ClimateGate and the Climatati

eyeball · December 7, 2009

Actually, eyeball, there are times when I do think a wide vote on an issue is justified, and this would be one of them.

The question is when do you want to have it ?

ASAP.

We don't have proof of AGW now, and with ClimateGate the momentum may turn around.

We don't have 100% certainty is all. Instead we have 95% or more of ALL scientists agreeing its real. Knowing that I'd stake my economic well being on the possibility that a good majority of us would vote for applying a precautionary approach as opposed to doing nothing at all or doing everything we can.

I think that some people are lazy, but not all and I want the system to encourage the non-lazy and discourage the lazy.

It seems from listening to posters throughout these interweaving threads that its stupid uninformed people that we really need to worry about the most which causes me to suggest people take issues comprehension tests before being allowed to vote.

Who's to complain? Nobody would be forced to vote any more than they would be forced to be stupid.

eyeball · December 7, 2009

I agree w/ this. But this is another tangent.

This is not just another tangent, it is a very real problem - whose effects are deeply interwoven with this issue.

Michael Hardner · December 7, 2009

ASAP.

We don't have 100% certainty is all. Instead we have 95% or more of ALL scientists agreeing its real. Knowing that I'd stake my economic well being on the possibility that a good majority of us would vote for applying a precautionary approach as opposed to doing nothing at all or doing everything we can.

It seems from listening to posters throughout these interweaving threads that its stupid uninformed people that we really need to worry about the most which causes me to suggest people take issues comprehension tests before being allowed to vote.

Who's to complain? Nobody would be forced to vote any more than they would be forced to be stupid.

You have less certainty than 95% that it's caused by humans, I'd bet. And that's among scientists. You will get one vote on this - what happens if it fails ? You won't get a second chance to pass it.

And the momentum is flagging for this, that's a distinct possibility. But the time is now, huh ?

eyeball · December 7, 2009

You have less certainty than 95% that it's caused by humans, I'd bet. And that's among scientists. You will get one vote on this - what happens if it fails ? You won't get a second chance to pass it.

And the momentum is flagging for this, that's a distinct possibility. But the time is now, huh ?

Would you bet its less than 94...92...87...65%? don't forget we live in a country in which 45% would be considered a vast majority.

According to a vast majority of scientists the time for some kind of action is well past now - but now we can't trust the very people we need to trust the most to tell us that...so all bets are off.

If there was ever a cause for real alarm this should be it. We couldn't agree on even how to agree on what to do if our lives depended on it. We are sitting ducks for anything that happens.

Michael Hardner · December 7, 2009

Would you bet its less than 94...92...87...65%? don't forget we live in a country in which 45% would be considered a vast majority.

According to a vast majority of scientists the time for some kind of action is well past now - but now we can't trust the very people we need to trust the most to tell us that...so all bets are off.

If there was ever a cause for real alarm this should be it. We couldn't agree on even how to agree on what to do if our lives depended on it. We are sitting ducks for anything that happens.

So, you think we need to act, but you're not sure that people will support action - therefore you want a referendum ? Okaaaay...

And you set the bar too high for honesty. I'd gamble that more fishermen lie about their catches than scientists cheating on papers, but I wouldn't write off fishermen - would you ?

Riverwind · December 7, 2009

That's one way of looking at the problem. The entire branch of the science, globally is completely and utterly corrupt.

Well there are really three groups of scientists:

1) Those that deny the problem entirely.

2) Those that have been pointing out that there is a problem for years.

3) Those that agree with 2) but have kept silent for fear of backlash from 1)

The evidence is there. There is big problem and we cannot trust the science produced until this problem is addressed. The only thing stopping it from being addressed are people who deny the problem.

I've no comments on global conspiracies, but why does it sound so familiar to a deep conservative way of looking at any problem

Are you really that blind? Haven't you been listening to leading scientists calling for 'deniers' to be put on trial for crimes against humanity? Haven't you read the frothing editorial in major science journals babbling about the conspiracy to 'cast doubt' on the problem? Or the activists publishing books on the 'denial industry'? If you are really completely oblivious to the conspiracy obessed nature of many alarmists (including scientists) then it is no surprise that you refuse to recognize the problem.

As heard from our very own MLW expert on "climate science".

I know more about the topic than a certain fruit fly biologist that spends his days lecturing people on the errors of therr carbon spewing ways. Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

wyly · December 8, 2009

I know more about the topic than a certain fruit fly biologist that spends his days lecturing people on the errors of therr carbon spewing ways.

you're a legend in your own mind, you didn't even know CO2 was a toxin... :rolleyes:

Riverwind · December 8, 2009

you're a legend in your own mind, you didn't even know CO2 was a toxin.

Are you on drugs? I figure you must be since you keep repeating nonsense long after you have been provided links to government regulations that show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/office_building-immeubles_bureaux/co2-eng.php

The concentration of carbon dioxide indoors varies according to location, occupancy, and time of day, tending to increase during the day. Typical office levels are in the range of 600-800 ppm.
...

For normal occupancy and activities, this minimum outdoor ventilation rate of 10 L/s per person would result in a carbon dioxide concentration of 850 ppm at steady state conditions in the occupied space.

You need to get to 10,000ppm before CO2 becomes any sort of risk to human health.

So are you going to apologize or simply slink away?

Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

wyly · December 8, 2009

Are you on drugs? I figure you must be since you keep repeating nonsense long after you have been provided links to government regulations that show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/office_building-immeubles_bureaux/co2-eng.php

You need to get to 10,000ppm before CO2 becomes any sort of risk to human health.

So are you going to apologize or simply slink away?

HAHA finally you admit it's a toxin, no where for you to hide now...

so right, the US Supreme court after all the scientific data was presented to them knows less than you :lol: and my nephew an HVAC Engineer who has made millions as an advisor/contractor to the US government on SBS also knows less than you:lol: :lol: ...at 1000ppm CO2 reduces concentration by an estimated 30%...office buildings with CO2 levels of 800 ppm have 1.5 to 6 times the respiratory symptoms as buildings of 400ppm...CO2=TOXIN....I luv it when I'm right...you have zero credibility...

riverwind-"risk to human health"=toxin=pollutant

Riverwind · December 8, 2009

at 1000ppm CO2 reduces concentration by an estimated 30%...office buildings with CO2 levels of 800 ppm have 1.5 to 6 times the respiratory symptoms as buildings of 400ppm

Can you read? Is the sentence "Typical office levels are in the range of 600-800 ppm." too challenging for you?

CO2 has no noticeable effects on humans until 10,000ppm but even at that level humans can adapt. You have to get up to 50,000 before you would see anything close to a toxic effect. However, CO2 is used as a proxy for other pollutants because it is easy to measure. So an HVAC engineer will be told that 1000ppm of CO2 is problem because that is a sign that the ventilation system is not working. In these cases, any negative effects come from other gases like CO - not from the CO2 which is completely harmless.

Bottom line: CO2 is good for plants and harmless to humans even if we pumped the atmospheric levels up 2000ppm - which is 5x today's levels.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

Keepitsimple · December 8, 2009

HAHA finally you admit it's a toxin, no where for you to hide now...

so right, the US Supreme court after all the scientific data was presented to them knows less than you and my nephew an HVAC Engineer who has made millions as an advisor/contractor to the US government on SBS also knows less than you:lol: ...at 1000ppm CO2 reduces concentration by an estimated 30%...office buildings with CO2 levels of 800 ppm have 1.5 to 6 times the respiratory symptoms as buildings of 400ppm...CO2=TOXIN....I luv it when I'm right...you have zero credibility...

riverwind-"risk to human health"=toxin=pollutant

Wyly.....you're incredibly dense.....that's as kind a word as I can find. You never did get back to me with a link to any reputable source that cited CO2 as a major cause of Sick Building Syndrome. I provided you with one that never even mentioned CO2 in SBS. Riverwind was kind enough to respond to your silliness by showing you that CO2 would have to be absorbed in huge levels before it ever became dangerous to humans. You responded with your intelligent HAHA. Anything is a risk to human health if exposed or taken at extreme levels. Even water is a toxin. You can die from drinking too much water - it happens more often that you would think.

Water intoxication (also known as hyper-hydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by over-consumption of water.[1] Normal, healthy (both physically and nutritionally) individuals have little reason to worry about accidentally consuming too much water. Nearly all deaths related to water intoxication in normal individuals have resulted either from water drinking contests, in which individuals attempt to consume high amounts of water, or long bouts of intensive exercise during which electrolytes are not properly replenished, yet excessive amounts of fluid are still consumed.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Edited December 8, 2009 by Keepitsimple

noahbody · December 8, 2009

(CNN) -- One of the world's leading authorities on climate change has dismissed the contents of controversial e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia as nothing more than friends and colleagues "letting off steam."
"Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that. This was purely private communications between friends, between, colleagues, they were letting off steam. I think we should see it as nothing more than that," Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/08/ipcc.climategate.emails/index.html

That's astounding.

myata · December 8, 2009

Well there are really three groups of scientists:

1) Those that deny the problem entirely.

2) Those that have been pointing out that there is a problem for years.

3) Those that agree with 2) but have kept silent for fear of backlash from 1)

The evidence is there. There is big problem and we cannot trust the science produced until this problem is addressed. The only thing stopping it from being addressed are people who deny the problem.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that a scientists' opinion (unlike that of e.g. unqualified, clueless onlooker) is not a matter of preference, choice, or liking. Yes, some (most) qualified specialists can actually go, read the paper, document, research and believe me or not, see whether it's correct or not. Something like 2+2=. And if they see a problem, flaw with any particular piece of research, they can discuss it with fellow specialists, and those with their fellows and so on. So, see, barring a global, all encompassing conspriracy, there's absolutely no way that a serious flaw would remain unnoticed or undisclosed for any significant length of time.

And so, anybody with a slightest clue about scientific process would know that it does not claim nor guarantee that every single piece of research that sees the light of the day would be absolutely and irrevocably correct. Only that the test of open critical examination by a community of qualified peers is the best that we can have, and it is open, yes, to anybody who's taken time and effort to learn the subject. Yes, there can be problem with that particular piece of research. No, it doesn't bring in question the entire foundations of science.

Of course, through lack of understanding, a clueless onlooker would have no way of knowing a good research from compromised one, not to mention obvious gibberish. They'd have to base their opinions on something else, but qualified analysis. What? Personal or ideological preferences? Hearsay? Mood of the day? There's any number of possibilities, pick one.

Are you really that blind? Haven't you been listening to leading scientists calling for 'deniers' to be put on trial for crimes against humanity?

Just like that? Would you happen to have a reference, by any chance, or such triffles shouldn't really matter in that about scientific process?

Haven't you read the frothing editorial in major science journals babbling about the conspiracy to 'cast doubt' on the problem?

I'd like to see that, but again, an editorial isn't a research per se, it gets complicated, I know.

Or the activists publishing books on the 'denial industry'?

Oh I see, only one particular ideological view should be able to publish books, don't we already know it?

If you are really completely oblivious to the conspiracy obessed nature of many alarmists (including scientists) then it is no surprise that you refuse to recognize the problem.

Of course, one could present their findings to open consideration of qualified peers. But lacking that possibility, "global conspiracy" would be the next best, I understand.

I know more about the topic than a certain fruit fly biologist that spends his days lecturing people on the errors of therr carbon spewing ways.

I really want to believe you! I mean it's the only choice I have, short of seeing your list of publications in peer reviewed professional media.

Pliny · December 8, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/08/ipcc.climategate.emails/index.html

That's astounding.

I know I heard that on the news myself and just about fell off my chair.

Complete transparency on the subject would not involve attempting to hide information nor could hiding information be contrived to be "letting off steam".

This is the head of the IPCC! He must think people are idiots...hmmm...that's in keeping with a certain political ideology!

As Riverwind says, there are the three groups of scientists and the ones with the ball are playing politics.

Keepitsimple · December 8, 2009

I know I heard that on the news myself and just about fell off my chair.

Complete transparency on the subject would not involve attempting to hide information nor could hiding information be contrived to be "letting off steam".

This is the head of the IPCC! He must think people are idiots...hmmm...that's in keeping with a certain political ideology!

As Riverwind says, there are the three groups of scientists and the ones with the ball are playing politics.

And to top it off....the IPCC is going to investigate climategate itself.....and they've already concluded that these guys were "just letting off steam"!

Edited December 8, 2009 by Keepitsimple

Michael Hardner · December 8, 2009

The thing is, we haven't seen anything that is particularly damning here. For my part, I've seen one sentence in the emails that look bad, as well as a faulty process - but certainly not enough to add up to a conspiracy yet.

Riverwind · December 8, 2009

The thing is, we haven't seen anything that is particularly damning here. For my part, I've seen one sentence in the emails that look bad, as well as a faulty process - but certainly not enough to add up to a conspiracy yet.

You cannot look at the emails in isolation. You have to also look at the evidence that people like Pielke Sr, SteveMc and others have put together over the years. The emails provide evidence that their version of the story is like true and there is an IPCC mafia consisting of about 30-50 scientists who are in a position control the message given to governments and the media. This is thanks largely to the campaigns by environmental activists which have demonized all IPCC critics as shills of 'big oil'. This would not have happened if the media had done its job instead of caving into environmental activists with trendy causes. Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

Keepitsimple · December 8, 2009

The thing is, we haven't seen anything that is particularly damning here. For my part, I've seen one sentence in the emails that look bad, as well as a faulty process - but certainly not enough to add up to a conspiracy yet.

It's what's behind some of these emails that is disturbing. Here's a lengthy explanation of Michael Mann's "trick" which was sloughed off as just being a common and useful way of doing things.......but it goes deeper - a lot deeper. If you can soldier through the entire article, I think you'll find it very interesting.....and troubling:

First and foremost -- contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. Certainly, the simple fact that the e-mail was sent in November of 1999 should allay any such confusion.
In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists -- those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate-savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Edited December 8, 2009 by Keepitsimple

Michael Hardner · December 8, 2009

It's what's behind some of these emails that is disturbing. Here's a lengthy explanation of Michael Mann's "trick" which was sloughed off as just being a common and useful way of doing things.......but it goes deeper - a lot deeper. If you can soldier through the entire article, I think you'll find it very interesting.....and troubling:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

That article is interesting, as is has implications for the models used for the medieval period, however I can do without the accusations of "fraud" and "conspiracy" and so forth...

waldo · December 8, 2009

/smirk on

whaaaaaa! How did this thread ever get relegated to the "political philosophy" forum :lol:

/smirk off

Pliny · December 8, 2009

And to top it off....the IPCC is going to investigate itself!

Well! Well! I wonder what they will find? Probably that they are short of resources... that seems to be the finding of all government studies.

Eyeball

It seems the solutions to global warming being touted by our leaders are political/economic and not entirely technological/scientific. Take the political/economic solutions off the table and I would be happy to just go along with the techonological/scientific innovation that is occurring. It is possible that certain interests are also determining where the innovation must lead - oil interests for example. We must not forget that a great percentage of government revenues are dependent upon the oil industry so they may be reluctant to advance technology faster than they can advance taxation alternatives.

I do have some concern that the scientific "conclusions" based upon models that are only extrapolations of probabilities based upon known data and thus may be not entirely correct, as they can't possibly include unknown data and in fact the models have not proven to correctly forecast the "conclusions" that were predicted a decade ago.

Meteorology is a science but they can't predict the weather accurately past a week.

I don't think we are arguing that climate changes. It warms, it cools. Are we in a natural warming period or cooling period? Ice caps advance and recede. I would hate to see political/economic expediency create a social upheaval that is unwarranted if there is no anthropogenic influence.

The guilt trips of playing the developed countries against the undeveloped third world countries who are suffering so terribly from the externalities of our insatiable over-consumption and over-development are simply demogoguery connected with interests that wish to further concentrate and consolidate control over global resources. Let me be clear, as Barack Obama would say, that there is a scramble to be on the forefront of the movement from many and varied political, economic, scientific, corporate, and social interests, all forwarding the cause. There is not a single conspiratorial driving force.

All the data regarding global resources, energy consumption, development, etc., is collected and concentrated at the UN. The UN is concerned, and has been since it's inception, with managing the world's resources and populations. They have been raising alarm bells about over-population and resource depletion since it first started collecting and collating data about them. Certain influential interests are using the data for what could be perceived as selfish reasons and have a very poor view of the masses, which Wyly and Waldo comprise. Their view of humanity or the "public" is not much better than what Waldo and Wyly have expressed here. Waldo and Wyly for some reason seem oblivious to where they sit on this fabricated food chain and somehow mistake themselves as invaluable. I suppose, because of their keen sense of observation in recognizing, and an unyielding support of, their intellectual superiors. They do seem divorced from the rest of the "stupid public".

I'm sorry, I apologize for wandering off on this tangent but the hypocrisy of the compassionate left sometimes overwhelms me.

Now where were we... ohh yes...climate change....should we modify the climate by attempting to reverse any indication of global warming and do anything to bring those temperatures down? Paint all our rooftops white, learn by controlled breathing to cut our CO2 emissions in half, get rid of our cattle stocks, stop all fossil fuel use and exploration, shift economies around (although I don't know what that would do?)

waldo · December 8, 2009

Here's a lengthy explanation...

oh please Simple... the "American Thinker" has it's foundation firmly entrenched in the Conservative Right-Wing echo chamber. (More politicization, thank you very much)

as for the author, Marc Sheppard, I particularly like his account of a recent Heartland Institute... especially where he starts off quoting from the, uhhh... "Oregon Petition" :lol: Surely... most certainly... anyone/everyone would give credence to anything that author would regurgitate when he opens up his article with the following quote! Amazing... why... Simple... I don't even think you're prepared to go there, as he - unless... Hackergate has so swayed your previous declared acceptance that AGW is occurring. Such a quandary, hey Simple?

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

(surprise, surprise... keynote speakers included the usual cast of characters prominently on display Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Essex, Soon, Easterbrook, Monckton, Horner/Ebell, McKitrick, Segalstad, Watts, McIntyre... oh my!)

Pliny · December 8, 2009

/smirk on

whaaaaaa! How did this thread ever get relegated to the "political philosophy" forum

/smirk off

It isn't a federal political topic. Perhaps it should be relegated to the science and technology forum but...no...I don't think from your perspective it would be deserving of it.

waldo · December 8, 2009

...feel free to bring anything forward to put a dent into that overwhelming consensus that climate change is occurring and that mankind is the significant cause of global warming.
Feel free to bring forward any conclusive evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming...

Game, set, and match. Well played sir.

I have explained this so many times that I and getting pissed off. Excuse the all caps but:
ALMOST ALL SCIENTIFIC CLIMATE SKEPTICS AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING AND CO2 IS CAUSING THE TEMPERATURE TO RISE.

evidence? Why... I'll just use the evidence that allows, as you state, (almost all) those skeptics to (as you emphatically CAPS bold), "AGREE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING AND CO2 IS CAUSING THE TEMPERATURE TO RISE". I'll just use that stuff! Oh too easy... hey blueblood... would you care for another match?

waldo · December 8, 2009

Conspiracy theories are so deflecting. There is no conspiracy that can explain all that is happening. As you illustrate a movement of varying interests explains what is happening much better. It would be stopped if the most powerful interests wished it to be stopped but there is no will to stop it on any front. We do not need a conspiracy to destroy ourselves, we can do that on our own unless if we choose to remain ignorant of truth. The truth is, the environmental movement does perceive man to be a cancer on the planet and with climate change has gained everyone's interest - resourceful politicians have not let that fact gone unnoticed and in their usual manner "are not letting a good crisis go to waste".
We must caution ourselves though and ensure we adopt good housekeeping methods. The environmental message is not entirely without reason which is why it has gained such wide support.

interesting tact - even the deniers are accepting to the ludicrousness of their much touted (but failed) conspiracy theory of world-wide collaborating scientists. They want a do-over to now (also) include, as described, "NGOs, environmental groups, bankers and industrial giants". But, damnit... it can't be referred to as a conspiracy (that's just so deflecting, ya know). So... it's all about aligning towards a common goal that perpetuates varying self interests (but whatever you do, just don't call it a conspiracy). Apparently, no one... anywhere... actually accepts the overwhelming state of the science, and no one... anywhere... actually wants mitigation/adaptation for other than "varying self interests".

There is no conspiracy theory. There are special interests opportunely jumping on the bandwagon. You are finally getting the point. There is a common interest in a healthy planet, Waldo but let's not try and politically capitalize on it at the expense of some to make a million out of it for others while accomplishing nothing for the planet and serving the selfishness of the global power-brokers.

We're(humans)here! We're queer(not in the gay sense)! Get used to it!

no conspiracy? That just will not do... we've heard throughout this (and other related threads) that "it's just one big conspiracy"... in his over-the-top way, Riverwind brashly claims that the theory of AGW climate change, is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists, of scientific organizations/societies/institutes/etc., of scientific journals, of mainstream media, of the IPCC, etc.; to which he now adds "NGOs, environmental groups, bankers and industrial giants". No conspiracy, hey? Pliny... c'mon... Riverwind's not listening to you... perhaps speak louder!