Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Exactly! I am somewhat baffled that bright people are so mired in pessimism about the future when the present is so fantastic, and full of potential.

False analogy. You conclude on the future without knowing if the present is the valid basis for doing that regarding the details you focus on. Let me illustrate the problem.

When the Norse came to Greenland, they saw a vegetation and landscape that at bfirst glance looked very similiar to their own in Scandinavia. So one really cannot blame them for thinking they could run farming and agriculture the same way they were used to do from Scandinavia - it was reasonable, it was rational to assume that, considerign their information and knowledge of that time. But with time passing by, they realised that the vegetation due to the different, harsher climate grew much, much slower than in Norway, and that therefore grass and trees, once consumed, would not be replaced for a longer, a much longer time, than in Norway. Which meant the soil was exposed to wind and storm, salient air flows and in general: erosion, for much longer time, beign carried away and being lost. Over the latter two tirds of their presence on Greenland, agriculture and farming became more and more difficult, and finally non-maintainable anymore. Even more, the soil in Greenland is much made of Volcanic ashes, like in Iceland (just not so extreme), making it very fertile, but also very light and easily carried away by the wind, while the soil in Norways is made of much greater shares of heavy clay that is more difficult to be eroded by winds. You know how the story ended, for these factors and others as well (europeans started to trade ivory with the Far East instead with the Vikings, making this most precious trading good less valuable for the Vikings on Greenland; the mini "ice age" interupting shipping lines to Greenland; the vikings sticking to inadequate customs and habits that prevented them to learn surviving techniques from the Inuit and made them staying with absolutely unappropriate cultural habits and dress codes in order to stay connected to their home in eurpoe and demonstrating the very same cultural behavior like in europe - at all costs: an identity thing much like you cling to the socalled American way of life). First they had to let go their cows, their pride they were, but also a natural desaster for Greenland like the sheep in australia, and very, very difficult and work-intensive to be kept alive over the winter, then agricultural soil that could be used for farming became rare within the reach of the two major settlements. Supremacist behavior against the Inuit had turned the natives into enemies, and one did not learn survival techniques from them (how to hunt seals, for example). First the Western settlement died, and then the larger, Eastern died as well. Neal, they did not return to Scandinavia, you know. They DIED miserably - due to isolation from europe, cultural stubborness, farming and agriculture collapsing, and finally: starvation.

And Sky, regardless of your library and sources of media, etc., it's still as I said, you are gathering some of your ideas and opinions from external sources, who may or may not be accurate. Yes, maybe the polar ice cap is melting, but who says that signals Step 1 in the end of the world? Every autumn the leaves die and fall off the trees, doesn't mean that's it, it's all over for nature. My eyes are open, that could be why I am more skeptical about man-made global warming. I have not signed on to the Al Gore express. I admit that I am not in a knowledgeable position to express an opinion one way or the other. And reading articles for and against won't really make me more knowledgable, just more opinionated.

Well, no matter if you try to edcuate yourself oin thigns or not, you do not have the freedom not to make decisions in your life. Deciding you must, whether you like that or not, and you do not have the omnipotential to become a poracticng superexpert in all fields you could imagine. You have to accept compromise, therefore, and must try to come to decisns on basis of ninfomation that you have the freedom to collect in a laissez-faire manner, not caring a bit about their quality, or by trying to bring them together in a way you think that makes best sense. The latter is what I try to do. And it is not as if I do not have support for my conclusions from more knowing and more clever minds than my own.

You just have illustrated the general problem of ours in your very first sentence of your post. You want a good life, the party going on, and nobody disturbing the good mood. But the american/Western way of life that is in formidable waste of material wealth and natural ressources, cannot be maintained forever. The American way of life is nothign special, it is no natural law engraved in stone. It is an excess, and that is true for the whole Western culture of the modern. And even with, far far more modest living standards I have very severe doubts that the panet could maintain a global population of 7 billion if all these people would share that already lowered way of life.

We are far too many, and the few of us live far beyond reasonable standards, causing consequences that mean disaster for all others - and in the end their own children as well.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird, a test for you:

http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=1

You just have illustrated the general problem of ours in your very first sentence of your post. You want a good life, the party going on, and nobody disturbing the good mood. But the american/Western way of life that is in formidable waste of material wealth and natural ressources, cannot be maintained forever. The American way of life is nothign special, it is no natural law engraved in stone. It is an excess, and that is true for the whole Western culture of the modern. And even with, far far more modest living standards I have very severe doubts that the panet could maintain a global population of 7 billion if all these people would share that already lowered way of life.

So, this is Americas fault? Neal did not illustrate your point of "who cares". He only said it forms an opinion after reading page after page on warming/cooling or whatever it might be this week. I can show you page after page for cooling but a blind eye is on these pages as you are buying into this warming, the end of mankind and the world as we know it diatribe. Have you looked at articles concerning cooling? Articles on earth cycles?

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird or anyone interested:

Report on the corruption with global warming. (click on the PDF file for report)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/co...corrupted.html

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Skybird, a test for you:

http://csccc.fcpp.org/question.php?csquestion_id=1

Warhawk, please...

So, this is Americas fault? Neal did not illustrate your point of "who cares". He only said it forms an opinion after reading page after page on warming/cooling or whatever it might be this week. I can show you page after page for cooling but a blind eye is on these pages as you are buying into this warming, the end of mankind and the world as we know it diatribe. Have you looked at articles concerning cooling? Articles on earth cycles?

Yes, I have. and I found it often
- serious data taken out of context or not given in completeness;
- pseudo-scientific claims;
- manipulative in narrowing timespan of awareness to such short leveols that longterm conseqeunces got ignored;
- sources being dubious, to put it mildy;
- ignoring existing, maybe even existing-since-long explanations for let's say paradoxical effects (like for exaple the partial, local forkming of new ice in one part of the antarctic - what already in the late 70s or early 80s have been predicted in case of ice caps melting.

For these and other reasons I refuse to debate on whether there is a man-made sifgnificant climate change taking place or not. I cannot take this discussion serious anymore, like I also do not take serious a debate on how to compare the reasonability of evolution and that of creationism - as if it has any, or to compare ratio and religion - as if there is anything that could be compared. This kind of debate to me is just distracting, trying to buy time, to delay action and to protect the status quo that is quite profitable for the current establishment that is catching the cream from leaving things as they are.

We can talk on how to adapt to the already happening changes, now and in the future. we can talk on details of - yes, incomplete - climate models and their prediction span.

But we cannot talk on the issue of these changes taking place when I do not only read about it, but experience it in my own lifespan, with my very own senses, and media input by trend just confirms what I see, read and feel. That debate is pointless, and since quite some time now. It is a historic regression.

Tip of the day: the socalled Copenhagen Diagnosis has just been released. Hint-hint. It let's even the corrected (worstened) IPCC report look pale.

[AVGWarhawk]

Before you close the book on it as verse concerning global warming read the link to the article that is very convincing on the fabrication of global warming and cover up.

Post #50. 27 pages.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Neon, do you carry a sign that shows, "The End Is Near" painted on it?

Only on weekends and usualy in a sad clown suit

You're not wanting kids for the fear of something happening surpasses the borderline lunatic as I was portrayed by not only Skybird but serval others in the thread.

Hmm yes I must be crazy, I don't want to bring more children into an already overpopulated world. I am quite convinced that we are heading towards a period of major conflict, strife, and trouble for many different reasons. I do not want to bring children into that world as I would not want my children to suffer for it. It is also not something I take lightly at all.

Perhaps you should stop and think that it might be one of your children that becomes the person who develops the answers to all the questions concerning global warming!

Global warming is only a part of the greater whole that greatly worries me. Also there is no miracle cure to the situation.

Think about past history and what if prominent figures of our time had parents that did not want a child because of what MIGHT happen. Sure, perhaps only one in a billion really make a difference. Could be your child as the one! You never know.

I doubt it works like that, also I suspect knowing human nature, that we have already passed the tipping point overall. That by the time most of the population sees the problems, that it will be far too late to recover.

I do not think I would deprive myself of child and all the wonderful things that child rearing entails over a possibility that something might happen.

Like I said its not a decision I make lightly. I would love children, and may even adopt some at some point if I do not have any. But my predictions as to what is coming are very grim. Bluntly I believe we are heading towards a period of mass extinction which will most likely take our species out with it. I wish it was not the case, but that is the picture I formed rationaly from all I have taken in.


Anyhow back on topic, people like to talk about all the money invested into the green movement. That these people have a stake in global warming and thus have reason to fake the data. Well what about the other side of the coin? If global warming is real and we are the ones resposible then its going to cost most corporations in the world massive sums of money to try to fix it. These money men have plenty of reason to try to suppress, distort, deny, and fabricate evidence for or against it. They also have far more resources available to counter it then the green movement, and will have plenty of scientists of their own to flood the scientific community with junk research.

I've read a lot of the stuff from both sides of the debate. The problem I have with a lot of the contrary material is much of it is pseudo scientific. Like as in the creation vs evolution thread here they are selectivly picking a few things which supports their argument and ignoring everything that disproves it. Good science takes everything into account, proof and disproof and weighs them together. There is also a ton of bad science floating around right now clouding and poluting the issue. Not because it disagrees with the widly held view in the scientific community, but because a lot of it is fraudulent, or pseudo/un scientific.


As for that article you posted AVG, I haven't read it in full yet, but from the quick skimming of it I wasn't too impressed so far. But I'll leave real comment on it until I have read it in full and checked the supporting documentation. I will say though that I do not trust that site one bit as they have a very obvious and strong bias and agenda of their own. I do wonder though what organization is behind that site, as it raised a lot of red flags automaticly for me.

[AVGWarhawk]

As for that article you posted AVG, I haven't read it in full yet, but from the quick skimming of it I wasn't too impressed so far. But I'll leave real comment on it until I have read it in full and checked the supporting documentation. I will say though that I do not trust that site one bit as they have a very obvious and strong bias and agenda of their own. I do wonder though what organization is behind that site, as it raised a lot of red flags automaticly for me.

Sadly we can say that most sites are strongly skewed to their views. There are plenty of sites that are obvious and have a strong bias. Read the 27 page report. There are some interesting things in there.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Sadly we can say that most sites are strongly skewed to their views. There are plenty of sites that are obvious and have a strong bias. Read the 27 page report. There are some interesting things in there.

That's why I avoid all of those sites and try to look at the research itself only. I may not fully comprehend it all, but I know enough about research methodology to try to spot flaws, problems, manipulation and deception in the research. I automatically discard opinion stuff as it is always biased, and would normally discard that article for just that reason.

A further comment I would like to make is, yes I believe we are heading into very troubled times. But I have no motivations to want to believe it, in fact I would argue the exact opposite, that I have far more to motivate me not to want to believe any of it. It is so much easier to believe that their isn't a problem. I am not biased towards believing it, I am actually biased towards not wanting to, as most people would be.

[Rockin Robbins]

There have been vast periods of time in Earth's history when the polar ice caps did not exist at all! The planet was much warmer than it is today. Life flourished.

For several instances, the last being about 12,000 years ago, severe and sudden global cooling caused the icecaps to reform and glaciers extend all the way down the Indiana and Ohio in the US, covering half of Europe. The planet was much colder than it is today. Life flourished.

Today's climate drift, if real (our database is pitifully short as human records date only back to the middle to late 19th century in metropolitan areas, later in others), is well within the normal parameters of Earth's temperature range and no cause for alarm. For every catastrophic effect receiving gleeful publicity and hand wringing, there will be one, perhaps more, beneficial effects which have no highly motivated press agents right now.

"Global warming," "climate change," whatever you want to call it is a political, not a scientific issue. Science is merely curious. That is good. Politicians will never let a crisis, real or imagined, go to waste in pursuit of their agendas.

It is entirely possible to assemble a library of books agreeing with your preconceived attitude toward the goodness of mankind, the dark possibilites for the future and the inherent evil of non-socialist thought. However, assembling such a library is no substitute for valid evaluation.

I could easily assemble a library of books seeking to prove NASA never reached the moon.

[AVGWarhawk]

A further comment I would like to make is, yes I believe we are heading into very troubled times. But I have no motivations to want to believe it, in fact I would argue the exact opposite, that I have far more to motivate me not to want to believe any of it. It is so much easier to believe that their isn't a problem. I am not biased towards believing it, I am actually biased towards not wanting to, as most people would be.

I often wonder what the world would be like if WW2 never occured. What if the millions that died lived? Where would the world be. I truly believe our resources (land to grow food) will be our undoing. You touched on overpopulation. We are getting there and in some countries they are there. I can respect your decision for not wanting children but I respect you more for considering adopting a child instead. I have a Korean adopted sister and a Korean adopted nephew. I could not imagine what my life would have been not growing up with my adopted sister. She is 4 months and 11 days younger than me.

[AVGWarhawk]

The mythical story spreads and does not to look to be so mythical after all:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

Wether these emails right, wrong, cherry picked or not, it sure does make some people wake up and start questioning.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

False analogy. You conclude on the future without knowing if the present is the valid basis for doing that regarding the details you focus on. Let me illustrate the problem.

Wait, that wasn't an analogy at all! What do you mean?

When the Norse came to Greenland, they saw a vegetation and landscape that at bfirst glance looked very similiar to their own in Scandinavia. So one really cannot blame them for thinking they could run farming and agriculture the same way they were used to do from Scandinavia - it was reasonable, it was rational to assume that, considerign their information and knowledge of that time. But with time passing by, they realised that the vegetation due to the different, harsher climate grew much, much slower than in Norway, and that therefore grass and trees, once consumed, would not be replaced for a longer, a much longer time, than in Norway. Which meant the soil was exposed to wind and storm, salient air flows and in general: erosion, for much longer time, beign carried away and being lost. Over the latter two tirds of their presence on Greenland, agriculture and farming became more and more difficult, and finally non-maintainable anymore. Even more, the soil in Greenland is much made of Volcanic ashes, like in Iceland (just not so extreme), making it very fertile, but also very light and easily carried away by the wind, while the soil in Norways is made of much greater shares of heavy clay that is more difficult to be eroded by winds. You know how the story ended, for these factors and others as well (europeans started to trade ivory with the Far East instead with the Vikings, making this most precious trading good less valuable for the Vikings on Greenland; the mini "ice age" interupting shipping lines to Greenland; the vikings sticking to inadequate customs and habits that prevented them to learn surviving techniques from the Inuit and made them staying with absolutely unappropriate cultural habits and dress codes in order to stay connected to their home in eurpoe and demonstrating the very same cultural behavior like in europe - at all costs: an identity thing much like you cling to the socalled American way of life). First they had to let go their cows, their pride they were, but also a natural desaster for Greenland like the sheep in australia, and very, very difficult and work-intensive to be kept alive over the winter, then agricultural soil that could be used for farming became rare within the reach of the two major settlements. Supremacist behavior against the Inuit had turned the natives into enemies, and one did not learn survival techniques from them (how to hunt seals, for example). First the Western settlement died, and then the larger, Eastern died as well. Neal, they did not return to Scandinavia, you know. They DIED miserably - due to isolation from europe, cultural stubborness, farming and agriculture collapsing, and finally: starvation.

....??? I don't know what to say... Ok, I guess.

Well, no matter if you try to edcuate yourself oin thigns or not, you do not have the freedom not to make decisions in your life.

Hmm... is this a test or something?

You just have illustrated the general problem of ours in your very first sentence of your post. You want a good life, the party going on, and nobody disturbing the good mood. But the american/Western way of life that is in formidable waste of material wealth and natural ressources, cannot be maintained forever. The American way of life is nothign special, it is no natural law engraved in stone. It is an excess, and that is true for the whole Western culture of the modern. And even with, far far more modest living standards I have very severe doubts that the panet could maintain a global population of 7 billion if all these people would share that already lowered way of life.

We are far too many, and the few of us live far beyond reasonable standards, causing consequences that mean disaster for all others - and in the end their own children as well.

Ok, that's your opinion. I disagree. What do I care about "the party going on" as resources are concerned? I'm willing to bet you and I are in the same range of resources used. I have nothing against making cut backs if needed. But I am not convinced they are needed.

On another note, have you studied the phenomenon where people get a trend of thinking going and before you know it, everyone's saying something they really know nothing about, but they truly believe it's validity?

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

....??? I don't know what to say... Ok, I guess.

Actually the Norsemen called the land Greenland because it was green. The much warmer climate of 1000 AD meant that there was much less ice and milder climate in Greenland than there is today. Life, including the Norsemen who are ridiculed by ignorant people for misnaming the land, flourished until the climate changed with the coming of the Little Ice Age, which shut them down.

Now we think that if those times return it would be a global catastrophe! Then we call the catastrophizing science.

You know, the prime function of science is to attract grant money. This grant money must be obtained from politicians and bureaucrats. The best way to attract their attention and resulting cash is to make outlandish and ominous claims. There was this team of renegade wanna-be hurricane forcasters camped out in the UK, of all places.

Wanting to make a living out of forecasting hurricanes, they settled on a strategy: let's predict the most harmful path for every hurricane we can. Well, they looked silly until the inevitable storm (a stopped analog clock is right twice a day!) fulfilled their prediction. UKMET GOT IT RIGHT!!!!!! The cash rolled in. Today they are less inclined to follow that strategy, but just watch the forecast plots of computer simulations for UKMET. Hehehehehe! Predicting disaster is good business. It certainly pays for Al Gore's bizjets and allows his company to blackmail businesses worldwide in a carbon voucher fraud of epic proportions. His last trip to Australia had a bigger carbon footprint than my entire life! Damned hypocrite. He can fly his bizjet anywhere he wants. Just don't tell me it would be necessary for me to trade my Astro van for a golf cart. I'm not going to do it anyway.