Climategate
 

In light of the revelations about climate science in the last week or so, I was wondering if anyone has changed their minds about whether or not the science is "settled".


WW

"What you mean,Willits?"

It will be settled after the investigations for fraud are finished and the people who perpetrated this hoax are thrown in jail.
Too much info out there now to let this just get blown off .
Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me comes to mind .


Fred

So if I read between the lines Al Gore invented fraud?

This sucks! These scientists are just as bad as the people who think everything is going fine and we should not bother changing anything we do until the free market dictates. It doesn’t matter anymore what the data says because no one will trust scientific data anymore because it has become political. As usual, the fate of many will be dictated by the extremists. We went from thinking ½ the population of the world would be underwater in 50 years to sticking our head in the sand and not thinking about the planet at all.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. The pollution we put into our planet is definitely not good and will affect it, but it probably won’t flood us or put us in an ice age anytime soon. Though, this does not mean that we shouldn’t bother to invest in alternative energy. It will take decades to really implement new energy sources and we can’t just wait for the free market to force us to do it because the infrastructure needs to be in place before the free market is ready for alternative energy. It is the chicken before the egg thing. One day the free market will want a chicken, but we never made the egg.

This will have far greater implications too. From now on, whenever scientific data is used on anything remotely political, opponents will only have to say that the data could have been tampered or altered and that data has no value. I believe we will enter an age where emotions will count for more than facts or data.

One can prove SO2 and NOx harm the environment.

Thus far, NO ONE has come forward with substantive nor conclusive evidence or data that CO2 harms the environment. Although it does make plants grow. Well, at least that was what we learned in 5th grade science. Then again, I did attend public school.

So in a nutshell.... stop dumping mercury in the ocean, stop dumping prescription meds down the toilet, put scrubbers on coal power plants, and don't throw your trash out the window. Dispose of it properly. Recycle if you want.

BUT YOU CAN NOT TELL ME BURNING GASOLINE OR ANY OTHER HYDROCARBON IS CAUSING THE EARTH'S AVG ANNUAL TEMPERATURE TO RISE! PROVE IT!

Changed my mind? No, I didnt believe it in the first place :rolleyes:

Supposedly Al Gore is the first "Carbon Billionaire". That should tell you a lot about his motivation. He belongs in jail right next to Madoff.

This is the best summary of the idea of saving the planet I've heard.
YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet

This past summer was one of the coolest I can remember... but that is just my wedge of the world... your results may vary. Personally, I think it is all rubbish. The proposed 'carbon tax' or whatever it is called is really ridiculous.... just another thing management will 'payroll deduct' from our cheques... because, God forbid that gets passed down to "Joe's" $90 ticket in first class.

DiverDriver:

No, it isn't just you, this year has been, depending on where you live, one of the coolest in HISTORY of record keeping. Here's a google search of all of the articles that have been written.

coolest summer on record 2009 - Google Search

And in July, 6 states recorded THE COLDEST JULY ON RECORD !!!

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ewidetrank.png

I was never a believer but like stated above all for keeping the environment(water, air, etc) as clean as we can. The warming angle is crap...not hard to see if you follow the money.

I was looking at easy bake ovens for my daughter and wondered How is this thing going to work after they get rid of incandescent bulbs? Those fluorescent corkscrews won't cook a little cupcake!

One of the (many) problems with warmist science is that they wouldn't give you their source data. Data were smoothed and homogenized (their words, not mine) and then, hidden. The public and other scientists were only given the results.

Science, as it is understood in the Western tradition, must be both verifiable and falsifiable. That means you have to put your data out there to be reviewed. If you don't, it's not science.

If this sordid episode causes a newly skeptical public to demand that "you show me your work" then science will be improved.

Do not worry then--good science is good science. The irrational can refuse to believe the results, but if they cannot disprove the results, then they are just venting gas.

WW

Heyas,

In this case, everyone who says "follow the money" is dead on. And corporate goons aren't the only culprits. Universities make bank on grants for research, and many professor's pay is based on the number and amount of grants that they pull in.

Read "State of Fear"...fiction, surely, but probably pretty close to the mark.

Nu

1,000 Words
 

might be wrong on this
 

Any folks from the EU confirm that you are getting rid of flourescent bulbs because they do not work as stated ?
Word to the wise -STOCK up on incandescent bulbs .:D


Fred

Hmmm, so a few hacked emails, selectively disseminated and released just prior to the Copenhagen summit make a "gate"? Are these emails just spirited internal debate, or is it indeed evidence of some vast conspiracy by all the world's climate scientists, who, for the past few decades have all been in some coordinated collusion to dupe everyone just so they can continue to receive their mega-bilion dollar grants and live like the rock stars they are?

Since it is easier to just make up a stupid conspiracy when there was none before, I'll start one of my own: Roger Ailes hired the hackers himself. "Go forth and spread BS."

Once again, these are the type of "Scientists" that tell you we evolved from apes! These are just secular people making their own agenda, and people like al gore making a huge amount of money. Keeping the planet clean by reducing pollution, waste is great. I am all for it. Trying to "save" the planet is giving *man* way to much credit.

Just in time for Hopenhagen
 

Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill

SYDNEY – Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.

The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

The 41-33 vote followed a tumultuous debate in which the conservative main opposition party at first agreed to support a version of the government's bill, then dramatically dumped its leader and switched sides after bitter divisions erupted within the party.

Balance of story: Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill - Yahoo! News

Written by: ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press Writer – Wed Dec 2, 2:45 am ET

On the same subject, Jon Stewart:

http://storyballoon.org/videos/jon-s...d-climategate/

Language bleeped.

Um i dont necessarily think it was a massive conspiracy as in they all knew about it and it was organized.

I do however think that once they saw the checks rolling in the played along with it.

Nature to us all...
Starlings give twitchers the bird | Metro.co.uk

>Once again, these are the type of "Scientists" that tell you we evolved from apes!

no, they are not. evolutionary biologists have determinded we and apes shared common ancestors. climatologists have recorded warming trends, and have corrolated that to increases in greenhouse gas quantities.

that's the worst comparison ever

btw
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archi...tesarecool.jpg

They (scientists) fell from the same tree. Pardon the pun.

'Nuff said...
http://evolutionoftruth.com/images/evolution.gif

Look before the thread gets closed or I get violated for religion talk. This climate gate thing is just a great example that scientists are people, like politions because they made a mistake, or they have a different agenda. Don't believe them just because they are scientists. No matter what the subject.

And before someone says it, no I can't spell.

Cheetah takes umbrage
 

Both of these theories are hotly disputed --- by apes.

For every scientist that was on board with this there were two that said it was not the case. The Earth does what the Earth does and it has done it long before we had cars.

I rest my case

Source? Or is that just your opinion?

your source for this statistic?

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Here you go.:)


Fred

You have got to be kidding me! I thought this was a joke until your later posts. First, we did not “evolve from apes” as you think. The fact that you use evolve as a verb proves you don’t understand the subject. These are not the same scientists who came up with evolution. Evolution has been proposed and accepted by the scientific community for over a century. The recent climategate scientists are from the modern era and specialize on the climate, not biology.

This is what I was afraid of. Because these scientists really messed up, now the general public thinks all scientists make up data and conclusions. So now when faced with a scientific conclusion, instead of coming up with alternative evidence to disprove, people will criticize the conclusion without evidence. One of the biggest arguments against evolution is it is too complicated. That is an opinion, and you must support that with evidence, and not evidence proving it’s complex, but evidence proving something that is complex can’t work. If you don’t believe a scientific theory, then get off your couch, and do some scientific research yourself. I am not saying that you have to believe the entire theory, but to say that natural selection has no effect on life or doesn’t exist has no evidence to back it up. And if anyone says, well it’s only a “theory”, please note the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Now back on topic. The only silver lining is the debate on climate change is on again and we may be able to get more conclusive data and accurate depictions on what is happening. But inside that silver lining is the rest of the population outside the scientific community that no longer believes or trusts scientific research and we will enter an embarrassing age of de-lightenment.

To get this thing going, I will start. The moon landings were faked, there are only three dimensions, the universe is filled with aether, you can make gold out of wind and fire, the world is flat, humans used to ride unicorns to escape from dinosaurs, and the sun is powered by ferries and pixies.

fred, have you read the report from James inhofe? Only a handfull of climatologists were listed in his report, and only a fraction of the 700 scientists were listed at all. the references were mostly from right wing organizations, bloggers, and the report itself.

i was unable to locate the list of 700. And nowhere in the report did it list how many climatologists believe that human intervention is warming the planet versus those who don't.

still looking for that statistic of 2/3s of scientists don't believe in global warming.

But the world is flat. I can only see to the edge, so it must be flat. I don't care what you pointy-headed scientists say.

Disclaimer: I don't have a firm opinion either way on global warming due to lack of information.

I have a very close relative who is a well-known professor in a technical field. The general consensus in technical academia is that there is no RELIABLE data to prove global warming. There is a high level of concern that we are going off half-cocked. There several reasons for this...

1. A tremendous amount of politically tainted money is being thrown at this problem. People in the fields who benefit from this windfall don't have much incentive to disprove climate change. If they can't prove it outright, they can at least drag things out to keep the grant money rolling.

2. The technical aspects of this issue are monumentally complex...there are no guarantees that we are even aware of all the major factors yet, much less how they all inter-react. You can make a career out of muddling around in climate science, and many do.

3. There are naturally occurring global climate cycles, even really bad ones (ice age). If things are in fact changing, what role do natural cycles play?

Certain political factions have already formally declared global warming as truth, since it is anathema to everything they hate...oil, military, aviation, industry, population growth, etc. It's basically a cure-all political lever.

Like I said, I think the juries still out. Don't rush to buy into this just yet...follow the money and power trails, and retain a healthy skepticism.

serious question here:D

How do they determine a 'global average temperature' from 1880, 1900, or 1920?

I've just always wondered that.

And another take...
The complex psychology of climate denial | COSMOS magazine

past temperatures are calculated from several sources:

--actual records (naval ship logs, weather stations, etc). Obviously, actual records are sparse.

--current temperatures and trends can be extrapolated backwards with some confidence

--temperature proxies like ice cores, tree rings, etc. can give a reasonable estimate of what the temperature may have been

Combining all of these, or what is available, allows scientists to make a statement, with some uncertainty, about temperature conditions in the past.

One of the complaints of the skeptics is that the calculators are very reluctant to share their raw data so that their results might be verified.

WW