Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'll just leave this here:

[Stealth Hunter]

Where'd that graph come from? Just curious.

[CaptainHaplo]

I've seen it before - can't recall the place off the top of my head. Course - if you want to believe that 4000 years ago they were measureing CO2... then go ahead and swallow the line. But most people know better.
Oh - and notice thats PPM - Parts per million. So its increased by how much of 1% of that million in 60 years?

Oh fear and horror and panic - the world is coming to an end.

Bullocks... pure bullocks.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I've seen it before - can't recall the place off the top of my head. Course - if you want to believe that 4000 years ago they were measureing CO2... then go ahead and swallow the line. But most people know better.

Haplo, you seriously need to understand specialised branches of science a bit better, not their details, but what they do and speciliase in. Geologists, for example. Not meant as an offence, but if you argue that if it hasn't been measured by a time traveller back then, then today'S science cannot make educated guesses on past conditions by examining earth layers, conserved seeds, petrified remnants of plants, composition by chemical agents and minerals in the ground etc etc, then you really make yourself vulnerable to quite some ridicule, because you are right then: most people knowing about these fields of science indeed know it better. Than you.

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Well - if they can't reproduce - that means fewer people next generation - which is kind of the aim of population control. So that would mean it does work, no?

The problem here is that the male surplus was an unintended side effect. Natural would be a slight surplus for females, and as long as one child per family is adhered to, the population would decrease anyway, albeit not as fast. I'd have to find numbers as to how high the male surplus is, but as far as I know in some regions it's not just a miniscule amount of men that can't find a partner. I know it's a bit of a stretch, but if those masses of disgruntled men get organized and cause civil unrest that's a force to be reckoned with, even for the Chinese government.

If you want to continue I'd be glad to take it to PM's, because this thread is derailed enough as it is.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - you have finally hit the nail on the head of the crux of the whole debate.

People making "educated guesses". The chart is a perfect example. Nowhere does it say "hey - the numbers prior to X date are educated guesses" - it simply presented as FACT. Just as "climate change" is presented as fact - whien it is simply an educated guess as to what MIGHT happen.

An educated guess is still - at the end of the day -a guess. Or to put it into scientific terms - its a hypothesis in flux. Some data supports it, other data refutes it. But many people - some with an invested interest in the science itself, insist that the entire world modify its behavior on the basis of this guess. Those of us who come to different conclusions based on the data - and reasonably note that pro-climate change scientists often ignore data that hurts their view, resist the demand for change on a guess. For resisting, we are called fools, deniers, and all matter or vileness - over a guess.

I liken the debate to going to an unscrupulous car shop. You want your oil changed. The salesman and service manager come out and start listing all these things they find wrong with your car - as well as extol the virtues of buying a new one. As a guy who has turned a wrench a few time, I know I just replaced the brakes 6 months back. Yet the sales guys don't want to take no for an answer. When I say SHOW ME - they instead refuse to let me go see my car on the rack with the wheels off - claiming their insurance won't let customers inside the service area. When an independant mechanic looks at it and says things are not what they claim - they try to get his ASE certification revoked. Would you buy a car from these people?

This is exactly what has occured - as demonstrated by the contents of the emails mentioned in the OP. Scientists who differ with the guess they want everyone to accept are ostracized and marginalized. Legal requests to see the raw data are stonewalled, even going so far as to delete the requested data so it cannot be reviewed. Data and papers that do not toe the line are rejected out of hand, or hidden using data manipulation.

But you still are buying the car. I - and many like me - see that the costs of the car - the debt it will create - is too high a cost to pay given the questionable science and tactics being used to strongarm us.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...666175,00.html

With his 1972 book "The Limits to Growth," Dennis Meadows was one of the first to warn about the looming environmental crisis. The US economist spoke to SPIEGEL ONLINE about the need to drastically change our behavior and why he doesn't expect much from the global climate change summit in Copenhagen.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Meadows, you simulated the future of the Earth back in 1972 with less computing power than a Blackberry. How good was your model on the limits to growth?
Dennis Meadows: Amazingly good, unfortunately. We are in the midst of an environmental crisis, which we predicted then. The difference is that we have lost 40 years during which humanity should have acted.
SPIEGLE ONLINE: You have been one of those warning about the environment ever since the first publication of your book. Now representatives of almost 200 countries are gathering to tackle the environmental crisis. Are you satisfied?
Meadows: Copenhagen? I don't take it seriously. The whole thing is a huge ploy. I am outraged because the situation is outrageous. If we rely on conferences instead of changing our lifestyles then things look bad.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the world is now looking to Copenhagen, to see if politicians can bring about a solution to the climate problem.
Meadows: The world? I think 98 percent of humans haven't even heard the word Copenhagen, not to speak of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change there. If people were to come together there with a fresh mind to achieve something then it would look different. This conference is essentially about doing as little as possible, not as much as possible.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You ask people to make personal sacrifices in order to preserve the environment and resources?
Meadows: I don't ask for it but I say if we don't change our behavior then we will be in serious trouble. People are getting sidetracked if they think that new green technology will solve all the problems. There is no magic button. It is about our lifestyles.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Changing our personal behavior will make everything better?
Meadows: When it comes to oil dependency, yes; but when it comes to climate change, I think we are too late. It might have been possible to prevent serious climate change in the 1970s and 1980s, but it isn't any more. We have pumped enough carbon dioxide already into the atmosphere to cause global warming. We are on a roller coaster at the top of the hill and all we can do is hold on tight.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Then does it make any sense to reduce CO2 emissions?
Meadows: Absolutely, but that will only limit climate change, not prevent it.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You sound pretty pessimistic.
Meadows: No. We won't die out as a species. Humanity has already survived the Ice Age, and now we will survive an age of warmth. I doubt, however, that in the end there will be billions of us flying around the world in planes and driving huge cars.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: We will live like today's poorest people, those who emit hardly any carbon dioxide?
Meadows: That is not my role model. I lived long enough in a country like Afghanistan to know that I don't want us to have to live like that in the future. But we have to learn to live a life that allows for fulfilment and development, with the CO2 emissions of Afghanistan.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it possible to have 9 billion people on the planet?
Meadows: No. Even 7 billion is too much -- at least if they are all to have an appropriate standard of living. If you think it is acceptable to have a small elite that enjoys a decent lifestyle and a large majority that is excluded from that, then the Earth can probably sustain 5 to 6 billion people. If you want everyone to have the full potential of mobility, adequate food and self-development, then it is 1 or 2 billion.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How does one achieve that?
Meadows: I have no idea. I am an ethical person and I wouldn't hurt a fly. The problem is that with our current lifestyle we are hurting the people of the future.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't have a recipe for saving the world?
Meadows: We don't have to save the world. The world will save itself, like it always has. Sometimes it takes a few million years until the damage is repaired and a new balance has been established. The question is much more: How do we save our civilization?
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How do you deal with the fact that your analyses have failed to bring about any real changes?
Meadows: A long time ago I thought we would have to achieve a total utopia in order to avoid total collapse. Today I am somewhat more balanced. For me personally it is enough if I make the world a little better than it would have been without me. Everyone should rethink their own lifestyle, their carbon footprint and try to think one step ahead into the future.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What has the reaction been to this kind of advice?
Meadows: A fashion editor once asked me about lifestyle changes. I asked her how many pairs of shoes she had. It was 18. I advised her that three pairs would be enough. Unfortunately the article was never published. Many habits are deeply rooted and it takes practice to get rid of them.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How will the necessary changes come about?
Meadows: Through a series of crises. It is only when there are abrupt climate changes, unpleasant ones, that the willingness will come about to really do something. We have to use these opportunities. We didn't use them during the financial crisis. The opportunity to change something was wasted, despite the crisis.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Some people might regard you as an angry prophet from the Old Testament.
Meadows: Nonsense. Our first book had 13 different scenarios for how the Earth and humanity would develop. Of these, eight or nine were catastrophic, the others were not. But no one was interested in the positive scenarios. They weren't reported upon and people didn't try to live them out. I am not preoccupied with doomsday scenarios. Most other people, however, are.
Interview conducted by Christian Schwägerl

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

An educated guess is still - at the end of the day -a guess. Or to put it into scientific terms - its a hypothesis in flux. Some data supports it, other data refutes it.

The question is whether or not the "data" you believe in is good enough in quality that it can refute exsisting opinion majority consensus on theories. and in this regard you give me the impression to just believe anything if it matches your desired conclusions, which in itself is more about ideology indeed, than about a truth in the meaning of an as precise as possible understanding of reality.

[NeonSamurai]

Actually they can measure CO2 pretty accurately going back much further then that. It is called ice core samples. So no its not educated guess work at all but pretty hard data. The only argument that could be made against it would be that it is localized data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

[TDK1044]

People on both sides of this argument can produce graphics and experts to justify their position. It's endless and boring.

The GW subject has always been in part about the redistribution of world wealth, by guilting the wealthy into helping the third world. I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where that very scenario was front and center.The 'science' has always been a back drop for that agenda.

You're never going to change the opinion of someone who's been fooled for an entire life time, and truthfully, having this issue debated as fiercely as it is, keeps us all vigilant regarding the health of our planet.

The debate is healthy.....and so is our planet.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

Ok so let me ask a couple questions then:

Are Co2 levels evenly distributed world wide?
Are the present Co2 levels mentioned in the chart also drawn from those ice samples?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

People on both sides of this argument can produce graphics and experts to justify their position. It's endless and boring.

The GW subject has always been in part about the redistribution of world wealth, by guilting the wealthy into helping the third world. I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where that very scenario was front and center.The 'science' has always been a back drop for that agenda.

You're never going to change the opinion of someone who's been fooled for an entire life time, and truthfully, having this issue debated as fiercely as it is, keeps us all vigilant regarding the health of our planet.

The debate is healthy.....and so is our planet.

We don't have to save the world. The world will save itself, like it always has. Sometimes it takes a few million years until the damage is repaired and a new balance has been established. The question is much more: How do we save our civilization?

These two are the problems.

I agree so very much with that interview's replies. Could have been replies by me.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

Ok so let me ask a couple questions then:

Are Co2 levels evenly distributed world wide?
Are the present Co2 levels mentioned in the chart also drawn from those ice samples?

No they are not evenly distributed due to air currents and differences in locally produced CO2 (both from natural such as forest fires, and man made causes), which is why i say localized, however ice cores are drawn from areas both in the northern and southern hemispheres. It does though indicate general trends in CO2 concentrations across the globe. To my knowledge though, CO2 tends to concentrate more at the poles, which is why warming there is higher then the global average.

The data should all come from ice core samples only, but it takes a few years for the snow to turn to impermeable ice which permanently traps air, so there is a lag period. Good scientists would not take air samples above the impermeable ice. As for that chart, I can't speak of it as I do not no the source. But the 0 point is 1950 and that area doesn't quite match the information I have (but it does continue to climb). If you like I can dig up some data.

[SteamWake]

I just cant look at any chart, graph, or report anymore without a jaded eye.

One thing I note on that graph is it is quite spread out with hundreds/thousands of years between divisions untill it gets to the end when suddenly the scale shifts to 10 years or so or 1/1000th of the previous scales. That alone would skew the portrayel.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

As for that chart, I can't speak of it as I do not no the source. But the 0 point is 1950 and that area doesn't quite match the information I have (but it does continue to climb). If you like I can dig up some data.

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed...