Global Warming: Evidence of Fraud

[thepianominstre]

I've yet to see some good explanations of some of the more incriminating material in the leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia... most of the defenses amount to little more than, "Move along, nothing to see, we have a consensus!"

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline

This is the most popular and perhaps most abused quote. Marc Sheppard has a great post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/) explaining what this decline is not referring to, what it is referring to, why scientists had to erase evidence of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, and how many of the official temperature stations do not meet appropriate standards. I've seen arguments that the word 'trick' is a figure of speech, but nothing about the MWP and the LIA.

The e-mail has also been said to have to do with tree rings.... the Telegraph has a great post (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html) explaining how the tree ring data is distorted and cherry-picked.

The e-mails about withholding raw data and commands to delete e-mails really look good for the scientific method and transparency, but the worst stuff is not in the e-mails; it's in the logs and computer code. There are posts with actual computer code from the leaked documents (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/) that show an array being used to adjust old numbers downward and new numbers upward. There is also a large file that is essentially a log (http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/30/climategates-harry-read-me-file-is-a-must-read/) of one man's attempt to convert some old temperature records into a newer system... and about how much of an unorganized and confusing mess the old records were in...

All the defenses I've seen have had to do with playing down the e-mails as looking bad, but they're not even talking about these documents.

Another defense is that even if the CRU data is all bad, we have other sources like NASA. Well NASA is under attack for their flip-flopping on the warmest year on record (they changed it from 1998 to 1934 after being questioned on their calculations). NASA has been asked for the raw data under Freedom of Information, but they've spent a convenient two years, uh, gathering the raw data together, and the guy's now threatening to sue if they don't comply by the end of the month. (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/)

I'm getting sick of editorials that just talk about the nasty scandal and how it means nothing because a bunch of scientists say it means nothing. Well the whole scandal has to do with whether or not we can trust what a bunch of scientists say in the face of evidence of fraud and manipulation, so that answer doesn't cut it for me. All the hysteria about Copenhagen being the only way to save the planet from complete destruction reminds me a lot of the post-9/11 "Patriot Act" hysteria, et. al. Nevermind the hypocrisy of world leaders gathering in hundreds of limos and private jets to discuss cutting carbon emissions. I need some direct responses to some of this incriminating material. Whaddya got?

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, this singular case puts the plethora of all other studies showing affirmative evidence of climate change (aka: stop using the global warming misnomer) in question.














































Oh wait, that's not how science works.

[thepianominstre]

As far as I'm concerned "climate change" vs "global warming" is a semantics game... They say the globe has warmed in the last century and we have to stop it from warming further to save the planet, so while that is climate change it also sounds like the warming of the globe as well. My post and this scandal does not have to do with whether or not the climate is changing -- it's always been changing, but about the earth getting warmer over the last century in a way it never did before because of us, and why these scientists had to go to such deception to hide earlier periods of warming and exaggerate this current period, if everything is clear and transparent and supported by evidence...

[jeremypeele]

I don't think it can be stopped no matter what it's called.

[thatwasamoment]

Warming or not, can we stop polluting the fucking planet?

[jeremypeele]

Warming or not, can we stop polluting the fucking planet?
are you asking for a yes or no answer or are you asking if it's possible?

[thepianominstre]

Warming or not, can we stop polluting the fucking planet?

I definitely agree that reducing pollution is admirable. (Although I'm not so sure about the political move of the EPA declaring carbon dioxide a "pollutant" so the government can regulate it.... there's even evidence that increased CO2 is helping trees grow faster (http://www.news.wisc.edu/17436), for goodness' sake!) The question is whether or not we need to reduce our pollution so much and so fast that it ends up killing the economy, hurting developing nations, etc... Green is in demand and businesses are starting to increase their "greenness" on their own.... It's the doomsday scenarios I'm not so sold on, especially in the light of these new leaks.

At the same time we have reports coming out (convenient timing) that the 2000s was the warmest decade ever (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_re_us/decade_s_end_climate). They list a lot of evidence that is pretty convincing, although I already know I can't trust the temperature numbers and I'm gonna have to look into some of the other stats. Even if the Earth really is warming, the question is how bad a few degrees really is and how much of that is our fault... I've heard claims that Medieval times were warmer than today, Greenland really used to be green, etc, all before our superpollution days, I just haven't had the chance to look into that kind of stuff.

[And Hours Pass]

Yes, this singular case puts the plethora of all other studies showing affirmative evidence of climate change (aka: stop using the global warming misnomer) in question.














































Oh wait, that's not how science works.
Thank you.

[3eb23]

Yes, this singular case puts the plethora of all other studies showing affirmative evidence of climate change (aka: stop using the global warming misnomer) in question.

why is it called climate change and not global warming anymore?

[caveBEAR]

why is it called climate change and not global warming anymore?

It's called climate change now and not global warming because the entire climate changes, it doesn't just get warmer.

As far as I'm concerned "climate change" vs "global warming" is a semantics game... They say the globe has warmed in the last century and we have to stop it from warming further to save the planet, so while that is climate change it also sounds like the warming of the globe as well. My post and this scandal does not have to do with whether or not the climate is changing -- it's always been changing, but about the earth getting warmer over the last century in a way it never did before because of us, and why these scientists had to go to such deception to hide earlier periods of warming and exaggerate this current period, if everything is clear and transparent and supported by evidence...

It's not semantics, calling climate change 'global warming' is like getting a McDonald's Value Meal and calling it 'lettuce'. There's more in it than that.

Oh, and if you need any more reason that scientists had to 'hide' information (which, as I read on CNN, most climatologists don't even refer to this as a scandal or give it any notice because they have real work to do) just look at how people responded to climate change before this leaked. If climatologists are to be believed (which I believe them over people who aren't climatologists) then we are in a dire situation, so (not saying this is right, just saying I could understand the mindset) they skew the facts to make the situation seem more dangerous, so people won't just write it off and do nothing, which seems to be the reaction to this 'scandal', 'Oh, global warming isn't real?! Good! Now we can keep burning oil and get back to the good old days!'

[yves.]

why is it called climate change and not global warming anymore?

because some regions of the earth (like the poles) are warming up, while other places (the midwest is the first that comes to mind) are getting colder.

i think it was april of my senior year where one day the temperature was in the 70s, the next day, it snowed, and the day after that, it was in the 50s. also, nebraska got its first snow this year in the second week of october, which is really early. last year the first snow was sometime between halloween and november 8.
nebraska's summers are usually scorching (when i first moved there, it was 102 degrees one day), but apparently this past summer was pretty cold.

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/68nebraska.html

[caveBEAR]

I definitely agree that reducing pollution is admirable. (Although I'm not so sure about the political move of the EPA declaring carbon dioxide a "pollutant" so the government can regulate it.... there's even evidence that increased CO2 is helping trees grow faster (http://www.news.wisc.edu/17436), for goodness' sake!) The question is whether or not we need to reduce our pollution so much and so fast that it ends up killing the economy, hurting developing nations, etc... Green is in demand and businesses are starting to increase their "greenness" on their own.... It's the doomsday scenarios I'm not so sold on, especially in the light of these new leaks.

At the same time we have reports coming out (convenient timing) that the 2000s was the warmest decade ever (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_re_us/decade_s_end_climate). They list a lot of evidence that is pretty convincing, although I already know I can't trust the temperature numbers and I'm gonna have to look into some of the other stats. Even if the Earth really is warming, the question is how bad a few degrees really is and how much of that is our fault... I've heard claims that Medieval times were warmer than today, Greenland really used to be green, etc, all before our superpollution days, I just haven't had the chance to look into that kind of stuff.

No shit. The climate changes all the time. The Middle Ages may have been warm, and Greenland may have been green, but the Earth has a much better time deciding when to change the climate than us. That's the entire point. The climate constantly is in flux, that's how Earth, and the Universe, work. However, every time that the Earth's climate has changed, species (at least those fit to survive) adapt to the changes and keep going; however, if the 'doomsday scenarios' are to be believed (which I don't know why we wouldn't...climatologists say there's a problem = there's a problem. Would you question your oncologist like this if he said you had early signs of cancer?) than the species on Earth, specifically humans among many others, wouldn't have the time needed to evolve and keep up, and would therefore die out. It's not a simple as you're making it sound.

[3eb23]

It sounds that by calling it climate change instead of global warming, we will be able to cover our backs for when more and more evidence surfaces suggesting that the earth is actually in a cooling phase. It's like we will still be able to say that it's our fault the climate is changing and that any change in the climate is bad, whether it's warming or cooling.

[SpacePunk]

The CRU emails should not be brushed aside as a "few dodgy scientists".

It is one of the leading institutions studying this, and these emails are between some of the top scientists involved in the whole AGW cause.

The CRU computer model is the biggest mess to come out of all of this (more than the emails) - and there will probably be more to come from that as it gets dissected.

We also have NASA openly tweaking/revising data for years now - if that starts garnering more attention/scrutiny - this whole thing might explode into a major global scandal.

[SpacePunk]

because some regions of the earth (like the poles) are warming up.


Antarctica has been cooling for 30 years now.

That is why the ice is expanding and breaking off there.

[thepianominstre]

Oh, and if you need any more reason that scientists had to 'hide' information (which, as I read on CNN, most climatologists don't even refer to this as a scandal or give it any notice because they have real work to do) just look at how people responded to climate change before this leaked. If climatologists are to be believed (which I believe them over people who aren't climatologists) then we are in a dire situation, so (not saying this is right, just saying I could understand the mindset) they skew the facts to make the situation seem more dangerous, so people won't just write it off and do nothing, which seems to be the reaction to this 'scandal', 'Oh, global warming isn't real?! Good! Now we can keep burning oil and get back to the good old days!'

Of course they're not going to refer to it as a scandal... they want to cover it up. We have evidence of deceit, and instead of addressing and refuting the evidence, they keep saying DON'T LOOK IT DOESN'T MATTER IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. Yeah, color me convinced... I understand the mindset of skewing the situation to seem more dangerous, but it's not justified. It's the same thing Bush did with terrorism... just because they're convinced doesn't mean they're right, and that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. Continuing to blindly trust the experts in the face of evidence of manipulated data while ignoring the manipulated data is to have your head in the sand. Let's talk about ways to reduce pollution, but let's not pretend the world's gonna end if we don't cut carbon emissions 83% of 2005 levels - or a per capita level not seen since 1875 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/06/earths_next_last_chance_99431.html) , which is not even possible without impoverishing or killing huge portions of the current generation, nevermind the future ones.

No shit. The climate changes all the time. The Middle Ages may have been warm, and Greenland may have been green, but the Earth has a much better time deciding when to change the climate than us. That's the entire point. The climate constantly is in flux, that's how Earth, and the Universe, work. However, every time that the Earth's climate has changed, species (at least those fit to survive) adapt to the changes and keep going; however, if the 'doomsday scenarios' are to be believed (which I don't know why we wouldn't...climatologists say there's a problem = there's a problem. Would you question your oncologist like this if he said you had early signs of cancer?) than the species on Earth, specifically humans among many others, wouldn't have the time needed to evolve and keep up, and would therefore die out. It's not a simple as you're making it sound.

The earth changed before without us; the question is whether any change now is our fault. Statistics are cherry-picked to sound as bad as possible; the infamous hockey stick was determined by our own Congress to be bogus a few years ago. The same people that conjured that hockey stick are involved in the CRU, publishing the data used by the IPCC and at this week's Copenhagen (in fact, 12 of the 26 "esteemed" scientists (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-—-unintentionally/) who wrote the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" are mired in this Climategate scandal). The article I linked to about the 2000s said the temperature was a whole 0.6 C higher than the period from 1951-1980. That's a convenient measuring period because it was during a minor cooling period (there were even doomsday scenarios about another ice age back then); I'd like to know how much hotter the 2000s were than the 30's and 40's.

Your problem is your faith in the climatologists, whose current doomsday scenarios are the precise reverse of the doomsday scenarios of only a few decades ago. I wouldn't question my oncologist because he has experience dealing with cancer in other people and he knows how it progresses. He's not taking thousands of samples from temperature stations that are too close to heat sources, extrapolating back into time with shady tree ring data that is used when it fits the conclusion and "adjusted" when it doesn't, and comparing downswings with upswings to make overall linear patterns look like exponential growth...

[fredrico0012]

You ever think that these scientists are just saying what the governments want to hear so they can receive more grants? Gallio did it when he said the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, he retracted that because he was no longer getting grants, and my father who works in the science industry says its fairly common to say data shows one thing to get grants from the government to research what they really want so scientist really have no problem skewing data or interrupting results to how people want to hear it if they can get the grants for things they want.

[saysmydoctor]

As far as I'm concerned "climate change" vs "global warming" is a semantics game... They say the globe has warmed in the last century and we have to stop it from warming further to save the planet, so while that is climate change it also sounds like the warming of the globe as well. My post and this scandal does not have to do with whether or not the climate is changing -- it's always been changing, but about the earth getting warmer over the last century in a way it never did before because of us, and why these scientists had to go to such deception to hide earlier periods of warming and exaggerate this current period, if everything is clear and transparent and supported by evidence...
It's not a game of semantics, it's a game of evidence. Global warming is instrinsic part of a cycle that the Earth naturally goes through--climate change is the process as a whole--and the way the term is used now--the human effects on it. This scandal is not a scandal the way idiots--such as yourself, and I'll explain why you're an idiot here in a moment--like to construe it as. Is it a big deal? Yes, we entrust scientists to be honest and to follow the scientific method. Am I condemning them? Yes.

Bigger picture though, beyond the Earth warming (which it has--even though scientists acknowledge it isn't realistic to measure by a 'global temperature,' temperature norms have changed in numerous ecosystems globally), is who cares if they did? This scandal isn't a scandal. Humans change the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_D elta

I can seearch countless examples of humans destroying countless delicate ecosystems. By placing emphasis and importance on this 'scandal,' you are distracting the issue from seeking solutions to consequence of human action. This is why you are an idiot. You are an instrument of distraction. You are better dismissing these scientists and focusing your time on solving the crisis of securing this planet for future generations.

[saysmydoctor]

Of course they're not going to refer to it as a scandal... they want to cover it up.
Or they don't want to be bothered with distractions?
We have evidence of deceit, and instead of addressing and refuting the evidence, they keep saying DON'T LOOK IT DOESN'T MATTER IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
We have evidence of deceit for a singular incident.
Yeah, color me convinced... I understand the mindset of skewing the situation to seem more dangerous, but it's not justified. It's the same thing Bush did with terrorism... just because they're convinced doesn't mean they're right, and that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of.
I'm just going to make you aware of this being a huge false parallel and move on.
Continuing to blindly trust the experts in the face of evidence of manipulated data while ignoring the manipulated data is to have your head in the sand.
ONE CASE.
Let's talk about ways to reduce pollution, but let's not pretend the world's gonna end if we don't cut carbon emissions 83% of 2005 levels - or a per capita level not seen since 1875 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/06/earths_next_last_chance_99431.html) , which is not even possible without impoverishing or killing huge portions of the current generation, nevermind the future ones.
Let's do that. I'll allow you to drop this bogus case. Scientists have been very open in admitting that while they support their science, their what-you-call doomsday scenario have always been estimations--by their own admission.

Also, concerning your own alarmist prediction--hence the call by scientists for innovation in technology.


The earth changed before without us; the question is whether any change now is our fault.
That's definitely not the question. See Ozone hole.
Statistics are cherry-picked to sound as bad as possible; the infamous hockey stick was determined by our own Congress to be bogus a few years ago. The same people that conjured that hockey stick are involved in the CRU, publishing the data used by the IPCC and at this week's Copenhagen (in fact, 12 of the 26 "esteemed" scientists (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-—-unintentionally/) who wrote the "Copenhagen Diagnosis" are mired in this Climategate scandal).
Ok, cool.
The article I linked to about the 2000s said the temperature was a whole 0.6 C higher than the period from 1951-1980. That's a convenient measuring period because it was during a minor cooling period (there were even doomsday scenarios about another ice age back then); I'd like to know how much hotter the 2000s were than the 30's and 40's.
Doomsday scenarios are actually science: catastrophism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism It's been commercialized by entertainment industry (A Day After Tomorrow) but it is still a valid scientific theory--unless you know what killed the dinosaurs?
Your problem is your faith in the climatologists, whose current doomsday scenarios are the precise reverse of the doomsday scenarios of only a few decades ago.
Yes, that's my problem.
I wouldn't question my oncologist because he has experience dealing with cancer in other people and he knows how it progresses. He's not taking thousands of samples from temperature stations that are too close to heat sources, extrapolating back into time with shady tree ring data that is used when it fits the conclusion and "adjusted" when it doesn't, and comparing downswings with upswings to make overall linear patterns look like exponential growth...
False parallel.

[xshady121]

While climate change is obvious, I don't feel the EPA should be regulating carbon dioxide output.

[saysmydoctor]

Considering greenhouse gases are a health threat and the federal government is constitutionally bound to provide for my and the public at-large's general welfare, I feel the opposite.

[thepianominstre]

Humans change the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_D elta

I can seearch countless examples of humans destroying countless delicate ecosystems. By placing emphasis and importance on this 'scandal,' you are distracting the issue from seeking solutions to consequence of human action. This is why you are an idiot. You are an instrument of distraction. You are better dismissing these scientists and focusing your time on solving the crisis of securing this planet for future generations.

Of course humans change the environment, and of course destroying ecosystems is bad. Heck, we had deathly smoggy cities in the 1800's... and it was bad then, too. But there's a difference between claiming that the messes we make destroy local ecosystems and claiming that the messes we make are making the entire planet warmer and fostering global catastrophe. I agree with you on the former, and the need to behave responsibly; it's the issue of the latter, and how much we need to restrict ourselves beyond mere responsibleness, that I'm still not sold on.

ONE CASE.

The problem is that I'm not convinced it's only one case. The CRU data has been forwarded and used by a lot of people. It was boasted to closely match GISS data... and if the CRU data was faked can we now entirely trust the GISS data? I mentioned in my first post about how NASA has flip-flopped in recent years on which years were the hottest, and how they've been taking a convenient two years to respond to a request for the raw data.. kinda seems suspicious. Before this leak you might have said there were no cases, and I'm not convinced that one is going to be the maximum here. If it's all real, why the need to fake it?

Also, concerning your own alarmist prediction--hence the call by scientists for innovation in technology.

I think you got me here. Both sides are being alarmist, aren't they? I'm not nearly as optimistic as Paul Krugman is about forecasting innovation (and he's part of the nothing-to-see-here movement, of course), but I suppose it's not inconceivable that we could find ways to sustain current energy levels without nearly as much carbon... I just don't believe that government needs to intrude on everybody and every business to make it happen.

[thepianominstre]

Considering greenhouse gases are a health threat and the federal government is constitutionally bound to provide for my and the public at-large's general welfare, I feel the opposite.

Oh, come on, carbon dioxide is produced by our own bodies and helps plants grow (see earlier link)... increased CO2 in the atmosphere may actually help us undo deforestation. It's a political power move to regulate without going through Congress. Our "greenhouse gases" increased 26 percent in the last decade, but there hasn't been any warming since 1997 (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/07/where-did-all-the-warming-go/). I'm not saying continuing to increase them is a good thing, just that all the predictions so far about the bad things an increase would do have not actually happened.... if greenhouse gases are only a health threat on a macro level because they may ruin the planet, than maybe the EPA should be regulating other health threats like meteors, nuclear bombs, and the excessive use of autotune...

[saysmydoctor]

Of course humans change the environment, and of course destroying ecosystems is bad. Heck, we had deathly smoggy cities in the 1800's... and it was bad then, too. But there's a difference between claiming that the messes we make destroy local ecosystems and claiming that the messes we make are making the entire planet warmer and fostering global catastrophe. I agree with you on the former, and the need to behave responsibly; it's the issue of the latter, and how much we need to restrict ourselves beyond mere responsibleness, that I'm still not sold on.
I'm going to say this very slowly because you apparently didn't pay attention in high school Earth Science or something.

Ecosystems are connected. What we pollute here in the US can travel the Gulf Stream to Britain. As a matter of fact, trace pollution from China has been found in the Western US. Acid rain in Japan is caused by Chinese industries: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html

It is a global crisis.
The problem is that I'm not convinced it's only one case. The CRU data has been forwarded and used by a lot of people. It was boasted to closely match GISS data... and if the CRU data was faked can we now entirely trust the GISS data? I mentioned in my first post about how NASA has flip-flopped in recent years on which years were the hottest, and how they've been taking a convenient two years to respond to a request for the raw data.. kinda seems suspicious. Before this leak you might have said there were no cases, and I'm not convinced that one is going to be the maximum here. If it's all real, why the need to fake it?
I'm not convinced Obama was born in the US. /sarcasm

I'm sure there are other falsified studies. I am even more sure there are countless more accurate studies.
I think you got me here. Both sides are being alarmist, aren't they? I'm not nearly as optimistic as Paul Krugman is about forecasting innovation (and he's part of the nothing-to-see-here movement, of course), but I suppose it's not inconceivable that we could find ways to sustain current energy levels without nearly as much carbon... I just don't believe that government needs to intrude on everybody and every business to make it happen.
How are scientists being alarmist? They are giving possible scenarios of the future--not once have they said "My scenario is concrete fact." They are giving their interpretation of the science.

[saysmydoctor]

Oh, come on, carbon dioxide is produced by our own bodies and helps plants grow (see earlier link)... increased CO2 in the atmosphere may actually help us undo deforestation. It's a political power move to regulate without going through Congress. Our "greenhouse gases" increased 26 percent in the last decade, but there hasn't been any warming since 1997 (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/07/where-did-all-the-warming-go/). I'm not saying continuing to increase them is a good thing, just that all the predictions so far about the bad things an increase would do have not actually happened.... if greenhouse gases are only a health threat on a macro level because they may ruin the planet, than maybe the EPA should be regulating other health threats like meteors, nuclear bombs, and the excessive use of autotune...
http://www.theozonehole.com/

[rawspinner]

Warming or not, can we stop polluting the fucking planet?
this

[rawesome]

Someone explain to my why we are trying to rally against the scientific studies in favor of climate change which are effectively trying save our race and planet from untimely destruction? I mean, they may not be entirely accurate, science never can be, but I don't feel like we should be attacking them for trying to warn us of a possible danger. Seems like a suicidal effort.

[GeeBee]

While climate change is obvious, I don't feel the EPA should be regulating carbon dioxide output.

Yeah, and tell the FDA to stop their goddamn food inspections! To hell with the USDA regulating beef, too! DOWN WITH REGULATION OF ALL STRIPES! RON PAUL FOR PREZ in 2012!

/sarcastic way of saying STFU.

[3eb23]

haha go figure

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579666,00.html

[xshady121]

Yeah, and tell the FDA to stop their goddamn food inspections!
apples and oranges.
DOWN WITH REGULATION OF ALL STRIPES!
while regulation is necessary, it is not necessary in this case.
RON PAUL FOR PREZ in 2012!
Absolutely.

[saysmydoctor]

FDA and EPA are not apples and oranges at all.

[Scrawns]

anyone ever notice how all these kinds of posts start with a massive wall of text, followed by so many more walls of text.

in order to skip over pointless reading, if everyone could please attach a photo of their degree in the field being raged about, that would be awesome.

thanks.

[saysmydoctor]

anyone ever notice how all these kinds of posts start with a massive wall of text, followed by so many more walls of text.

in order to skip over pointless reading, if everyone could please attach a photo of their degree in the field being raged about, that would be awesome.

thanks.
Appeal to authority.

[xshady121]

FDA and EPA are not apples and oranges at all.

but comparing food regulation to regulation of carbon dioxide is.

[saysmydoctor]

but comparing food regulation to regulation of carbon dioxide is.
Ensuring healthy food and healthy air through regulation is no different at all.

[GeeBee]

apples and oranges.
Great retort.

while regulation is necessary, it is not necessary in this case.
Because you say so, or...

Absolutely.
When hell freezes over.

FDA and EPA are not apples and oranges at all.
more like apples and apples, amirite?
but comparing food regulation to regulation of carbon dioxide is.
Again making a statement as if your very assertion is justification in and of itself.
Ensuring healthy food and healthy air through regulation is no different at all.
Thank you.

[jeremypeele]

It doesn't matter what we do here in America. We could get rid of our emissions completely, but China will do no such thing. They make a lot of money using coal as their energy and I doubt they will stop using it anytime soon. So buckle up people, it may or may not be a bumpy ride.

[rawesome]

It doesn't matter what we do here in America. We could get rid of our emissions completely, but China will do no such thing. They make a lot of money using coal as their energy and I doubt they will stop using it anytime soon. So buckle up people, it may or may not be a bumpy ride.
You've said this before. I think this is a big part of why they are having these multinational conferences on the issue.

[jeremypeele]

You've said this before. I think this is a big part of why they are having these multinational conferences on the issue.
That's true. I must have said this is a different thread.

They have multinational conferences for a lot of different things though. Sometimes they don't get much accomplished.

[rawesome]

That's true. I must have said this is a different thread.

They have multinational conferences for a lot of different things though. Sometimes they don't get much accomplished.
You're totally right, but China seems pretty fucking thrifty to me. I mean, if they can limit the number of children a family can have, I'm sure they can monitor their Carbon output.

[jeremypeele]

You're totally right, but China seems pretty fucking thrifty to me. I mean, if they can limit the number of children a family can have, I'm sure they can monitor their Carbon output.

Yeah that is true, but any other energy besides coal will cost them more. I'm sure in the long run they will switch off and probably quicker and more successfully than other countries. But short run, I don't see them changing in the next 15-20 years. But some scientists don't think a lot of us we'll be around then.

[Scrawns]

Appeal to authority.


more like looking for a reason to read someone's wall of text. if your going to rage about some world issue and expect people to listen, then i would hope to see some form of proof that you know what your talking about. believe it or not, people actually make up facts to try and prove their opinion when raging about world issues.examples include: George W. Bush, Mel Gibson, Adolf Hitler, and everyone involved in the God's existence argument.

[kofiadrian]

Yes, this singular case puts the plethora of all other studies showing affirmative evidence of climate change (aka: stop using the global warming misnomer) in question.














































Oh wait, that's not how science works.


THIS.

[saysmydoctor]

It doesn't matter what we do here in America. We could get rid of our emissions completely, but China will do no such thing. They make a lot of money using coal as their energy and I doubt they will stop using it anytime soon. So buckle up people, it may or may not be a bumpy ride.
They don't make a lot of money using coal really, there are just regions dependent on coal due lack of innovation and the Chinese government recognizes this threat more than others. Due to their developing status, the Chinese should be subsidized (or they should forgive debts owed in exchange for our [global community] help).

With that being said, that's really irrelevant. Even if China doesn't agree to do such a thing, we still should.
more like looking for a reason to read someone's wall of text. if your going to rage about some world issue and expect people to listen, then i would hope to see some form of proof that you know what your talking about. believe it or not, people actually make up facts to try and prove their opinion when raging about world issues.examples include: George W. Bush, Mel Gobson, Adolf Hitler, and everyone involved in the God's existence argument.
So along with your fallacious appeal to authority, you made a false parallel and Godwin'd the thread. Slow down before you bury yourself in the logical flaws of your argument.

[paper halo]

more like looking for a reason to read someone's wall of text. if your going to rage about some world issue and expect people to listen, then i would hope to see some form of proof that you know what your talking about. believe it or not, people actually make up facts to try and prove their opinion when raging about world issues.examples include: George W. Bush, Mel Gobson, Adolf Hitler, and everyone involved in the God's existence argument.

Aw shit, do I need a politics degree before I can post in this forum?

[GeeBee]

more like looking for a reason to read someone's wall of text. if your going to rage about some world issue and expect people to listen, then i would hope to see some form of proof that you know what your talking about. believe it or not, people actually make up facts to try and prove their opinion when raging about world issues.examples include: George W. Bush, Mel Gobson, Adolf Hitler, and everyone involved in the God's existence argument.

Who the fuck is Mel Gobson?

[jeremypeele]

They don't make a lot of money using coal really, there are just regions dependent on coal due lack of innovation and the Chinese government recognizes this threat more than others. Due to their developing status, the Chinese should be subsidized (or they should forgive debts owed in exchange for our [global community] help).

With that being said, that's really irrelevant. Even if China doesn't agree to do such a thing, we still should.


I was afraid when I saw you had quoted me. I thought you were going to rip me a new one.

[Machu505]

Who the fuck is Mel Gobson?
Whoever he is, he's reached the same status as George Bush and Hitler.

[yves.]

You ever think that these scientists are just saying what the governments want to hear so they can receive more grants? Gallio did it when he said the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, he retracted that because he was no longer getting grants, and my father who works in the science industry says its fairly common to say data shows one thing to get grants from the government to research what they really want so scientist really have no problem skewing data or interrupting results to how people want to hear it if they can get the grants for things they want.

what exactly is a gallio???

[rawesome]

Galileo lied because he was being persecuted and threatened with death by the Catholic Church.

[Scrawns]

So along with your fallacious appeal to authority, you made a false parallel and Godwin'd the thread. Slow down before you bury yourself in the logical flaws of your argument.
Oh thats right because using Hitler as an example of someone who uses false science to try and persuade people of their point is totally incorect. right? its alright tho man, trying to make what i said appear as a false parallel was a good try. It was overly aggressive just as any mega-liberal point would be.

Aw shit, do I need a politics degree before I can post in this forum?
no because your from England so I <3 you

Who the fuck is Mel Gobson?
You tell me.

[rawesome]

You tell me.
http://www.houseoftucker.com/trip/common/images/CT_smirk_closeup3.jpg

[saysmydoctor]

Oh thats right because using Hitler as an example of someone who uses false science to try and persuade people of their point is totally incorect. right? its alright tho man, trying to make what i said appear as a false parallel was a good try. It was overly aggressive just as any mega-liberal point would be.
Poisoning the well now with perjorative.

[punk89]

Antarctica has been cooling for 30 years now.

That is why the ice is expanding and breaking off there.

This is the funniest thing I've ever read.

[Scrawns]

Poisoning the well now with perjorative.

you spelled it wrong, its pejorative. and nowhere in my statement did i use a pejorative. if you meant the use of "mega-liberal" that was in reference to viewpoint, not to the poster.

[x togepi x]

Scrawns is an idiot.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm not a liberal, next.

[GeeBee]

Oh thats right because using Hitler as an example of someone who uses false science to try and persuade people of their point is totally incorect. right? its alright tho man, trying to make what i said appear as a false parallel was a good try. It was overly aggressive just as any mega-liberal point would be.


no because your from England so I <3 you


You tell me.

You lose.

Anytime I see the term "liberal" used as a pejorative term, it tells me two things:

a) the person using it gets their thoughts fed to them by either Fox News or the AM radio.
b) that person is also a fucking moron.

[Scrawns]

and as you can see (if you read further on) i noted his point as being mega-liberal, not him.

nice try though. Although im a moderate and thus hold some more liberal viewpoints, i always get a laugh when liberals rage at other people for not being liberal enough. That's why those parties never get anything done, because they are too busy tearing others in those parties apart. Conservatives never get anything done because their ideas are fucking crazy. Oh and to your accusations you made to me:

a. I watch CNN, read Time and Newsweek, enjoy world politics more than those just in the US, voted for Obama but would have voted for Ron Paul if he stayed in, and come from an upper middle class family.

b. my grades are not incredible, but i do place in the 80 percentile at my school (University of Illinois at Chicago). I'm pretty sure that I am not a moron, and by pretty sure I mean positive. To assume that someone is stupid because you misunderstood what they wrote seems to be more up the alley that you were thinking of.

so from that i hope you can make your assumptions as you see fit. more than likely they will be wrong because despite your e-rage at me, you in fact have no idea who I am and therefore have no right to attack me personally.

I'm not a liberal, next.
note in your profile where it says Political Views.

now, back to global warming.

[Machu505]

Moderates are so boring. It's why I prefer having fairly conservative friends; they're often more interesting than moderate liberals.

[GeeBee]

and as you can see (if you read further on) i noted his point as being mega-liberal, not him.

nice try though. Although im a moderate and thus hold some more liberal viewpoints, i always get a laugh when liberals rage at other people for not being liberal enough. That's why those parties never get anything done, because they are too busy tearing others in those parties apart. Conservatives never get anything done because their ideas are fucking crazy. Oh and to your accusations you made to me:

a. I watch CNN, read Time and Newsweek, enjoy world politics more than those just in the US, voted for Obama but would have voted for Ron Paul if he stayed in, and come from an upper middle class family.

b. my grades are not incredible, but i do place in the 80 percentile at my school (University of Illinois at Chicago). I'm pretty sure that I am not a moron, and by pretty sure I mean positive. To assume that someone is stupid because you misunderstood what they wrote seems to be more up the alley that you were thinking of.

so from that i hope you can make your assumptions as you see fit. more than likely they will be wrong because despite your e-rage at me, you in fact have no idea who I am and therefore have no right to attack me personally.


note in your profile where it says Political Views.

now, back to global warming.

Backtrack as much as you like...you still used the word "liberal" as a pejorative term, which is really fucking stupid.

And given what I've seen you type in this thread...I feel pretty justified in saying that you, yourself, personally speaking...are really fucking stupid.

[open mind]

the way i figure it global warming will turn to global cooling and then we'll see the rise of the great eskimo empire.

[joe has a cat]

It doesn't matter what we do here in America. We could get rid of our emissions completely, but China will do no such thing. They make a lot of money using coal as their energy and I doubt they will stop using it anytime soon. So buckle up people, it may or may not be a bumpy ride.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-china27-2009nov27,0,3694292.story
whether they live up to it or not though at least it's a start.

[joe has a cat]

What's ridiculous is that the scientists are getting death threats. Yeah, really helps their case against it...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm

[joe has a cat]

one last link
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/

[Tead42]

What's ridiculous is that the scientists are getting death threats. Yeah, really helps their case against it...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm
I can genuinely say I am not surprised.

[Jason Tate]

Oh, come on, carbon dioxide is produced by our own bodies and helps plants grow (see earlier link)... increased CO2 in the atmosphere may actually help us undo deforestation. It's a political power move to regulate without going through Congress. Our "greenhouse gases" increased 26 percent in the last decade, but there hasn't been any warming since 1997 (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/07/where-did-all-the-warming-go/). I'm not saying continuing to increase them is a good thing, just that all the predictions so far about the bad things an increase would do have not actually happened.... if greenhouse gases are only a health threat on a macro level because they may ruin the planet, than maybe the EPA should be regulating other health threats like meteors, nuclear bombs, and the excessive use of autotune...
http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif

Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick because NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.

[Jason Tate]

Antarctica has been cooling for 30 years now.

That is why the ice is expanding and breaking off there.
There are two distinct problems with this argument. First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is simply dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/181237/51). In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets, and the conclusions we have seen of some growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet is such a small amount, that with the uncertainty, it might be shrinking. But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be right. Some very recent results (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html) from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that in fact ice mass is on the whole being lost.

Secondly, the phenomenon of thickening of an ice sheet is not by itself inconsistent with warming! Such an increase in ice mass in the face of actual warming would be the result of increasing precipitation and this is fully consistent with the Antarctic in a warming world. The Antarctic is actually one of the most extreme deserts on the planet, and warmer climates tend towards more precipitation. So even if you warmed a whopping 20oC from -50oC, you would still be well below freezing and accumulating snow, not melting in the rain.

While on the subject of ice sheets, Greenland is also growing ice in the centre for the same reasons described above, but it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km^3 of ice annually, doubled now from just a decade ago (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-023). This is a huge amount compared to what the changes may be in the Antarctic, around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea level rise, any potential mitigation due to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is wiped out many many times over by Greenland's ice sheet.

[vodyanoj]

The e-mails about withholding raw data and commands to delete e-mails really look good for the scientific method and transparency, but the worst stuff is not in the e-mails; it's in the logs and computer code. There are posts with actual computer code from the leaked documents (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/) that show an array being used to adjust old numbers downward and new numbers upward. There is also a large file that is essentially a log (http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/30/climategates-harry-read-me-file-is-a-must-read/) of one man's attempt to convert some old temperature records into a newer system... and about how much of an unorganized and confusing mess the old records were in...

LOL. A commented out code that was apparently an early attempt to get a match between observations and predictions and is not used in any real calculation is some kind of a smoking gun? Disorganized, and yes, sometimes very sloppy coding is not a crime.

There is nothing in any of the released data that indicates anything more than sniffiness and sloppy programming habits of the people involved, much as the Inhofes and McIntyres of this world wish there was.

[vodyanoj]

It sounds that by calling it climate change instead of global warming, we will be able to cover our backs for when more and more evidence surfaces suggesting that the earth is actually in a cooling phase. It's like we will still be able to say that it's our fault the climate is changing and that any change in the climate is bad, whether it's warming or cooling.

In fact, it is quite likely that Earth would be in the cooling phase if it wasn't for our interference. The problems start when our interference becomes stronger than the normal cooling trend, as it already has in the polar regions. Again, and for the millionth time: temperatures do not to be steadily increasing, or increasing on all parts of the globe for the average to go up. Right now it is stagnant, and nobody is quite sure why (although the melting of the polar caps, which is accelerating, is a strong contender for a process that absorbs the excess energy...until they melt. As a matter of fact, the loss of polar caps will decrease Earth's albedo and accelerate warming a bit as well. The whole process is a nightmare of feedbacks and chaotic systems but the more I get into it and learn about it, the more I am convinced that we done gone and fucked the planet up right well already).

[vodyanoj]

The earth changed before without us; the question is whether any change now is our fault. Statistics are cherry-picked to sound as bad as possible; the infamous hockey stick was determined by our own Congress to be bogus a few years ago.

Your problem is your faith in the climatologists, whose current doomsday scenarios are the precise reverse of the doomsday scenarios of only a few decades ago.

1.LOL garbage. First of all, Congress determined no such thing. Secondly, of course, even had they done so: so what? What is their field of expertise? Oh, I forgot: emitting hot air. Farting...,:)

2.No they aren't, as a simple google search would show. Or a basic textbook on climatology.

[vodyanoj]

The problem is that I'm not convinced it's only one case. The CRU data has been forwarded and used by a lot of people. It was boasted to closely match GISS data... and if the CRU data was faked can we now entirely trust the GISS data? I mentioned in my first post about how NASA has flip-flopped in recent years on which years were the hottest, and how they've been taking a convenient two years to respond to a request for the raw data.. kinda seems suspicious. Before this leak you might have said there were no cases, and I'm not convinced that one is going to be the maximum here. If it's all real, why the need to fake it?

The problems are that a.no data was faked; b.what you call "flip-flopping" is a normal component of science: as our knowledge increases, we may change our minds about what is going on. It is a part of reality and does not mean that everything we do know at any particular moment is incorrect, or that we are completely ignorant (only partially so); c.raw data has been available by and large; there are datasets that are restricted from public release by their terms of use, but anyone with a wad of cash can go to their providers and purchase their own usage rights.

So yeah, no cases. I like the WaPo op-ed this morning: "[The climate-change scientists] 'actions' here consist of insulting climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and peer-reviewed journals,"

That's about it.

[madelina11]

Backtrack as much as you like...you still used the word "liberal" as a pejorative term, which is really fucking stupid.

And given what I've seen you type in this thread...I feel pretty justified in saying that you, yourself, personally speaking...are really fucking stupid.


to me it doesn't seem like that .. on the contrary .. you seem to be using pejorative terms :)