Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[NeonSamurai]

I would say that he shouldn't quit his day job, but he sucks at that too.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I would say that he shouldn't quit his day job, but he sucks at that too.

That is the problem, Al has made climate change his job... Pays well and comes with prizes.

[Skybird]

Attempted breaches show larger effort to discredit climate science:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2300282


Scientists of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, that has contributed to the IPCC report, also reports a recent raise in systematic attempts to breach their internal computer systems' security.

In Novembre, the server of realclimate.org, a major platform where scientists rallied that support the theory of GW, has come under increased fire in an attempt to breach it.

As I already said earlier, to me this email scnadal is just part of a huge offensive of the interested economic circles that want to prevent changes to the current business routines at all cost.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hah, I'm guessing some folks want to get to the bottom of this issue. This will blow over as soon as the 140 aircraft land in Copenhagen for the conference! Carbon Credits for all!

[Skybird]

Actually I am critical of Kopenhagen, because politicians still raise the - false - impression that it is within their reach to adress major issues with climate if only they wish that. But the truth is that the tagetted CO2 emmission cuts are expensive, and simply are not enough both in quality and quantity, and even this insufficient goal will not be met anyway.

German edition of Der Spiegel has a good essay on right this today, to my surprise matching my own opinion to very wide degrees. I hope they translate it for their international edition in the coming days, then I will link it.

[SteamWake]

This should be enough to give anyone pause...

(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099

[Skybird]

Actually you are pointing at a problem that is impossible to be solved by current paradigms, Respenus.

We are too many people on this planet.

The standard by which we politically define the material propserity of people that is understood to be their natural right, is defined by Wetsern stnadrs. And these standards are way too high.

Supporting prosperity for so many people on basis of such excessive living standards, is impossible.

Even if we would massively lower the living standards for all people, including ourselves, we would be too many people.

And even if we would be only a fraction of the global population we are today, our current living standards would be too high.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

This should be enough to give anyone pause...



http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099

Pelosi is just flat out dangerous and needs to join reality with the rest of us.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Actually I am critical of Kopenhagen, because politicians still raise the - false - impression that it is within their reach to adress major issues with climate if only they wish that. But the truth is that the tagetted CO2 emmission cuts are expensive, and simply are not enough both in quality and quantity, and even this insufficient goal will not be met anyway.

German edition of Der Spiegel has a good essay on right this today, to my surprise matching my own opinion to very wide degrees. I hope they translate it for their international edition in the coming days, then I will link it.

Actually they were very quick. Here it is:

"Why failure in Copenhagen would be a success"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...665703,00.html

[Respenus]

Gentlemen, if you would, I would like to barge in and have a say.

Many things have been said in this thread, from both sides of the argument. Yet it does not matter how much evidence you show in support of either side, the question of climate change is a sociological and cultural one. Just as religion, you cannot expect anyone to change their minds unless there is some great cataclysm which will prove an argument once and for all. Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, which may or may not be purely subjective, depends on how you wish to see me, climate change does exist and all evidence shown by the other side can stand only inside its own construct, that is without any additional and different evidence. Yet I'm digressing from what I wanted to say.

It does not matter of you believe/have a rational explanation in climate change, accelerated climate change or just natural cycles. Climate change is a question of human rights and the question of famine, poverty and development. The Millennia Goals were set for a reason, and by states which are far from being an actor to ever set eyes of its own goals, that is power and even more power. Here lies also the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans. It is our different political paradigm that influences our views on climate change and how it should be solved and its damages mitigate. Yet again, I digress.

The importance of climate change is the fundamental change of paradigm in the way we interpret our world. I would like to call it rationalism (not only a method (empirical evidence+deductive reasoning), yet a system of action, a behaviour if I may call it that). We have come to realise, at least certain parts of our societies have, that there are millions out there, that suffer under the yoke of capitalism and economic liberalism that we have put around their necks and the sting of colonialism is still felt strong. Our strong-headed defiance to their claims will change nothing and even worsen the situation, to the point that we risk once again staring into a barrel of a gun. If economic ideology did not have the strength to destroy us all, it will be the question of climate change.

One thing that we are forgetting is that there is more to the world than just our materialist needs inside our closed communities. The governments of the world are meeting in extreme places to show that climate change is happening, no matter who's fault it is, although out actions are far from helpful, anyone must admit that. Even if this is something out of our hands, we have billions out there who live worse lives than frankly an animal. There are numbers that show that the billion most poor live worse than any medieval European peasant did (Katschinski lectures in Ljubljana). Who are we to today these people the right to exercise their reason and to live a dignified life, which we defend inside our comfortable and protected habitats, while denying it to those outside.

As I have mentioned, it is the way we look at the world that has slightly changed and that will change again in the future and this is something both sides have to expect. The change is both socio-economical and cultural in nature and will have profound influence on the way our world and the Homo sapiens sapiens species will develop in the future. Why has Desertec failed? The human condition. Which brings me to another point in this short post of mine. Even if we reduce all our emissions to 0% with renewable energy (solar) (let us forget about the cost for the moment, although again, economy isn't an argument that can stand to any logic), it is the resources which we do not and will have even less in the future. We have polluted our waters, destroyed our ecosystems and have come to the point where our food output can be expected to start falling, rather than decreasing. The only possible change is advanced aeroponics with GMOs, something which I am not right not willing to accept.

Even if food is not the question, what about the premise of capitalism? Are we really to expect infinite growth with finite resources? We have tried to combat this with sustainable development. An interesting experiment, which unfortunately has so far failed miserably. As someone has mentioned, it is the number of people that is too great to be supported, climate change or not. How can we expect everyone in the world to achieve a similar standard of living, even under the presumption of a rational individual and a pure socialist economic system? An utopia? Maybe? That does not mean it should not be explored, at least intellectually.

So what have I come to in this post of mine? Nothing actually, just a rant probably, but one which will point out that there is something some outside this world of ours than just economy and growth and that there are human beings being denied the right to prosper and grow and contribute to the development of the common humanity we are all members of.

I would only like to ask those who are crazy enough to respond to do so diligently and in an academic manner. I did not have enough time to present all my evidence, yet I did point out the basic outline. Questions asked will be answered as soon as humanly possible, to other I ask only to restrain your emotions and respond as rationally as possible.

[Torpex752]

My thoughts are this....The "leaders" of nations and bussiness while not technical experts had within their reach experts who could have at any time been asked to provide simple (plain language) data regarding the effects of production and operations. To deny the fact that these leaders of goverment or Industries knew or deliberately ignored the effects of their operations, one is missing (IMHO) a key issue. Responsibility.

In effect, if one were to place responsibility on this issue, if it could be conclusively proven to be human induced, I believe it lies with the producers, not the consumers. Yet, the consumers are in essence blamed for this because we consumed oil, gasoline, products, etc..Yet our "profits" in this case were not financial but functional. Some say dont look for blame, but is not taxation just another way of placing accountability on someone? For even if this Treasonous Treaty did only levy fines and taxes on the producers would it not ultimately land on the backs of those who use the products?

So what is this meeting? The same people (or their representatives) who caused a problem (directly or indirectly) are now proposing the solution. I'd call that a conflict of interest, and unacceptable.

Solutions can only be found in the truth derived from concrete facts, until that time comes its all a scheme to redistribute wealth shrouded in the cover of "save the world" and IMHO, nothing more. Not saying that Climate Change isnt happening, just on the fence about the whole, "its mankinds fault and now you all must pay" line I dont buy and who it is thats spouting it.

[Skybird]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-be-fifth-warm

[Sailor Steve]

Nice try Sky, but this thread is about possible lies spread by the Global Warming community. I don't pretend to know what's true in this case, but did you even consider the possibility that the people in that article might be some of the ones whose character is in question?

Just throwing out a link doesn't prove your point.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Torpex752

My thoughts are this....The "leaders" of nations and bussiness while not technical experts had within their reach experts who could have at any time been asked to provide simple (plain language) data regarding the effects of production and operations. To deny the fact that these leaders of goverment or Industries knew or deliberately ignored the effects of their operations, one is missing (IMHO) a key issue. Responsibility.

In effect, if one were to place responsibility on this issue, if it could be conclusively proven to be human induced, I believe it lies with the producers, not the consumers. Yet, the consumers are in essence blamed for this because we consumed oil, gasoline, products, etc..Yet our "profits" in this case were not financial but functional. Some say dont look for blame, but is not taxation just another way of placing accountability on someone? For even if this Treasonous Treaty did only levy fines and taxes on the producers would it not ultimately land on the backs of those who use the products?

So what is this meeting? The same people (or their representatives) who caused a problem (directly or indirectly) are now proposing the solution. I'd call that a conflict of interest, and unacceptable.

Solutions can only be found in the truth derived from concrete facts, until that time comes its all a scheme to redistribute wealth shrouded in the cover of "save the world" and IMHO, nothing more. Not saying that Climate Change isnt happening, just on the fence about the whole, "its mankinds fault and now you all must pay" line I dont buy and who it is thats spouting it.

The coming global climate change has been reported at least since 1975, in this Newsweek cover story, and it was really urgent then that we take corrective action before it was too late. Somehow...somehow we have managed to survive another 35 years...but still, I'm concerned.

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now (emphasis added). The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.

See? Oh, wait, what?

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.

Cooling down? Oh, maybe the scientists were wrong then.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

The coming global climate change has been reported at least since 1975, in this Newsweek cover story, and it was really urgent then that we take corrective action before it was too late. Somehow...somehow we have managed to survive another 35 years...but still, I'm concerned.

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.

Ironic that 35 years ago they were proposing covering the Arctic ice cap with soot. Currently, there's some genius proposing painting bare rocky areas of the Andes Mountains white to slow down glacial melt. Apparently, painting every rooftop white won't be enough. I'd buy Sherwin-Williams stock for sure.

It kinda reminds me of these conflicting scientific studies that come out every few months stating coffee or some other staple item is good...no, bad....no, good for you.