Wel done August , you provide a story that says some data was thrown out 30 years ago, before Jones took the job.
So that scuppers Haplos nonsense about Jones throwing out data because he didn't like it.
Then again once you see the "CAPS LOCK" come out like with..........its a pretty good indication that what is written is bollox.
I suppose that should have been obvious as in his first claim in the last post he did big letters and followed it straight away with something that was clearly false.

Not wanting to derail this thread but even the overpopulation myth is a huge source of debate in both political and scientific circles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...pulation-myth/

Fact: The entire current world population can fit into an area the size of Texas giving each person a 33' x 33' plot of land. Admittedly it would be one huge subdivision if you were to do that, but physically the world is far from over populated and we are nowhere near the levels where this sort of drastic subdivision would be necessary.

Largely the problem stems from the lack of agricultural technology and medical programmes being made available to 3rd world countries. I won't go into the debate about the reasons for this as that is the core of the debate, but I'd say both CH and NS are on shaky ground using this debate as an analogy.

Then what is your definition of overpopulated? When those tiny 33'x33' plots cover the entire land mass of the earth? Personally if you tried to stick me in such a small area i'd go buggy pretty quickly.

No, they are not.

Read Jared Diamond: "Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". The book is a real eye-opener. It should become mandatory reading for politicians, business leaders, and school classes. After reading it, it should be self-explaantory why a global population of several billions is nothing else but collective suicide in rates. the planet seem to be able to support such population levels only if you focus on unsufficiently short time periods.

There is much more to it then just "one meadow for every family".

Here is the source information
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
Anyhow they didn't destroy the raw data, they just don't have it on record themselves. Undoubtedly the sources used still have the raw data though. Plus this was done in the 1980's which as they said "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues." is why they don't have the raw data.


Not so much in scientific circles. Even that article admits such with lines like "Unlike almost all other American scholars of the subject, Steven Mosher, president of Population Research Institute and a China expert, does not consider population control to be a worthy goal."

I also have major issues with most of what is said in that article such as "The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher." That completely falls in the face of available data which says the exact opposite, that human growth is still growing at an exponential rate.

I am going to check those figures. <edit> Well the math is right anyways. But I am not sure what the point is. Do you honestly think it would be possible for us to continue to survive anywhere near levels like that. A person couldn't provide enough food and energy to live in a space that small, or anywhere near it, not to mention what about the rest of life on this planet, which we need to survive as well. As an apex species if we trash our environment, we will be among the first species to die off due to our reliance on everything else.

Problem is most of the world is poor for our forms of farming. Also very water intensive (another big problem). Then of course there are the energy demands we put on our environment, food needs including our insistence on eating a meat/fish rich diet, pollution and waste problems etc.

It is not a question if there is enough room for everyone, but can the ecosystem sustain us with out being destroyed in the process. I would say the answer is definatly no given all that is going on in the world.

Why so hard on professors in geography? Does that not include the study of earth sciences? Doesn't physiography fall under the term geography?

And finally, isn't climatology itself considered a field of physical geography?

A cartographer could be a Geography professor, he could even be involved in drawing maps about climate, it doesn't make him an expert in the field of climatology though.

Well these guys have arts degrees in geography (think one had a science degree though), I also did not see any record of them having degrees in climatology, oceanography, environmental geography, or other relevant degrees. But perhaps I am being too hasty in this case. I would have to look into their academic records more closely to be sure.

ok - do you REALLY want to get into this... Fine by me. Its called go read the emails...

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Hiding data - and stating he would VIOLATE the law and DELETE data rather than provide it... not hiding a thing is he Neon?

In 1212063122.txt, Jones urges another colleague, Michael Mann, to join in the deleting
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 </MANN@XXX.EDU></P.JONES@XXXX.UK>
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

The date here is important - as it is 24 days AFTER the first FoIA request, which the CRU acknowledged on May 6th.... This is the intentional deletion of data - data being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed.

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes” </MHUGHES@XXX.EDU></RBRADLEY@XXX.EDU></P.JONES@XXXX.UK>
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignore Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Wouldn't be deleting other model results that don't give the desired result now would he Neon? Can't actually release the data out can we?

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data

Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

How impartial a scientist is Phil Jones? How open to evidence that he may be wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:

…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil

No way the "science" - that he has overseen being modified - could be false huh....

As for the data being "lost" - as CRU claims - its funny that above Jones specifically states as an option the sending of the raw data - or "reconstructing" it .... He had it up until he had to show it to anyone - then it became "lost" - or as his own words show - DELETED....

Oh and as for "well there is a scientific concensus" - check the attempts to stop the publication of papers by sceptics such as Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielk. This is how the image of consensus was forged – in both senses of the word: From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, dated July 8, 2004:
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Note no comment about the science itself in the papers being demonstratably false - oh no. Instead - we will change the rules if need be to only the right people heard - and those people are the ones that agree with the doomsayers... And so someone like you Neon - going out to research the data yourself - still don't get to review all the data - because that which is unfavorable - is kept away from EVERYONE. You get to see only what those with a specific desire as to the outcome decide to make available.

You can spout all this mess you want - but to claim that no data was deleted - when the director of the CRU states as an option to release it - then it suddenly comes up "lost" - give me a break.

And your right - he did "resign" - but do you really think he had any choice? He was booted - the boot just had not hit his A$$ yet..

Don't take my word for it - you like to research - go to http://www.climate-gate.org/ and read every blasted one of them if you want.

Oh wow - some youtube fella had a linguistic answer for 2 emails...... I never had a problem with the "trick" word since I as an engineer understood it. But somehow that explanation makes the whole thing some blown out of proportion, right wing, anti climate change conspiracy... Gimme a break.

Neon - I know your smarter than that. No respectable scientist - or group of scientists - is going to act like the CRU has. Can you tell me honestly that - knowing that the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off of the data provided - "reconstructed" by these same "scientists" at the CRU - should still be considered gospel when the data they are based on is admittedly modified and the original, raw data now "lost"? I know a few scientists in a number of fields - and not a one worth his or her salt would put such faith in research and papers that are based on such questionable foundational data..... An objective scientist wouldn't - because whether on the research side or the applied side - every scientist knows - garbage in = garbage out.

As for the issue of overpopulation - there are a number of things science could be doing about it. How about spending the efforts currently devoted to "OMG the SKY IS falling (figuratively) because of climate change" to things like how can we use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage. How can we find ways to lessen the population load on the planet long term through migration off planet. Yes it might take 25 or 50 years of research. Best to start now huh? Sure parts of this runs into applied science - but it goes back to the MONEY and POLTICS..... because some would rather spend the next 2 decades trying to say "see this or that will happen" instead of finding ways to fix the real problems that affect the earth.

Ok - as for the funding matter -OMG big oil...

Exxon Mobile has spent $23 Million over the last 10 years to research institutes concerned with climate research. That averages less than $2 Million a year.

The US government has spent in that same 10 year period an average of over 2 BILLION dollars a year - going to groups like the CRU....

Oh but BIG OIL!!!! How about BIG GOVERNMENT??? Lets look at JUST the recovery act of 2009

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssets/spec.pdf

Gee - 2 Million to $170 Million in STIMULUS - and thats just ONE dip from the government.... Lets not forget that 2 million also goes to the "support and maintenance" - so really its 2 Million to substantially more than 170 Million.... In one shot. And you know full well that the this was stimulus - not what they already get in the budget. So calling it 2 Million to 840 Million is no stretch at all (adding the 170 and 660).

You tell me - who is funded better there????

Ok... you know - the climate doomsayers must be right. There is no wrongdoing in knowingly violating FoIA laws and intentionaling deleting data - or telling others to do it. There is nothing wrong with making sure no one with a differeing view doesn't get heard. There is nothing wrong with pointing at Big Oil as the evil demon spending Big Money when the government spends anywhere from 85 to 420 times more at the drop of a hat...

It is documentable facts like the above - that makes this whole subject like watching the wizard of oz.... people standing there going "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!".

I will look into your allegations this weekend when I have some time. In the mean time I'll state the obvious problem with these emails you are highlighting, that they are take wholly with out any context. We do not know what any of these emails are referring to at all. Thus with out context they are in of themselves meaningless.

I know some of what is going on there is due to certain data being IP which can't be publicly released with out the consent of the owners of the IP data.

More later when I have some time to do the necessary researching to properly tackle what you have presented.

No, not really. I mean, like you said (and like he said), the data would be deleted, not hidden. The reason mentioned in the beginning. As it stands, though, you do not have evidence that through deleting the data he was attempting to conceal anything in the first place, so any assertion that he was is merely a baseless claim. It also states in his email that he sent the information from research stations already acquired to Scott:

"Just sent loads of station data to Scott."

As a rule of thumb within the scientific research community, information stored on computers is passed along through the chain of command. And eventually, it's archived for use in the field. The data Scott was given was lost after his laptop's hard drive crashed; the only thing really wrong with it that the skeptics have been able to complain about are "typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing" (according to the Wall Street Journal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021404283.html). Typos in the dates and sloppiness in sourcing hardly disprove the entire field of global climate change science, let alone the particular sect the University of East Anglia specifically researches. The thoughts held by some of the skeptics (mentioned by the WSJ) that are exactly like this are, to put it bluntly, ignorant- trying to strengthen their position by attempting to pass off the notion that these minuscule problems are in fact gigantic. They're as bad as the people who, in the middle of a debate on the losing side, bring attention to the winning side's bad grammar or spelling, when and if it does exist.

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

What is citing this quote supposed to prove? Because it doesn't confirm anything. Again, you're using something so vague that if you presented it in front of a court, the judge would laugh his ass off and dismiss it.

"We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
"He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that."

The same above applies to these quotes. They're vague, and consequently meaningless and useless when it comes to trying to confirm that this is all some kind of conspiracy they've conjured up and are now trying to obliterate all proof of.

. . . .

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

As I have said, and will say for the third time, what exactly does this confirm? And I shall reiterate: nothing, because they're way too vague to be basing any skepticism which you hold on, let alone submit to us as "evidence" for this all being some kind of conspiracy.

But you still haven't concretely established that it was deleted for the reasons you and your lot say it was. As I previously mentioned, the first email quote you posted on here stated that the information had already been passed along to Scott, who is a colleague of Dr. Jones' in studying climate change. Furthermore, the claim that the deletion of the data was intentional "so that it may not be reviewed" shows the lack of familiarity you have with how the scientific archiving process works (previously mentioned), let alone logic riddled with holes. If he was trying to destroy all evidence of contradictory scientific findings about climate change, why would he pass the results from the research stations along to Scott, his colleague? The point is to eliminate all of it, and not allow any of it to be available. That is, of course, assuming that he did/does have some kind of malicious motives compelling him to take these actions.Apparently, you in addition to the bimbos they're referring to have no idea what he's talking about here. I suggest you do some Googling.Dr. Jones is well aware that the hockey stick graphs (three of them circulated, anyway) were contaminated by flaws in the methodology by researchers. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The Third Assessment Report was dominated by the hockey sticks story, but the IPCC has fully acknowledged the flaws with the three circulated models. Still, skeptics of climate change ignore this and continue to claim it proves the IPCC is lying and that this is all a conspiracy.

Because any comment Dr. Francis could make about the data looking similiar to the Mann-Bradley-Hughes model would be irrelevant. Why? Because we the MBH model does nothing but confirm the data the University of East Anglia has produced.

See the graphs for comparison.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/m...EB_figure5.jpg

What these bits of graphical data show is simple: the temperatures are steadily rising, and have been for centuries; but what it also shows is that around the beginning of the Industrial Age and Second Industrial Revolution when coal-burning factories were producing billions of tons of pollution and CO2 and CFCs into the atmosphere. The sudden climb in temperature around this period is evidence that the industrial side of civilization can easily influence the climate. In short: it's showing that man does have a large impact on the environment. Did... and does.

You are aware that Dr. Jones never has gotten along well with the IPCC, because of their previous flaws in methodology (the hockey stick situation that was their fault in the first place), yes?Hey- you said it, Neon never did. Neither did I. Nor did the scientists.

You have no idea what a subset removing station's job is in this field of science, do you? Well that's not new. This discussion has shown me that much. I suggest you get to Googling again. Anyway, as far as his beef with the nations mentioned are concerned, they're all part of the United Nations and affiliated with the IPCC. We've already covered that Jones is not to be noted for his fondness of them.

The early stations he's referring to are part of the University of East Anglia's satellite research project. NASA uses thousands of these same types of stations around the world. The university has a few hundred, many of which are in the same general localities. It would be repetitive and clotting to use the same data in the same report- clotting as in a waste of space. Again, this is standard procedure. Basically, all the stations they were using (as far as the end is concerned) were outdated in terms of the coding processes (which is an issue he addressed earlier in the email). Moving to raw data to other, more recently added stations would provide for more modern results (hence the reference to raw data; you see, Hap, raw data is a very good thing in scientific research, because it is the latest available, meaning that you can make near immediate comparisons to past data), whilst these newer stations would at the same time have older records archived.

Here is a chart showing the distribution of stations they have on planet Earth (current and historical):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_Stations.png

The GHCN would be annoyed. After all, he would be "stealing" their data since he's also using their stations. At least, that's how they view it.

What does this prove? Nobody has a copy of the Ch6. AR4 document he's referring to. More mindless speculation and accusations made by the skeptical community.:nope:

How is that a confession? It's not. A confession would be: "Yeah, we've been forging and creating all this data for decades as part of a global conspiracy to perpetuate the charaderated pseudoscientific topic that is global warming/climate change; and furthermore, that man has any responsibility for it." Your mind has a strange way of thinking when it comes to verbiage subjects.

Anything could be. But speaking from the standpoint of facts and evidence, the way a court would view it, it's not fake. The way the majority of the scientific community views it: it's not fake. And that's how simple it is.

Correction: the CRU stated that the data was lost, true, but it's not Jones' data they're referring to; it's the copies Scott had been given by Jones that he was supposed to archive. As I talked about earlier, the hard drive the files were on crashed. The data was unrecoverable.

What attempts? Dr. Freitas is a well-known and respected member of the scientific community. He has his rivals, but the man is free to express his opinion. He himself though has not headed any research projects into the subject of climate change or global warming. All the jobs he's held in the scientific community have been social in nature. He writes columns now for magazines and papers, he is the Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand (even though his P.h.D.s extend primarily in technology and he holds not one pertaining to meteorology), and he created the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum. But as far as research goes, he's done very little on this subject.

Pielke is not a skeptic of climate change. That's a very common misconception by your lot. He has stated, and I quote, that the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers. (source: http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf)

"Redefine" does not mean "forge", as you claimed, in the dictionary, mon ami.

This conclusion, of course, being entirely centered around the skeptical interpretation of the emails, and not the proper manner: to look at it as a court would, on a factual level. And the facts are showing more and more than through misinterpretation, misappropriation, bias, unprofessionalism, ignorance, and so much more.

Tell you what, because you *obviously* have all the knowledge and skills and a *titanic* amount of experience in scientific research, why don't you do this: do your own scientific research on this matter. By that I mean conduct an experiment for yourself. You can buy the equipment to do it (it's not too expensive), set it up yourself and record your findings (because of your massive amount of experience, this should be easy), and then watch for a few years how the climate in the country is behaving. It's really very easy. Plenty of amateur scientists and researchers do it. I myself study it daily. I've bought some monitors to check humidity, temperature, cloud cover and the lot, been able to openly access live satellite data from literally hundreds of organizations the world over that study the climate professionally, and I've got the patience to do it. Computing power won't be a problem for you. Even a chap running a computer from 1995 with an Internet connection could do it.

Likewise.

We've covered this already.

Well there's nothing you've presented to even remotely suggest that he didn't have a choice. The latter statement by you is just one of many baseless claims I've read on here today.

Lol, "Climate-Gate". It's amusing and yet a sad reflection on society today about how people have such difficulty realizing how this propaganda game works. Do you really think they're even going to concede one inch of ground in this debate to the people who know that climate change is occurring? Of course not. Because it would damn their position in all this. Of course you'll then get the claim that the scientific community is no better- that they would do the exact same thing. So again, if you really think that, go out and conduct research on the climate for yourself. It's really not that difficult. But I already know what's going to happen. You're going to create an excuse for why you can't. Aside from your ignorance on science as a whole, you know very little if anything significant about this debate. You copy & paste all your "facts" from other peoples' posts from various sites around the Internet. Your emails section of your post had parts taken directly from Sweetness & Light:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/e...cru-head-jones

"The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):"
"For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:"
"And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:"

You had those exact same sentences in your post, when they were not by you. They originated from the website I posted a link to. That's called infringement and it's very illegal.

We're not the ones claiming its a conspiracy by "right-wing, anti-climate change" groups/people/whatever, or for that matter coming up with kooky names like "Climate-Gate" to describe what we've found. We're simply saying that the skeptics are misled from incorrect and inaccurate data that's scientifically valid in nature. That's all. We have no problem with questioning the results (in fact, we encourage it), but when it gets this ridiculous, it's time to stop. Any idiot with a web connection and a thermometer could see on the most basic level possible that the atmosphere and as a consequence temperate are being influenced by man in some fashion, aiding to the problem that is global warming. But that's exactly the problem: nobody ever does this. The critics always stick to fighting the actual papers and words with more papers and words, never actually going out and conducting experiments to confirm or refute their hypotheses (in this case, that global warming aided by man is a hoax). That's nothing but sheer laziness. No excuse for it whatsoever.

And yet statistically, surveys show that the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community stands by/with the CRU's conclusion that global warming is at least partially caused by man.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html

What's your citation for "the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off the data provided - 'reconstructed' by these same 'scientists' at the CRU" (and I stress the climate views and papers part)?

WHO IN THE NAME OF GOD EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING THE PAPERS AS "GOSPEL"? Jesus, man... you've got a long ways to go on the field of science.:nope:

Ah yes, the old "I know/have this friend" argument; almost a perfect replica of the "My grandfather/father/grandmother/mother/uncle/aunt/cousin" argument. People that try to drag in personal parts of life related just to them fail. Hard. The reason being we have no way to confirm/refute your stories. Which is exactly why it's not used in professional debates; only facts and logic are used...

An objective scientist also wouldn't take research papers as "gospel", as you previously stated...

You're right. Just like there's a number of things religion could be doing about it... like stop saying condoms are against the will of the invisible man in the sky and abortions are nothing but concentrated evil rituals... damn Catholics. For that matter, stop complaining about sex education being taught in schools. Maybe stop bitching about rights and let us implement a population control system like China used to use. (If you're going to bash science, then I'm going to take the opportunity to take it out on religion- which continues to be the archenemy of science to this day. Just thought I'd throw that out there for sh**s and giggles).

First, we'll have bigger problems if the climate goes to hell. Chiefly: witnessing the extinction of our entire species and knowing Earth will become the half-extreme brother of Venus in terms of atmospheric conditions. Second, what are you talking about- "how we can use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage"? Third, it's obvious you're still very naive when it comes to science; don't try to pass yourself off as this benign intelligence on it.

Before we talk about colonizing space, which is going to be a VERY long ways off in the future, why don't we focus on more currently feasible, down-to-earth ideas? Like birth control, population control, sex education in school, etc.

Try a few hundred. I will be very lucky if I live to see man walk on Mars by the time I'm 253-years-old. It's not as easy as you make it sound. Really, it isn't.

With the way the economy has been for the past four years? Yeah, that's a great idea... blow our money away on space colonization- which may just as well be a matter of science fiction because of how difficult it is at the moment and the amount of time it will take. We'd be better off managing the climate first, then attempting to find a backup world we could inhabit. Which is going to take quite some time.

A lot of it comes down to applied sciences.

And it's apparent that you have no idea what the real problems are that are affecting Earth, or, for that matter, how to approach solving them in the first place.

Put your soapbox up and go find somewhere else to preach your political shenanigans. Climate change is a scientific issue, not one for politics. Politics can intrude into it when discussing conspiracy theories (that it's all some kind of movement by the left/right to profit/control-the-masses; you know how it goes), but we're arguing over whether or not the RESEARCH is valid and accurate and whether or not the scientists conducting it are trustworthy.

Page Not Found

The page you requested wasn't found at this location.

:shifty:

Hey man- you said it. We the "climate doomsayers" didn't. But this is an issue we've already addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo There is nothing wrong with making sure no one with a differeing view doesn't get heard. There is nothing wrong with pointing at Big Oil as the evil demon spending Big Money when the government spends anywhere from 85 to 420 times more at the drop of a hat...

That's hardly the case and you know it. We're not the ones playing the victim card here. It's your lot who frequently says it's being oppressed, it's your lot (or at least you, anyway) that's been misrepresenting the facts here (and I've already addressed that issue), and it's your lot that's doing nothing scientific to invalidate current climate change theories and "expose" it as some big conspiracy/hoax- even when it's perfectly capable of doing it.


IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO SPEND MONEY. At least, it's in the job description. Asides from using it to improve on national areas (a variety of which I cannot even begin to touch upon in a single post), do you not understand that it's because they spend this money that we have what we have around us- that we have the country we have today and will hopefully continue to have in the future? Has it been all good? No. But it hasn't been all bad either. Anybody who thinks it has been... well, they're a bit rusty when it comes to US history.




And it's our documented facts that are always there to remind people of the truth, and assure them that, "Don't worry, the Wizard of Oz is just a fictional story."




You mean the same way the "Climate-Gate" conspiracy theorists/wannabe hoax "debunkers" stand around going, "Ignore the scientists and the information/resources you can find all over the world that can confirm what they're saying! Everything is fine! Don't waste your time investigating the matter for yourselves! Listen to us! We've got all the answers! Just like the guys over on 911Truth.com!"? Which is all any of you do practically. You yourself obviously haven't bothered to do any real research in the matter (and by that, I mean you haven't made a dedicated effort to understanding this topic- let alone attempted to become a part of the scientific community to understand how it works). Thank Odin, however, that people like your lot are not the ones heading the major scientific organizations researching climate change. And may it remain that way for as long as human civilization endures.:up:

That must be just about the funniest thing ever written here.

Wowh Stealth Hunter that may be a length record at least for this year so far. :DL I got a cramp in my finger when scratching on that mouse wheel.

Hello,
all i can say as a geologist is that CO2 values are indeed rising on an alarming level. They have before, but not in such a short time. If you want to know what the world looks like after global warming you can look at the Perm time interval. It did not extinct all life, but it was bad enough. And it took some hundred-thousand years to develop this climate, after volcanic mass eruptions and the following glasshouse effects.

There are also a lot of chemicals eating away excessive CO2 for a certain time, but as scientific results have also shown those buffers are currently running full, or better said they are becoming saturated. Another buffer are plants, who actually like CO2 and will grow big and fast - but with the eroding forests all over the world, this buffer is made physically smaller.

The current rise of this climate-changing gas is indeed being held back, and buffered, also e.g. by calcium-carbonate in the oceans, and large gas hydrate deposits in Siberia, and the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

The problem is that with rising temperatures, those reservoirs acting as buffers will release their accumulated CO2 again, since they can only hold back its buffers under certain climate conditions (read moderate temperature). Simple chemical reaction due to temperature changes. So rising temperature which will pose an even bigger problem, because it will speed up things badly.
Fact is we ARE screwing up our tiny little world, but people just do not want to hear it. As Stealth Hunter said, the evidence is everywhere, just inform yourself.

I still wonder why the people are so angry at Al Gore - i mean he did not become president, he was/is right, and that he makes some money with it - hey the people at least listen to him - what obviously does NOT happen when scientists speak the truth.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

P.S. b.t.w Stealth Hunter - very good diagrams.

Stealth Hunter....

Attacking me with claims of "you stole this from another website illegally" won't help you - since your source is incorrect and your point flawed.
My source was not the link you provided - but THIS one:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_dam n_professor_jones#63704

Which note is an article not copyrighted and in the public domain - so it does not REQUIRE sourcing - though I don't mind showing the source. As you can see - its from the Australian Herald Sun.... News groups that post articles or blogs put them in the public with no copyright. Nice attempt at "attack the person" standard leftist tactic though. Not sayiing you are leftists - but your attempt to use the strategy - and failing - is at least public. Kindly don't call me a thief when the facts show that I am not one.

Now - as for your "these emails prove nothing" and "a judge would laugh you out of his courtroom" - how much have you practiced law? While I am no attorney - I HAVE represented myself in court (and won BTW) - and I can speak to the use of emails specificaly because I DID use emails from another person. The emails are admissable under the rules establishing INTENT and as evidence of a person's willingness to act in a stated way. This applies to US courts, I can't speak to non-US ones. In a US court - the emails regarding deletion would stand showing Jones' INTENT to insure such data could never be viewed by outside sources.

So - what does the first email prove? At the least - an ethical violation - KNOWING that a law exists, and stating that he (Jones) will act in violation to that law should an FoIA request be made. But look closer. Check the timeline... CRU acknowledged an FoIA request regarding AR4 on May 6th (request made dated May 5). On May 9th, Jones emails his co-workers and discusses OPTIONS on what to release in regards to that FoIA request. On May 26, he emails the parties involved and requests they DELETE the emails regarding AR4 that have been requested under the FoIA. Thus - he KNOWINGLY REQUESTED THE DELETION OF DATA THAT WAS PROTECTED UNDER FoIA LAW. That is more than an "ethical violation" - it is a criminal act. But hey, in Stealth Hunter world, there was nothing done wrong....

:doh:

On a total side note - the FoIA laws do not allow Jones or anyone else to "reconstruct" or alter in any way the data from its original form. The FoIA is there so that what is requested is provided in an untampered with state. His discussed "options" - the two regarding subsets and reconstructed data - would also have violated FoIA law had they been done. The fact is he wanted to, and attempted to, avoid compliance with the law as shown by his own emails.


As for climate-gate.org - you didn't even look at it obviously. Had you done so you would have noted that the site simply compiled and made searchable the raw emails themselves - without commentary pro or con. They even went so far as to make the point that the emails are "alleged" - though the parties involved have not denied the veracity of them. Yet by looking at the "name" of the site you dismiss it. Showing your own highly advanced objectivity and willingness to look at the facts again eh? :hmmm:

For the whitehouse link - try it again. I did it this morning and it opened right up. The full link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssets/spec.pdf and opens a PDF file. Perhaps someone else can try it and confirm it since you seem to not be able to reach the data.... To help you out, the part I quoted was at the beginning of page 28 (its a 430 page doc). The report is labelled:

Analytical Perspectives
Budget of the U.S. Government
Fiscal Year 2010

And your right - it is the job of the government to spend money. However, what I put out there was the comparison that was being made between "big oil" money going to "skeptic" groups and the money that is thrown at "believers" - like NOAA. It was in response to the point that Neon made regarding who is funded better.

But again, you knew that - yet you tried to divert it into something else. The whole wizard of oz all over again - and yes, you can assure people the story is make believe, all the while you try and hide behind the curtain and play "mr wizard" to get those who question to just shut up.

As for all the "you have a long way to go" and such.... I would submit that true scientists - as compared to those at the CRU - are interested in accuracy vs specific results. Good scientists don't have problems with people looking at the data and finding flaws, because that makes the SCIENCE stronger long term. If you read the emails, multiple CRU members specifically stated that they did not want to be reviewed by any "outsider" who was skeptical because "all they wanted to do was find something wrong with the science" - as if that was a bad thing to move the science itself forward.

It is the holier than thou, attack the messenger and violate the rules of ethics, law and good science attitude that gives every skeptic and laypersion pause, and a darned good right - to question this mess.

Except for in Stealth Hunter world, where knowingly violating law isn't really wrong... Maybe the SH5 flying unicorn people are there in that world too?

So a political blogger who works for murdoch and has a history of misrepresenting things and simply making up "facts".
It just gets better and better.:har:

Hello,
always believe the mineral oil industry. They often say the same as politicians who come from there - enough proof that this is the truth. :O:

"Just live, don't think for yourselves, spend money and be happy - we will deal with the rest." :rotfl2:

Greetings,
Catfish

Birds shrink:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/8560694.stm

Catfish - neither I nor anyone else that I know of in this thread have said "just believe big oil over the scientists". I simply have pointed out that the data - from the CRU - which has been the leading authority on climate data - is highly suspect, and that environmental science research into continuing the climate change emergency is BIG MONEY.

The data - which is foundational to most of the papers concerning climate change, is suspect - since the actions and motivations of those who make the data available (and note that they only do so to those who will agree that global warming is real for the most part) are demonstratably, in their own words and deeds - show a non-objective approach to the "science".

The facts regarding how much money is spent on research simply shows how, if the whole thing went away tommorow - those involved in putting forth the enhanced greenhouse effect would stand to lose a LOT of money - so there are reasons outside of good science (which their actions have thrown away already) for the veracity of the data to be questioned.

Nobody said "Just live and dont worry about it" - in fact - cleaning up the SCIENCE of it might just solve the majority of the debate. But until the science is clean, it is unconscienable for one side to castigate the other for daring to QUESTION.