Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[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.

[NeonSamurai]

The only way we could maintain the western style of life for everyone with out trashing the environment, is if the human population was cut down to maybe 100-500 million, and used robotics or whatever for labor.

It is an impossibility as Sky said to fix the problem of poverty, resources, etc. As there are way to many people as it is, and the population continues to increase, mainly in those poorest of countries. This is also why the situation is so bad in these countries, as they have limited resources to begin with, and yet keep reproducing like mad (even with contraception made available to them).

I would also say that

we have billions out there who live worse lives than frankly an animal.

isn't quite true (unless you are talking a wild animal in its natural environment). Factory farming of animals, is in general beyond horrific, and far worse then what most people suffer in general. The only good thing that can be said is that at least the animals are not starving, but that is the only good thing.

Otherwise I more or less agree that our current system is highly flawed. Frankly I think we are heading towards major trouble, and that trouble is pretty much unavoidable.

[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

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

And just making fabricated accusations on the emails doesn't prove yours.

The German weather service, btw, has given such an information last week, independant from the WMO. Also the Potsdam Climate Institute, last week, on radio.

The link, btw, was also meant as a backing for my reply to Haplo some time earlier.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And just making fabricated accusations on the emails doesn't prove yours.

I make no accusations at all. I just question people who insist that they're right. That includes just about any subject.

The link, btw, was also meant as a backing for my reply to Haplo some time earlier.

Cool. I didn't catch that part. I just saw a link and no text.

[Skybird]

In the past I also got attacked for not having given just a link but posting the content instead.

However. If you have more reliable weather records for this year and the poast ten years, they certainly would appreciate it if they get them.

[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.

[CaptainHaplo]

The reality is we have only been recording temps for about 150 years. Of course - the tempatures of the first 100+ years were using analog devices that not only had high margins of error - but also depended on the human eye to gauge the reading properly.

Take a modern mercury thermometer. Put it out on a counter - then read it. Now do you think its possible - given the extremely small "markers" on the thermometer - to misread it by so much as "half a degree"? Add that discrepinsy to the reality that some thermometers were of a higher accuracy standard than others (really want to trust a russian thermometer of 1870 to be EXACT!?!?) and then realize that the original records - as were requested years ago under FOI and similiar laws - were instead "lost" by those who have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar - using "tricks" to manipulate the data.

When a scientist - or a group of them - do all they can to hide or destroy original data, refuse to allow open peer review, and instead go so far as to omit data and stating a willingness to go so far as to threaten "even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is." - it shows ta systematic attempt to keep the truth out. ***For the record - that is an excerpt of an email from Phil Jones - the former head of the CRU regarding papers he did not wish to include to the IPCC in his reports.

If it looks like a duck, floats like a duck, and quacks like a duck - its likely a duck.

[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