Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[Skybird]

I'm poutting things togethe rin that way that to me it makes the most sense, takes single details best into account, and matches in the easiest way. This is common procedure in science. If you have several theories to explaind a set of observations and they have the same explaantory value, pick the one which is the less complicated.

Also, I take into account psychological habits of people, that for example is they resist chnage, and want to stay with the old and familiar, because that is known to them, and what is known is associated with security and safety. I also consider who profits most from making society not changing the old ways, and that is the establishment, the profiteers of the old familiar ways and the old fashioned economy game. Those who benefit the most from the status quo have the most to lose.

I already have observed climate changed in my very own life span. I must not wait to see it happening. Summer is not what it was 30 years ago, and winter the same. It is countable fact that the number of regions having to deal with numerous symptoms telling a change to the worse have seen steep increases in the past 20-30 years. weather phenomenons have undergone drastic changes as well. We know for sure that the ocean is changing too, is becoming warmer and of changing ph-indices. We already see a steep rise in natural desasters like landslides and floodings, we see the shifting of climate zones and species following the changing climate barriers, and we see unnormal ground water levels and erosion, loss of agricultural soil and annormal plancton and alga levels in the oceans which have undergone dramatic changes in the past 30 years or so.

But what you are telling us is that these phenomenons are questionable, their mere existence must be researched, and if they exist they mean nothing. sorry, but that is just not good enough.

We have more than enough data to draw parallels to past societies, the way they pumped up population levels, boosted productivity, consumed more ressources than their environment could maintain and replace, and finally collapsing. when there was room to pout aside reserves for future times of crisis, this usually was not done, but the surplus wa sused to grow population level even more, ifngoring that these additonal people have to be fed as well. We also could see parallels between the present and the sociological and political decision-makings of the past. the most stunning thing one could learn if investing time into these matters is: in the past, it were rational, reasonable decisions leading societies into their fall. It's not just some safety failing, one person giving a wrong command. It's something like a psychological double-blind-trap. Often, interests of poltical prestige, religious motives, and power in general went hand in hand in cementing the old ways and habits even when they had become suicidal already. Cultures have a tendency towards not wanting to chnage, to protect their feeling of identity. In this context here, this inner tendency works for our worst.

Just consider this: in classic economy and state theory, growth is assumed to be potentially unlimited, and the needed precondtion to foster society, and produce more common wealth (how I love this word shell). But this growth is what has led us to excessively overconsummate ressources, living beyond our means, destroying our envrionment, and boosting population more and more. We thought and still think that the future generation would fix things, so we party on. Those who habe the most profit at rsik, keep telling us that the debts we make will be dealt with "in the future", when "the ecojoym has become better", etc.etc. etc. I heared this already when being at elementary school. And today, more than thirty years later, they still say the same. Where we are aware of a resources being limited, we think: "okay, it should be saved, but if I do not take it, then somebody else will, so better I take it myself before the others do." Social psychology knows this as the "prisoiner's dilemma", politics knows it as the "dilemma of communal property", it all is variations of these two well-described problems (I even had to talk about it in one of my verbal exams, btw. ). We still argue for unlimited growth in the economy - although the insane Western production levels of material wealth and the creation of Western living standards in no way can be maintained on a global scale, for a population of over 7 billion. This is insanity, and it is potentially suicidal. But still we get preached that what we need is economical growth. As a matter of fact our communbal systems are designed to depend on the financial income this produces, yes. That does not mean their must be growth - it means that the design of our societies is flawed in a very fundamental, most vital basis: it's a flaw that makes sure socieities of our dewsign cannot survive in the long run, and their wealth only is a temporary affair. Those taking profit from this only are intersted in the situation being stable for the duration of their lives. And after them: the flood, who cares. And yes, it is reasonable weighing of options in decision-making, and reasonable thought causing this misery. You see the great danger? Being so rational and reasonable is what is spelling our doom and is ruining the planet. And how could one argue against being reasonable and rational? I tend to praise myself for trying to be rational and reasonable, don't I?

The point is - reasonability and rationality need altruism in the meaning of the old christian concept of "agape" to complement them . Else it is maximum egoism in action. And egoism is what eats us up, one by one, the weak ones first, the strong ones last. That the consequences of our actions unfold slowly and creepingly only, and thus are hard to recognise (like you also do not see the grass growing, but it does - just very slowly), doesn't make it easier.

Instead of trying to establish delays and more delays and make hesitation the rule of the game, we need to understand that the time to understand we are in trouble, is over. The data to understand that - we already do have, and since long. What we need is research not on this old joke, but on the question if and how we could adapt to the challenge - a challenge that we have set up ourselves: rationally and very reasonably, psychologically maybe inevitably, but when taking the problem for itself: unneeded. If we fail, the world will not be the same anymore, and will move on without a global human civilisation. If we succeed (I am pessimistic), the world also will be a very different one afterwards.

Message of that is: the world we know from the present, will no longer be what it was. Man will understand that, or will not - it does not matter. Whether he understands, is not important for the planet, but only for man himself. The situation is not revolving around us - the planet just moves on with it's history, with or without us playing a future role in it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird, I will make it even shorter than your dissertation on what needs to be done. The scientists need to get on the same page. One group says one thing and another group says another thing. Al Gore is wringing his hands. There will always be sceptics. For all we know this is how the dinosaurs became extinct. Theory after theory.


To have global warming stop Al Gore needs to park his Leer Jet.

[AVGWarhawk]

Article on world cooling 1975:

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

So this week we are warming. Next week we will be getting cold. Al Gore continues to wring his hands. Talk about mixed signals.

Then we have this:

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

So really, what is it? Warming? Cooling? Does it matter? Is Al Gore getting another prize?

Here is the best part:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm