Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[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.

[magic452]

I'm nine days older than dirt and in all my years I have yet to see an "EXPERT" predict a future event in regards to the climate short term or long.

It's cooling down, heating up, will take 15 years to recover from this drought, etc, etc. Wrong every time.

They really don't know what they are talking about but they are sure making a lot of money off this thing. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good paycheck or story.

They're using questionable and unreliable data to spend trillions world wide.
For most governments this is just a way to bring in more tax dollars.

As for the "lost data" "The dog eat my homework." Quote by RR

There is little doubt that the climate is changing but what's new about that? It's cooled down and warmed up through it's history. It's been warming up since about George Washington's time.

The big question is, is man responsible for the the recent change??????
I don't think they really know.

A serious question. My time on the net is limited so I haven't looked it up yet.

What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere now and what was it say 10, 20 and 50 years ago? Not how much are we making but how much is really in play and does this percentage correlate with the warming trend.
I've never even seen this relationship mentioned. If the increase in atmospheric CO2 doesn't correspond with temperatures, Why not? What is the relationship?

It appears that we are in a slight cooling period for the last few years but CO2 has increased. Why?????? Are there natural factors in play here and if so why are these natural factors not responsible for most if not all the recent warming?

Man causes warming but natural factors cause cooling???? You can't have your cake and eat it too. What caused warming and cooling in the past and why is it different now?

These questions should be answered with open and honest data before we spend trillions on a problem we don't really know exist.

I have an open mind on this, it's just I haven't seen anything, that I truly believe, presented. Too many people with an agenda putting out all the information, I really don't trust them. Too much money and too many egos involved. There is an old saying "figures lie and liers figure"

Magic

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by magic452

I'm nine days older than dirt and in all my years I have yet to see an "EXPERT" predict a future event in regards to the climate short term or long.

In 1963 I visited Salt Lake City, eight years before I actually moved here. At that time local scientists were predicting that at the then-current rate of receding, the lake would be nothing but a salt flat by the end of the century.

In 1975 they noticed that the lake had stopped drying and had stabilized. They said that the likely answer was that at some point the salinity was so high that the water stopped evaporating.

1983: After two record winters (Alta had almost twice its 500-inch fall, and at some points the snow was over 200 inches deep), the huge underwater storage tanks were full and Salt Lake City got flooded. State Street was turned into a sandbag river for several months.

1985: The Great Salt Lake had risen from 29 feet at the deepest point to 34 feet, and some folks were worried that the city itself would be threatened. The worst that happened was that the water table under the airport came close to making the runways sag, but the only real problem was that the freeway and railroads had to be raised and moved at quite an expense.

The point is that once again the experts had no real clue as to what was going to happen.

[Respenus]

No, you Americans are right. Why the hell should you stop consumption at any rate, even if your CO2 emissions per capita are 19.1 tons. Why care about other areas of the world, where climate change is already visible and people are on the verge of quite literary loosing the land under their feet?

Of course science changes. That's what it does. If the variables change, so does the end result of the equation. That doesn't mean that the equation is wrong and this is what it is all about. Yes, climate change advances differently that we predicted and it will do so to a varying degree as long as Earth has an atmosphere. That in no way means that it isn't here, human made or otherwise. But in a fragile system that is our environment, a single grain of dust at the wrong place at the wrong time can cause catastrophic consequences. Global warming? Bah! If the Atlantic current stops once more when all the of Greenland's ice melts and when the Arctic is just another battleground for oil and gas, then we'll all see global warming

Just so you know, as I haven't seen any of this data posted here, yet it was presented to us by the Slovenian IPCC representative (deserves all the respect, so I won't have any attacks just because you feel like it), we are already masking around 2 degree increase. Over one degree is covered by the world oceans, with the Pacific having the greatest effect right now. Half a degree is masked by aerosolic particles in the air due to air travel. And over half a degree is already visible.

So much about conspiracy theories.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Respenus

No, you Americans are right.

"You Americans"? America is hugely divided on this question. I agree consumption should be cut by any reasonable means. I agree that we need to react as if every single claim about warming and greenhouse gasses is true. And I also think Al Gore is an idiot.

And I also see the need not to blind ourselves to the possibility that some folks are indeed lying about the numbers. Dishonesty in a noble cause is still dishonesty.

[Stealth Hunter]

What people are ignoring the most is that, even if the claims about the planet's climate changing due to man are false, that doesn't change the fact that these emissions from factories and cars and the like still dump large levels of pollution and poisonous gases into the atmosphere (like arsenic, radon, oxygen difluoride, phosphine, dinitrogen tetroxide, etc.). So if we do start cutting down on these emissions, we'll also be significantly reducing the number of these hostile gases to life here on Earth in general. Granted the whole thing about climate change by man will be false, but the effects of cutting emissions would nevertheless be great.

Furthermore, we're passing conclusions when we still don't know much about these emails... or the hackers who stole them for that matter. We don't know who's hands they've passed through, we don't know if they've been changed or not, we don't know if it's all some kind of huge hoax, we don't know what the scientists (if they are real) meant by their wording (we can guess and claim to know, but the fact is it's all a matter of interpretation of the "documents"). . . there's hardly any answers coming in on this. The only people eating up the claim that this proves it's all a fabrication are ones who've been skeptical from the beginning, and even then they're only doing so because it supports their position. And then you've got the big businesses and industries going along with this lot because it's good for their business; if they don't have limits on emissions and their pollution levels they can continue dumping out as much crap as they want and take in huge profits while producing more at the cost of the environment.

Now I'm not on board with people like Al Gore, but plain logic and common sense dictate that you can't have tens of thousands of these factories in places like China, India, Mexico, etc. dumping out tons of pollutants into the atmosphere (or into/onto the terrain) and not have any nasty consequences on nature as a result. And that's exactly what we're seeing. Look at China: the air is sometimes so toxic they have to issue alerts to their people to stay inside their houses until it clears off (I don't think anyone here has forgotten the Olympics and what happened then...). Mexico is no different. And don't even get me started on India's air and water. What they're proposing at Copenhagen is simple: cut emissions, tax anyone who pours out too much crap, save the planet. Again, even IF man-made climate change is a hoax, it's very plain to see that we need to cut emissions and pollution because of it's negative effects it has on a whole. Tax penalties offer up one solution, especially when it comes to big businesses and industries; money is something that they hold very dear. I already mentioned the poisonous gases we get from factories and cars, the degrading quality of water as a result, but what about other things like a more acidic and deadly soil quality? What about the harmful mutations caused to organisms the world over (extra legs, tails, multiple heads, etc.; ever wonder why India gets so many of those cases?)? And while some governments would abuse this tax idea to profit, the cutting of emissions is still what matters the most in the end. And that's still what we'd see overall.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"You Americans"? America is hugely divided on this question. I agree consumption should be cut by any reasonable means. I agree that we need to react as if every single claim about warming and greenhouse gasses is true. And I also think Al Gore is an idiot.

And I also see the need not to blind ourselves to the possibility that some folks are indeed lying about the numbers. Dishonesty in a noble cause is still dishonesty.

I don't think the US is really that divided on this issue or indeed other issues. In the end what matters is what happens on the concrete level. The US is very much into their religion of consumption and producing of garbage and pollution.

Also, plenty of imperialist stuff in the Danish text.

[Skybird]

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.

You seem to believe in climate beign something that reacts faster than chemcial agents need time to react, and that it can be affected by switching it on and off like the light. You also ignore - by intention I a,m now sure - that alot has chnaged since 1975 that indicates that the trend towards warmer climate indeed is true.

If you fall out of the window in a high tower and fall down, don't be worried by people telling you that yoiu better shouldn'T have fallen out of that window. Becasue, in your thinking, ten floors deeper you see you are still alive and so things can'T be that bad, can they.

I don'T know for sure if the climate chnage will indeed kill human civilisation as we know it, but it certainly will force us to adapt to conditions that have changed more seriously than you want to imagine now. And for many people it will mean misery, suffering and death through weather phenomenens and extreme climate symptoms. In fact it already does. You just actively refuse to see that.

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

Micro cycles and macro cycles and meta cycles, the constant natural fluctuation that means that just one day'S weather does not define the average weather of the whole year and... wait, I explained these things several times now. If oyu haven't understood these very basics by now, than either you never will, or you have refused to understand them . and before you accuse me of being an expert for it and having read about it and made experiences - I am no meteorologist. But one muts not be an expert to understand these basic things, or to understand what the difference between summer and winter is and a high prssure and a low pressure weather front. Or to understand what micro, macro and meta cycles are.

As so very often on this issue, somebody raises just an arbitrary doubt and then demands that it should be seen as valid scientific counter argument, just doing so. But that demands a little bit more than just random claims - or fabricating a scandal over the emails that so far seems to have been rejected by any serious scientific source in the field, is so far unproven over the nature of its allegations, and just sees a loud and violent yelling that this known sceptic and that known media lobbyists there has raised and repeated this accusation time and again - although by now we already have been demonstrated that quotes were taken out of context and manipulated, and saw additional, false remarks added to them, and this poisonous message now spreads like the plague in the media - by volume and endless repetition only, not by reason or aergument.

A Republican group thought they must take it nupon themselves to go to Kopenhagen to correct Obama and to save America's reputation by not making it committing to emissions cuts. I laughed this morning when reading this.

BTW, Kopenhagen is no holy grail for me. I know that when the climate can be affected by emission cuts to a given agent by 90% only, a discussion on whether or not to cut it by 20% according to the standard of 1998 or better 2005 (would be even less a total cut) is pointless. I also do know that there is no st of switches with numbers from 1 to 10 by which poltiiians can decide how many degrees the world is allowed to warm - and gets threatened by sanctions of the UN when exceeding them.

The Spiegel article I linked to, on why a failure in Kopenhagen maybe would be a win, is very much my position. Whatever they decide there and will sell as a big boxoffice hit, it will in no way be sufficient, but cinsumes a hilarious ammount of money for somethign that will not change the trend. A much higher contribution to battling climate consequences is needed, a much more far-reaching chnage in production styles and living styles is needed that so far no politicians ever has dared to speak out about, and most people do not wish to even think abiut for a moment. And even then we cannot be sure that we could brreak through the inner dynamic that we have unleashed in the past 150 years or so. If you accelerate a high speed train to 350km/h, there just is no way to make it going reverse by flipping a switch et voila: there you go in reverse, there is no way without breaking first. and at that speed the breaking distance is not measured in dozens or hundreds, but thousands of meters (around 3.5-4 km). You better think ahead when plannign for your next halt. when you already see the next station, it's alredy too late.

[CaptainHaplo]

ok - let me start with Respensus. My friend - realize that the IPCC data you were presented with - relies almost exclusively on data from the CRU - the institute where every indication shows they manipulated data to get the results they wanted. I do NOT blame the IPCC for the outcome - but you have to be willing to look with a critical eye at the data and its source before you accept its validity.

Stealth hunter - for the record - the CRU knew in advance this data was out. RealClimate reported they had the data on Tuesday morning - and notified the CRU. They had 3 days to come up with a plausible cover story. Yet when the story hit broader display - what was the response from those involved? No denials of the validity of the emails and their contents. Instead - one of the main participants - Phil Jones - the head of the CRU at the time (and thus an immensly powerful player in the climate change hoax) stepped down with his tail between his legs. There has been no defense - but then again - how can you defend things like emails stating that INSTRUCT people to delete data so they can circumvent FOA requests? As for the source of the hackers - its now known the data first appeared in the public domain from a small town in Russia - where other major hacks sponsored by the Russian govt have sourced from. Though "who where the hackers" is just a way of trying to get people to not look at the facts of what has been uncovered. Its a "look over there for a second" trick - and rather indicative of how thin climate change arguements are in light of the reality.

[Morts]

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature


you cannot deny it

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Morts

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature


you cannot deny it

Simply brilliant!

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Morts

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature


you cannot deny it

Meh all that proves is that pirates are uncool !

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

That's really damning because, as we all know, Newsweek is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

No, not at all. But Newsweek (and other sources of reporting) is how 99% of the "informed masses" get their opinions fed to them. Good video, btw, Thanks!

Originally Posted by Morts

i think this shows the real reason for the rise in temperature


you cannot deny it

Ha, good one, Morts

[Respenus]

For the sceptics:


For the supporters:


Or is it the other way around?