ignored. Frankly!

So exactly how do you propose to filter this information? Who can or can you not trust? Do you really want to trust the scientific debate to bloggers? This is not your usual filter. This is "SELECT * FROM Blogs WHERE Name = NULL", unless of course said blog is owned by a scientist. Those are the ones you will wish to filter and try and formulate an opinion from.

...

But yes. I have been slowly migrating from the "aye" side to the "nay" side. I'm not there yet because as I said I cannot find information that completely discredits many of the theories. But neither can you or anyone else.

And if you have been paying attention, not even one of the most respected scientists in the field who are supportive of these theories, defend them as absolute truths. If they didn't it in the past, they are today very careful to make that abundantly clear. It's the news, the politicians, the invested interests, the wannabe-scientists, false-investigators and word-of-mouth perpetrated by the stupid and blissfuly ignorant masses that have turned the Global Warming debate into a matter of life or death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

not even one of the most respected scientists in the field who are supportive of these theories, defend them as absolute truths

---

And why is that? How long have we been collecting meteorological data? 100 yrs, 500 yrs, 1000? Hmm, no? I have a faith that tells me the world is about 18,000 yrs old. Now, most of you, perhaps believe the world to be much older than that. My number is smaller so we'll use that for sake of argument. How good is data that spans ~80 yrs compared to an 18,000 year old Earth?

I will not say that I am completely against the idea, however, I will say there is not enough evidence to support ANY claim.

Quote:

---

So exactly how do you propose to filter this information? Who can or can you not trust? Do you really want to trust the scientific debate to bloggers? This is not your usual filter. This is "SELECT * FROM Blogs WHERE Name = NULL", unless of course said blog is owned by a scientist. Those are the ones you will wish to filter and try and formulate an opinion from.

---

Hehe. Even in a debate such as this you manage to throw in some SQL. Nice...very nice. And it also puts your point into perspective and I will agree. It is extremely hard to know who to trust. If it comes off as alarmism to me then I immediately begin to shy away and ask myself what are the motives and pre-suppositions of the writer - regardless of the side they are taking. I don't cater to alarmism for or against the issue I just offer up the idea that we should tread cautiously.

But this is what happens when mass media creates an information void. We must turn to other sources that may or may not be as accurate and truthful as a professional news agency. All in all I trust that CNN, FOX, and others are not purposely trying to misinform but I believe both have gotten so caught up in their competitiveness that they have forgotten about their consumers. I really believe that CNN or FOX would or would not cover a story such as this if they thought the other guy was going to. It's like they are trying to be diametrically opposed to one another just for ratings. In the end we the people get some very strange slants to the news. It used to be that they would race each other to air the story so they could be first. I actually sorta miss those days. But I guess in the age when information is at our fingertips there really is no such thing as being the first to get the story on the airwaves.

Quote:

---

It's the news, the politicians, the invested interests, the wannabe-scientists, false-investigators and word-of-mouth perpetrated by the stupid and blissfuly ignorant masses that have turned the Global Warming debate into a matter of life or death.

---

Agreed. Unfortunately scientists don't make policies and spend trillions of taxpayer dollars. Politicians do that and if they have their feathers ruffled over this thing, even if the scientists don't quite share their alarmism, we are headed for trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I haven't ever read any argument that beats the logic of global warming. Not once. This of course doesn't mean global warming (or climate change, whatever) is an inevitable truth. We all are intelligent men enough to understand that. But that alone should also make it very well aware to any of us in this "room", that the contrary is also true.

---

I don't think it matters if global warming is a dire a threat or non event, we need to do something before oil runs out.

The age of fossil fuels is ending, the global economy needs to expand (or we will see another massive contraction) and we need a new source of energy.

Carbon trading (a penalty on fossil fuels) will stimulate the move to cleaner energy and allow the establishment of new green industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kennedy

How long have we been collecting meteorological data? 100 yrs, 500 yrs, 1000? Hmm, no?

---

Studies of dendrochronology, pollen analysis, ice cores and glacier studies extend climate data back over 2,000 years (up to 10,000 for tree rings, 800,000 for ice cores).

Actual temperature measurements stretch back to 1850 but many more historical documents routinely recorded this type of data.

EDIT: the old SQL jk?
SELECT * FROM Readers WHERE Clue>0
0 Rows Returned

Quote:

---

EDIT: the old SQL jk?
SELECT * FROM Readers WHERE Clue>0
0 Rows Returned

---

:D Haven't seen that one in a long time. :D

Quote:

---

Carbon trading (a penalty on fossil fuels) will stimulate the move to cleaner energy and allow the establishment of new green industries.

---

Will it? I guess you could say those industries will adapt or die but policies that force the private sector to find alternate solutions normally do not work and often backfire.
Key problems with these types of policies:

• They are forcing technology to do something it may not yet be ready for
• Market forces may not yet be ready to make the move
• Companies might not be in a financial position to make the move
• The technology may not yet be economically feasible and no amount of forced policies will speed up the science.

You can't force legislation down companies throats and expect them to thrive. I'm a true capitalist and as such I say let market forces determine when to make the move. If it is true we have about 50 years of oil left then market forces alone will drive companies like Exxon and Mobil to look for alternatives if they wish to remain a viable company. They are not just going to milk the oil and run the company dry to the last drop. No company does that and that is not a sustainable plan for any CEO to abide by. I believe if we allow the market to run its course fossil fuels will become rarer and rarer and thus more expensive. Consumers will get angry (much like the $4 gas) and gasoline and other carbon industries will no longer be economically feasible. Because of this you must know fossil fuel companies are already looking for alternatives. But forcing the market will not work and could end in disaster. Markets change when the forces are there to change them and not a moment sooner.

I apologize if it seems that I'm constantly trying to correct you, but there are a few things you said that make me scratch my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

When a climate scientist on the other side states in an email that they truly have no real explanation for the warming yet publicly the same people act as if their word is somehow holy and without contestation - you'd think climate science was all about being a religious fanatic.

---

That quote wasn't about warming in general, it was about a specific piece of data. It's not like the climate scientist stated that he had no explanation for all the warming that has taken place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

They clearly are not and several studies of various news agencies by universities reveals that 75% of the stories on CNN are lefttist oriented. And this study was done by rather liberal universities.

---

Do you remember anything about this study? I searched and didn't find anything that was close to this kind of result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Oh wait they aren't called liberal anymore...sorry...progressive universities. Whatever. Just like global warming isn't called global warming anymore b/c there isn't enough warming to make the name stick. So now it's climate change which is really dumb and akin to saying that I believe that the weather changes from time to time. How stupid we have become.

---

Liberal was turned into a dirty word by some conservatives, although it is less so now since the latest "dirty word" seems to be socialism (as if socialism was some horrible thing in and of itself). I imagine that's why some people on the left prefer the term "progressive".

And if I remember correctly, the coining of the phrase "climate change" was done by a global warming skeptic trying to make the whole thing sound less scary. It wasn't changed by climate scientists because of any change in warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Can you not see that there is no freedom of information here? Can you not see the obvious attempt to cover up a theory and pass it off as fact even when it has holes in it as big as the Grand Canyon in Arizona? Why are those who ask questions marked as idiots or stupid? Isn't science about asking questions...even questioning known things further to find out more information and make new discoveries? It's not like we are questioning gravity here or the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. We are questioning a theory which last time I checked is perfectly valid. It is perfectly valid for a scientist to go against the norm and question. Something tells me that if someone at IBM did not go against the norm of the day or their ideas were somehow silenced...we wouldn't have the PC.

---

I don't understand this point of view at all.

This debate exists exactly because of those things you think are missing. Because there is freedom of information, because people are allowed to provide alternate points of view and because people are constantly questioning. That is why climate change is such a major issue right now. If it wasn't for all of that, the issue would have been dealt with years or decades ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

When I see a scientist become extremely defensive to the point of calling another scientist names or attempting to tarnish their reputation just b/c they disagree on a couple of things....it tells me that defensive scientist has a whole hell of a lot to hide. If he didn't then his theory would pass the litany of tests and questions and then it would be looked into further.

---

I wonder, did you read the links on realclimate.org or anywhere else where an explanation of some of the more well-known emails is given? Are you looking at this from their point of view at all? Imagine you are a good scientist who has worked hard for years and found important information that affects the entire world. Now imagine that you try to make that information known so that decisions can be made based on the information you've found. You expect the conclusions to be questioned and double and triple-checked, in fact that's part of what you have already done. But then there are those who claim that your conclusion is flawed. However, instead of basing that claim on real science, you feel those denials are based on personal motivations or irrational fear. You feel you've answered the legitimate questions well enough, but others are just yelling too loud for people to hear your answers. Would you not be frustrated? Would you not be defensive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

But what is happening right now is essentially the warming side saying...."Just trust us...the earth is warming and if we don't act now we will all die or we will completely mess up the planet'. For all of you who are so dead set against religion yet believe this type of behavior is science I believe you are some of the most religious people I've ever met.

---

Again, why would you say this? Their findings have been published in scientific journals, they have tons of data and analysis on the internet for people to look over, and this has been a theory for decades. Just because you haven't read the literature doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It isn't "trust us", it's here are our studies, we feel that they are pretty conclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

The real truth must be that their is a ton of money waiting to be made when new green treaties get passed. This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why bills and policies are being rushed through without truly investigating both sides of the issue. I guess a lot of you just can't wait to spend 43 trillion dollars on something we think is occurring. If questioning global warming and/or it's causes makes me an un-educated idiot then so be it. I guess asking questions about why this or that computer science algorithm works makes me an idiot as well. If asking questions and/or questioning proven ideas in computer science makes me a thinking man and a guy who thinks outside the box then how can questioning a theory with less evidence than all that make me a fool?

---

Because the evidence exists and you're assuming that it doesn't. You're making assumptions about the motivations of the people writing the emails based on other assumptions you've already made. You're not looking at it from their point of view, considering how they might react if the world was as they saw it. You're (apparently) not reading their current explanations for what they meant in those emails. You are not educating yourself. You ask why bills and policies are being rushed through as if this hasn't been a debated issue for decades.

The problem is not asking questions. You are at your best when you are inquisitive and questioning things that set off flags in your head. But, in my opinion, you are not at your best when you assume that your assumptions are reality. Doing this can lead to all kinds of surreal conclusions and apparently make you somewhat worked up as well. If it is so easy to find so many false assumptions that drive your opinions, perhaps you should reconsider whether those opinions are as based in reality as you think. I urge you to try to look at it from the point of view of a legitimate climate scientist who's studies make him almost certain that global warming is real and is a problem. Read the links on realclimate or wherever you can find their point of view written down. It really does make sense if you look at it from their perspective. That doesn't mean it's true, it just means it very well might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

If it is true we have about 50 years of oil left

---

Not if (as is currently happening) a billion middle class Indians and Chinese want the same lifestyle as we enjoy (currently 1% of Indians own a car but this will change that Tata launches world's cheapest car - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

(much like the $4 gas)

---

Petrol is already US$5.50 / US gallon here and much more in the UK.

How do you feel about US$20 / gallon or higher in 2-3 years?

Wait, this whole Climategate thing is about 2-3 out-of-context quotes from stolen e-mails?

I could go to jail as a serial killer if someone stole my e-mails, and picked 2-3 isolated quotes from it.

Quote:

---

Liberal was turned into a dirty word by some conservatives, although it is less so now since the latest "dirty word" seems to be socialism (as if socialism was some horrible thing in and of itself). I imagine that's why some people on the left prefer the term "progressive".

---

I was about to respond to you until I read this. I must say I do not understand this point of view at all.

Here is one story about the bias in media. I did not intend to say 75% of the stories were leftist but that most media outlets such as CNN were in the 70's on there ADA score. The ADA score is talked about in this article, however, it is unclear exactly how it is computed.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

Quote:

---

wonder, did you read the links on realclimate.org or anywhere else where an explanation of some of the more well-known emails is given? Are you looking at this from their point of view at all? Imagine you are a good scientist who has worked hard for years and found important information that affects the entire world. Now imagine that you try to make that information known so that decisions can be made based on the information you've found. You expect the conclusions to be questioned and double and triple-checked, in fact that's part of what you have already done. But then there are those who claim that your conclusion is flawed. However, instead of basing that claim on real science, you feel those denials are based on personal motivations or irrational fear. You feel you've answered the legitimate questions well enough, but others are just yelling too loud for people to hear your answers. Would you not be frustrated? Would you not be defensive?

---

You are assuming they have been double and triple checked. Where does it say that? One email reads that if peer review fails the document they will re-examine the process of peer review. That is exactly what I'm talking about. If things were being double and triple checked and there was an open forum for communication then I believe the entire issue would be a moot point. That is the entire argument, here. Scientific process is not being followed.

Quote:

---

Wait, this whole Climategate thing is about 2-3 out-of-context quotes from stolen e-mails?

---

It's not quite that simple but some would have to believe it is. It is actually thousands of emails but only a few of them seem to contain some very damning evidence of data tampering. I'm assuming the others are boring day to day stuff. But that's what a discovery phase of litigation would do in any company. Most uncover extremely mundane boring emails but it only takes a few to make a case. I believe a few emails here indeed does make a case that at least some data tampering and associated coverup has occurred. However that evidence could never be admissable in a US court since it was obtained illegally and not through a discovery phase. I'm not sure what the laws are in the UK where the event occurred.

Quote:

---

That doesn't mean it's true, it just means it very well might be.

---

That's a 43 trillion dollar guess or assumption. It is being touted as true and anyone not 'believing it' is an idiot. That is the problem. If it were not being touted as such and were not being used to direct political policy then I would have no problem. But your statement does not line up with the official company line so to speak that is being blasted across the airwaves. They don't say it could be true or it might - they say it is beyond a shadow of a doubt and while warming is occurring the exact cause of it is not as black and white of an issue as most claim it is.

As far as I understand, scientists are human beings too and some data tampering happens in all fields of study. (If it is an important matter, it tends to be found out soon, though.) So even if the out-of-context quotes do happen to indicate that, how far can you go with the conclusions?

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data - Times Online

Quote:

---

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.

The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

---

Emphasis mine, though somehwat borrowed from an evil blog that provided a "quality controlled and homogenised" snippet with the link. :p

Seriously, though, it would have been nice if the FOIA requests were not stonewalled and earlier requests by skeptics for the source data would have been honored. Then, either those confident in the implications of warming could have had more ammo proving their point, or inconsistencies and issues and errors could have been pointed out by skeptics -- and perhaps any issues would have been resolved by now.

Instead, are we leaving politicians to decide things when there is less than "absolute confidence" about the problem? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

This is encouraging news. Now that the data is going to be available we will get several independent opinions based on the same factual data. I guess that is all we are asking for is a second look by an independent group.

Now if the result is they agree (without being coerced) that AGW is definitely happening and it can be traced back to just science and not politics, pressure, money, etc., then I will be satisfied.

Is anyone here old enough to actually remember the huge scare and hype over "Global Cooling" in the early to mid 70's?

There were going to be catastrophe's, glaciers, hemisphere spanning storms, and all because of... Carbon! Reflecting sunlight back into space!

What ever happens, will happen after I'm dead and buried (in a completely sealed, double lined concrete vault, as my body is considered "Toxic Waste" now a days).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdrast

Is anyone here old enough to actually remember the huge scare and hype over "Global Cooling" in the early to mid 70's?

There were going to be catastrophe's, glaciers, hemisphere spanning storms, and all because of... Carbon! Reflecting sunlight back into space!

---

And they said we'd be out of petrol (or "gas" if you're silly) by the year 2000. Oh wait never mind, they found more.

Quote:

---

Is anyone here old enough to actually remember the huge scare and hype over "Global Cooling" in the early to mid 70's?

There were going to be catastrophe's, glaciers, hemisphere spanning storms, and all because of... Carbon! Reflecting sunlight back into space!

---

If there are substances that create greenhouse effect (CO2, water vapour) and other substances that reflect sunlight (sulphur oxides or something like that?), then all it takes is to find a right balance :)

Can't we just build a giant mirror, send it into orbit, and reflect a healthy portion of the sun's rays back into space? Seems like a logical solution to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bithub

Can't we just build a giant mirror, send it into orbit, and reflect a healthy portion of the sun's rays back into space? Seems like a logical solution to me.

---

Logic has nothing to do with reality :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

This is encouraging news. Now that the data is going to be available we will get several independent opinions based on the same factual data. I guess that is all we are asking for is a second look by an independent group.

Now if the result is they agree (without being coerced) that AGW is definitely happening and it can be traced back to just science and not politics, pressure, money, etc., then I will be satisfied.

---

I don't feel confident, at all. The skeptics are in no better position now than they were before November of this year. As long as servers need to be hacked and private conversations need to be stolen in order to get answers, then all "independent" research institutions such as CRU (and Met Office) need to do is make sure they keep their secret conversations more secret. Then they can go back to business as usual.

Met Office is going to comeback with their "new" findings saying CRU was correct and that all of the hype with the "hiding details", "manipulating data", and "dissenting of counter evidence" was overblown and plays no effect to the "facts." Anyone that says otherwise will be coerced into not releasing their data the same way they've always been.

I was trying to be optimistic. :)

No matter. I'm convinced enough it is untrue that eventually the truth will come out in the end. Fighting about this or that only seems to make it worse b/c I have an answer or a retaliation as does the other side. I guess it all comes out in the wash eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

I was trying to be optimistic. :)

No matter. I'm convinced enough it is untrue that eventually the truth will come out in the end. Fighting about this or that only seems to make it worse b/c I have an answer or a retaliation as does the other side. I guess it all comes out in the wash eventually.

---

The truth will come out in the end when we're all in our sixties having the debate about "Global Sinking" and someone brings up the point of "Hey remember back in the 2000s when everyone was afraid of 'Global Warming.'"

The fact is that life is far too boring not to overdramatize it the same way humans always have since the beginning of time. If it's not one thing, it's another... at least we have something to talk about other than C++0x for a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdrast

Is anyone here old enough to actually remember the huge scare and hype over "Global Cooling" in the early to mid 70's?

There were going to be catastrophe's, glaciers, hemisphere spanning storms, and all because of... Carbon! Reflecting sunlight back into space!

---

Yes, I am old enough to remember 'Global Dimming'. It was particulates like carbon (soot) and suphites etc which caused up to 10% less sunlight.

The 'Clean Air Act of 1970' in the US reduced this type of pollutant by 53% (increased protections introduced in '77 and '90).

Similar laws were enacted in Europe and elsewhere.

EDIT: Aircraft contrails have been suspected as a major cause, but studies of climate patterns from the '60s (pre mass air transit) to now, studies over the Maldives and comparisons of non flight path to flight path temps could not 100% prove the relationship.

It was not until 911 that this relationship was confirmed.

This is why contrail studies are not a 'single point of data' as some might claim.

Interesting:
iowahawk: Fables of the Reconstruction
I haven't tried it yet myself.

Eh. Was going to post a response but I really sort of want this thread to die. I think we have exhausted the topic until new information surfaces about the ordeal.

I know you wanted to let this topic die, but I ran across two recent articles that include a review of the emails and a fact check of the claims some global warming skeptics made regarding them:

“Climategate” | FactCheck.org
The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

Just thought you or others might be interested.

Those articles seem to attempt the dismiss the fears of the skeptics by insisting that "the emails don't show global warming was faked." Something that most skeptics aren't insisting in the first place. It's a clear straw man argument.

Both articles suggest that they don't prove anything has been faked, yet they both express that the emails suggested some eerie attempts at dismissing skeptics and hiding counter data and that's all the skeptics really need to see because once people realize that the "climatologists" don't have their theories wrapped up with a pretty little bow, it leaves room to doubt them and consider alternative viewpoints. This is a battle won for the skeptics, there is no doubt about it... and the only defense that CRU is suggesting that we're making a bigger deal of the emails than we really are.

The climatologists do appear to be on the ropes at this time. And I agree that what they continue to assert no one is questioning but what they are failing to point out (that any opposition was quelled without debate) is what everyone is asking about. If it can be proven they indeed engaged in subterfuge to quiet those that were seeking answers or questioning their theories/results or hypothesis then how can we trust any of them on other matters?
I say we can't b/c they have proven a complete disregard for any kind of opposition and in some ways seem very egotistic to me as to not have enough time to actually discuss their theories and findings with underlings who question them. That fact alone is quite scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Those articles seem to attempt the dismiss the fears of the skeptics by insisting that "the emails don't show global warming was faked." Something that most skeptics aren't insisting in the first place. It's a clear straw man argument.

---

The factcheck article specifically references two sources that make claims that they are checking. How is that a strawman? In addition, the AP article puts the data hiding and skeptic silencing topics on about the same footing as the discussion of faking data. I'm not sure if you were presuming the content of these articles before you read them, but they aren't merely propaganda meant to defend global warming believers. And if skeptics don't believe that the data were faked as you contend, then these articles are more critical of the scientists than defensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Both articles suggest that they don't prove anything has been faked, yet they both express that the emails suggested some eerie attempts at dismissing skeptics and hiding counter data and that's all the skeptics really need to see because once people realize that the "climatologists" don't have their theories wrapped up with a pretty little bow, it leaves room to doubt them and consider alternative viewpoints. This is a battle won for the skeptics, there is no doubt about it... and the only defense that CRU is suggesting that we're making a bigger deal of the emails than we really are.

---

It depends on what's being charged. Despite your claims, there are charges that the data is fraudulent (see some links provided in this very thread). Those claims appear to be proven false, the emails do not show any data faking. The emails do show poor behavior by scientists, but behavior that is consistent with human nature and not necessarily indicative of any kind of fraud. So again, the relevance of the emails is minimal with respect to the overall question of global warming. Alternative viewpoints should have been (and likely have been) considered throughout the lifetime of the global warming theory. These emails do little to make such consideration any higher of a priority than it was previously.

So, isn't the bottom line that the emails show questionable to very bad behavior by a handful of climate scientists but little evidence to refute their findings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

The climatologists do appear to be on the ropes at this time. And I agree that what they continue to assert no one is questioning but what they are failing to point out (that any opposition was quelled without debate) is what everyone is asking about. If it can be proven they indeed engaged in subterfuge to quiet those that were seeking answers or questioning their theories/results or hypothesis then how can we trust any of them on other matters?
I say we can't b/c they have proven a complete disregard for any kind of opposition and in some ways seem very egotistic to me as to not have enough time to actually discuss their theories and findings with underlings who question them. That fact alone is quite scary.

---

Hmm, you say "any opposition was quelled without debate" and the rest of your post follows along this assumption, but that is far from the truth. Plenty of alternate theories and studies have been printed and discussed.

And again, you appear to be viewing their actions through your own lens without leaving room for other possible explanations. Can you not see how someone who believes so strongly in the accuracy of their findings and who believes strongly in the dishonesty of those skeptical of their findings that such behavior could occur without malicious intent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

The factcheck article specifically references two sources that make claims that they are checking. How is that a strawman?

---

They're refuting claims made by a select group of the "anti-global warming" community and then associate the claims to essentially anyone who might fall under "climate skeptic." I quote "anti-global warming" because the community isn't necessarily anti-global warming, but rather against the mainstream opinion of it. Anyway, the goal, of course, being to convince its reader that all global warming skeptics agree with the statements they are refuting and therefore make the reader feel that the case against CRU is completely fraudulent.

Now, as I and Bubba both suggest... whether or not the emails prove that any global warming data is faked, the emails do show, and both articles provided seem to agree, that the emails suggested unethical behavior on CRUs part in the covering up or lack of consideration for counter evidence in their studies. This fact alone is enough to question the integrity of the studies they've done over the last decade or so.

That said, I can't entirely agree with the opinions of the authors of the articles cited, anyway. For instance, statements such as "We simply note that "fiddling" with the way data are displayed — even in a way that some may see as misleading — is not the same thing as falsifying the numbers," as found in the FactCheck.org article. Given the context of that article, this a very inaccurate statement. It also dedicates long paragraph of their article ("Confusing the Public") to public understanding and scientific consensus of global warming, which is entirely out of context when the questioning isn't of global warming but the human influence.

I could pick apart the FactCheck.org article sentence by sentence and pull out a half-dozen logical fallacies in it... the simple fact is that neither of those articles address the concerns that most climate skeptics have. It really just preaches to the converted by dismissing the opinions of few and making it appear to be the opinions of many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daved

So, isn't the bottom line that the emails show questionable to very bad behavior by a handful of climate scientists but little evidence to refute their findings?

---

Yes, I would agree with that. However, wouldn't you say that the behavior exhibited by certain CRU scientists create even the smallest possibility that the data being given to our politicians aren't completely accurate and that perhaps other organizations which support CRU's finding might also exhibit the same bad behavior in their labs? Isn't that enough to suggest we reevaluate the data a bit more before we as a planet throw N-Billions of dollars into a project that might yield little to no gain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

They're refuting claims made by a select group of the "anti-global warming" community and then associate the claims to essentially anyone who might fall under "climate skeptic." I quote "anti-global warming" because the community isn't necessarily anti-global warming, but rather against the mainstream opinion of it. Anyway, the goal, of course, being to convince its reader that all global warming skeptics agree with the statements they are refuting and therefore make the reader feel that the case against CRU is completely fraudulent.

---

I think you're inferring an agenda where none exists. Half of the AP article is critical of CRU scientists. That article also uses the term "climate scientists" in the same way that it uses the term "skeptics", even though the emails came from only a handful of climate scientists. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that either of these articles have a "goal" other than what they are presenting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

For instance, statements such as "We simply note that "fiddling" with the way data are displayed — even in a way that some may see as misleading — is not the same thing as falsifying the numbers," as found in the FactCheck.org article. Given the context of that article, this a very inaccurate statement.

---

Why/how is that statement inaccurate? It is not the same thing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

It also dedicates long paragraph of their article ("Confusing the Public") to public understanding and scientific consensus of global warming, which is entirely out of context when the questioning isn't of global warming but the human influence.

I could pick apart the FactCheck.org article sentence by sentence and pull out a half-dozen logical fallacies in it... the simple fact is that neither of those articles address the concerns that most climate skeptics have. It really just preaches to the converted by dismissing the opinions of few and making it appear to be the opinions of many.

---

Some people believe the earth is not warming. Some believe it is warming but that it is a natural cycle. Some believe it is warming, but not enough to significantly impact humanity. The factcheck article (as it normally does) takes a few specific items and "checks the facts" on those. Nobody is saying that this is the be-all and end-all proof that the emails are irrelevant and that man-made glolbal warming is fact. It almost seems like that's what you're thinking is being presented. Instead, these are just a couple additional interesting articles that discuss topics that have been brought up in this thread and in discussions of this controversy elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Yes, I would agree with that. However, wouldn't you say that the behavior exhibited by certain CRU scientists create even the smallest possibility that the data being given to our politicians aren't completely accurate and that perhaps other organizations which support CRU's finding might also exhibit the same bad behavior in their labs? Isn't that enough to suggest we reevaluate the data a bit more before we as a planet throw N-Billions of dollars into a project that might yield little to no gain?

---

How sure do you have to be before you do something about a problem? The people making these decisions seem pretty confident in the science. The emails show bad behavior but don't make it more likely that the findings are wrong. So why wait longer?

If it turns out that the science was wrong, then sure, it will be a blunder. But many good things will likely have come out of it. If it turns out the science is right but nothing is done, then it will be a lot worse than a "blunder". Because of that, I'd prefer to take the chance if the science is at all credible, and it sure sounds like most countries and their leaders believe that it is.

Quote:

---

But many good things will likely have come out of it.

---

Are you sure about that?

Could we not argue that regardless of which energy system we decided to continue to use that significant advances would and will be made in that area? The area could be solar, nuclear, geothermal, coal, etc., etc.

It seems we rule out our current tech as somehow primitive when in all actuality it is anything but primitive. If there were a substitute we would be using it. I believe in the power of science and believe that significant advances can be made without alarmism and calling people believers and deniers. I'm of the Christian faith and we use terms like believer and denier to denote those who do believe in Christ and those who do not. I really do not think those terms apply anywhere outside of religion. Science is not about believers and deniers but about facts and various people questioning those facts to reveal new facts. Segregating out groups like believers and deniers for the purpose of science is not only unethical (to say one person's findings are somehow inferior to a common accepted 'belief' system in the scientific community b/c they do not agree with said 'belief') but does not get us anywhere.

Whether we like it or not, and both sides have to agree on this, our current so-called fossil fuel economy has gotten us to this point. We can't just throw it out over-night without a suitable realistic replacement. And sorry Toyota but it's going to take more than your Prius to get us there. We need realistic solutions. All I see is alarmism such as we are already too late and anything we do now will still be too late....and so forth. Hogwash. So do these people not believe what they are selling? That's not a good way to get people to act on something to say that no matter what we do (IE: no matter how much we spend) it probably won't help....but we should still do it just in case. Sorry, not buying that. Come up with some real solutions that extend beyond telling me to make sure my tires are fully inflated, my light bulbs are of a certain sort, and that I should cut down on my trips when the local airport here is filling aircraft with tens of thousands of gallons of av fuel to cart people to point A and back nearly four times a day or more. If we want to get serious then come up with some serious solutions. Otherwise it just looks to me like those idiot scientists on Armageddon who were coming up with solar sails and other ridiculous ideas that clearly would not work. We need answers long before we need political manuevering.

I'm confident that in the end we will come out understanding more about our planet, ourselves, and what we can do to make this a better place to live. I once thought we might be able to explore other planets but alas I will probably never see that in my lifetime and perhaps its a good thing. We have enough to figure out and study within our own atmosphere long before we have any business looking at others.

But the 'trekkie' in me is still hopeful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubba

Are you sure about that?

---

I think it is likely, but of course I'm not sure. While there will always be continual scientific advances, research costs money and if more money is spent and more incentives laid out for alternate forms of energy then it is likely that those things will happen sooner than they would otherwise. And while better use of oil or coal is not a bad thing, a cheap and easy to use alternative source of energy would be better than just better use of fossil fuels, since it would actually provide an alternative. The problem is that it will take a while to get those technologies to a point where they can be used on a large scale. If efforts are made to curb global warming and they turn out to be fruitless in that respect, at least they will have provided benefits in the realm of alternative energies that otherwise would have taken years longer. To me, that's much better than the flip side, ignoring global warming and possibly being wrong about it and having catastrophic events occur.

But later in your post you are asking for real solutions and real answers. Those things don't grow on trees. They take work, and they cost money. So you're asking for answers before spending money on the problem, but you can't get answers until you spend money on the problem.

And the thing is, what would you have these people do? They look at the science (and not just the hysteria) and it tells them that there will be major effects on humanity in their lifetimes. Of course they're going to work hard to make that issue known and of course they're going to be upset with people that try to silence them. What you call people being alarmists, they consider to be doing good work. It's not just Al Gore working on this, it's hundreds if not thousands of people. You only see it as alarmism because you're not convinced of the truth of their claims. But if they are convinced, why should they stop? The alternative for them is this:

Attachment 9514