Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[Hans]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

I have seen the files.

Absolutely incredible stuff. Here is linky:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/Hadley_CRU_Files_%28FOI2009.zip%29

MD5 Checksum is: da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4

This is the biggest bit of news in years. As you can see, I can hardly contain my excitement. The Emails contain evidence of data-set fixing, involvement of governments etc,
The CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD IS DEAD!

Loving it.

[Ixion]

Fuck. That's a LOT of files. Which are the juicy ones?

[Hans]

This should get you started...

I'll cut and paste some quotes.

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to

[Hans]

I've attached a little sample. I couldn't upload raw textfiles, so you'll need to change file type back to .txt

I've also attached one mildly amusing .PDF file.

[hayd3n]

conspiracy or for real

[Hans]

You mean as in conspiracy theory? Nope, real deal.

[Skyryder]

All I see is a lot of geek talk and those that don't know anything about climate change call it fraud. And what is there to say some of the emails have not been tampered with?? And this is proof of a conspiracy??


Skyryder

[twinkle]

lol@ the taken out of context quotes :lol:

[Hans]

All I see is a lot of geek talk and those that don't know anything about climate change call it fraud. And what is there to say some of the emails have not been tampered with?? And this is proof of a conspiracy??


Skyryder

Geek talk. All I see is stuff that anyone with a tertiary education in anything but social science can interpret relatively easily. The argument that those who don't know anything about climate change call it fraud, is about as valid as calling people racist to shut them up. What the hell do you know about climate change? Do you at least have some sort of education to be able to interpret the raw data. Or at least a basic understanding of mathematics, so you can draw your own conclusions as to the validity of their interpretations? Your own knowledge, education and analytical skills are the only thing that can get you an unbiased view of the situation. Unless, of course, you lack those things.
You'd be surprised, how many people from countries that are not as left-leaning as New Zealand actually think Climate Change is complete bullshit.

[mashman]

I'll give you Conspiracy Theory

With the recent events we've witnessed, things have been... changing. We are Telling our power hungry, money grabbing, technology pushing Government to SOD OFF. Hackers are finding the Great Global Swindle.

These 2 things alone have HUGE implications. We will want to know why. And the answer in simple: Power using money paid for by technology.

The Mayan Calendat finishes in 2012. Some people think it's going to be with a brimstone and fire, some say otherwise:
http://www.mayancalendarnow.com/

[James Deuce]

I just laughed so hard me tinfoil hat fell off!

[mowgli]

Isn't working for me. Not sure if it's the client of the torrent.

[bogan]

tbh if the man made climate change thing was a conspiracy i wouldnt be overly bothered, what are the results? get people to stop polluting, use what fuel we have left in a more efficient manner.

dont get me wrong, i dont think the end should justify the means but in this case its more of a white lie situation.

[Skyryder]

Isn't working for me. Not sure if it's the client of the torrent.

Ya probably have not got enough carbon credits:girlfight:


Skyryder

[mashman]

i just laughed so hard me tinfoil hat fell off!

what was i thinking!!!

[Skyryder]

Geek talk. All I see is stuff that anyone with a tertiary education in anything but social science can interpret relatively easily.

Yep and that the whole thing about this. It's all to do with 'interpretation.' this means that but others no it means this.

And you call this proof?? Jeezz man :beer: and lots of it.


Skyryder

[mowgli]

tbh if the man made climate change thing was a conspiracy i wouldnt be overly bothered, what are the results? get people to stop polluting, use what fuel we have left in a more efficient manner.

dont get me wrong, i dont think the end should justify the means but in this case its more of a white lie situation.
Try using AGW as a justification for the Emissions Trading Scheme. Imagine it costing you $3000 a year through taxes and increased costs. I'm very worried about where this is all going.

[Hans]

tbh if the man made climate change thing was a conspiracy i wouldnt be overly bothered, what are the results? get people to stop polluting, use what fuel we have left in a more efficient manner.

dont get me wrong, i dont think the end should justify the means but in this case its more of a white lie situation.

Get people to stop polluting? CO2 is not a pollutant as such. We need to stop polluting with harmful chemicals, yes?

White Lie? Hardly. Ingenious scheme to make huge amounts of money trading on the non-production of a commodity? Most likely.

[Hans]

Yep and that the whole thing about this. It's all to do with 'interpretation.' this means that but others no it means this.

And you call this proof?? Jeezz man :beer: and lots of it.


Skyryder

See? Typical leftie. In your definition of the word "to interpret" really means "to put a spin on".
In my definition it simply means "to understand".

[mashman]

Try using AGW as a justification for the Emissions Trading Scheme. Imagine it costing you $3000 a year through taxes and increased costs. I'm very worried about where this is all going.

See my conspiracy theory and cross your fingers it's a smooth transition!

[Hans]

See my conspiracy theory and cross your fingers it's a smooth transition!

And no-one can actually account for where that money will actually end up.

[mashman]

And no-one can actually account for where that money will actually end up.

Money won't matter

[Skyryder]

See? Typical leftie. In your definition of the word "to interpret" really means "to put a spin on".
In my definition it simply means "to understand".

See now you have bought my personal politics into the equation. Why you need to do so I can only conclude that you can not further your arguement as to the emails validity. They concur with your own beliefs and therefore must be correct. The possibility that they may have been tampered with as mentioned in my first post you do not mention.

As for your meaning of interpret : No mention of either of your definations in the Concise Oxford Dict. :beer: more beer.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

So what spin can be placed on this

Email from Prof. Phil Jones (CC'd to Keith Briffa, author of the discredited study showing dendrochronological proof that the 20th century was much
warmer)

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Reply from Jonathan Overpeck

"I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?"

[Jantar]

If you want to do your own research, then there is a very convenient search engine at;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-online/#more-12978

[mashman]

If you want to do your own research, then there is a very convenient search engine at;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-online/#more-12978

This is the whole point. Maybe client change is real, maybe it's not, but the fact still remains that people are making money off us and doing nothing about it other than producing more studies, studies paid for by tax payers...

Where did the money come from to bail out the economy. We printed it, manufactured it. So why can't we do that anytime we like? Because it then devalues money until it's absolutely worthless. Doesn't mean that we all have to stop what we're doing, in fact quite the opposite, but we will do it for the betterment of mankind...

No point in stealing anything if there's no value.
No point in accumulating wealth through drugs because money doesn't matter any more.

Sorry mate, you not got a house, come with us and we'll build you one! Can i fix your roof for you. Can i help you with that. Why wouldn't you... having said that, if she's nice would a blowjob be out of the question?

Plus we also know that we need to fix the planet.

[Street Gerbil]

...before giving it to Hans again. Bummer.
Great find dude!!!

[Jantar]

This is the whole point. Maybe client change is real, maybe it's not, but the fact still remains that people are making money off us and doing nothing about it other than producing more studies, studies paid for by tax payers...

Where did the money come from to bail out the economy. We printed it, manufactured it. So why can't we do that anytime we like? Because it then devalues money until it's absolutely worthless. Doesn't mean that we all have to stop what we're doing, in fact quite the opposite, but we will do it for the betterment of mankind...

No point in stealing anything if there's no value.
No point in accumulating wealth through drugs because money doesn't matter any more.

Sorry mate, you not got a house, come with us and we'll build you one! Can i fix your roof for you. Can i help you with that. Why wouldn't you... having said that, if she's nice would a blowjob be out of the question?

Plus we also know that we need to fix the planet.
OK, its late and I'm tired. But I can't see one single part of this post that has anything to do with false data, false research, or even climate change in general.

[mashman]

OK, its late and I'm tired. But I can't see one single part of this post that has anything to do with false data, false research, or even climate change in general.

Sorry, read some of the emails. There are an awful lot and it is pot luck, but there is some head scratching, by scientists, wondering where global warming is, let alone went!

[scissorhands]

In the 70's we were heading for an ice age.

The oceans rise and fall in time. Its natural. How about Gilgamesh and the ancient floods? Cities found on the ocean floor....

Conspiracy theory:
Climate change is a smoke screen for avoiding valid environmental concerns....
'Get them arguing without a chance of proving one way or another, tax the fuckers, and avoid attention to real issues like urban air quality, total pollutant exposure, deforestation, siltification of waterways, acrylamide, dumbing down, addiction, mind control, feminisation, outlaw bikers....

[CookMySock]

I reckon the "emails" are fake.

Steve

[Jantar]

I reckon the "emails" are fake.

Steve
You can reckon they are fake if you wish, but the authors have already confirmed publicly that they are genuine.

[James Deuce]

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest173.

[MisterD]

I just love it when my inate cynicism turns out to be so well justified...

Scientific consensus = we have to find this result or our funding dries up.

[pzkpfw]

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest173.


That gets me a 404.

[Usarka]

I just love it when my inate cynicism turns out to be so well justified...


My inate cynicism also makes it hard to trust people who hire hackers to get dirt on people.

[mashman]

In the 70's we were heading for an ice age.

The oceans rise and fall in time. Its natural. How about Gilgamesh and the ancient floods? Cities found on the ocean floor....

Conspiracy theory:
Climate change is a smoke screen for avoiding valid environmental concerns....
'Get them arguing without a chance of proving one way or another, tax the fuckers, and avoid attention to real issues like urban air quality, total pollutant exposure, deforestation, siltification of waterways, acrylamide, dumbing down, addiction, mind control, feminisation, outlaw bikers....

On order to keep the population paying?

[MisterD]

My inate cynicism also makes it hard to trust people who hire hackers to get dirt on people.

In which I also agree with you but....


You can reckon they are fake if you wish, but the authors have already confirmed publicly that they are genuine.

[bogan]

Try using AGW as a justification for the Emissions Trading Scheme. Imagine it costing you $3000 a year through taxes and increased costs. I'm very worried about where this is all going.


Get people to stop polluting? CO2 is not a pollutant as such. We need to stop polluting with harmful chemicals, yes?

White Lie? Hardly. Ingenious scheme to make huge amounts of money trading on the non-production of a commodity? Most likely.

yeh, true, I had forgotten bout the ulterior motives and schemes etc.

[scissorhands]

On order to keep the population paying?

To divide people into believers and non believers. Sort of like the 2 party system. Red blue, whitey blackie, uncle sam terrorism, boy girl battle of the sexes.

Caesar says: get them fighting amongst themselves. Divide and conquer

Climate change is real, but not so important that other concerns should not make public perception, and not a one sided, its all us doing it, feel guilty mantra. Space, time, solar activity, volcanic activity AND manmade

[mashman]

To divide people into believers and non believers. Sort of like the 2 party system. Red blue, whitey blackie, uncle sam terrorism, boy girl battle of the sexes.

Caesar says: get them fighting amongst themselves. Divide and conquer

Climate change is real, but not so important that other concerns should not make public perception, and not a one sided, its all us doing it, feel guilty mantra. Space, time, solar activity, volcanic activity AND manmade

Well, that's one way to look at it I suppose :2thumbsup

[avgas]

Fuck!
there goes my retirement fund.
What the fuck am I going to do with 20ha of crappy kiwifruit now. Fucken stuff doesn't even sell well enough to make money

[scissorhands]

Well, that's one way to look at it I suppose :2thumbsup

No one worries about loss of topsoil into the sea. Whats going to happen when its all gone....

This argument should be as strong as the climate change one. Crashing global sperm counts and feminisation....what will that mean??

A conditioning vehicle wizzed by and you jumped on it. Save The World from the Machines!!

[Quasievil]

Get people to stop polluting? CO2 is not a pollutant as such. We need to stop polluting with harmful chemicals, yes?



Thats dum, most c02 emmisions come from the enviroment 1.9 % come from man.
C02 levels have been 4 times higher in history with lower temperatures.

Its a con, a swindle and a load of crap that has become the new age religion for the blind and stupid

[Lias]

Personally I think climate change is bullshit, but even if it IS real I dont give a shit.

I want to see us concrete the entire fucking planet, like Coruscant in starwars :-)

[Winston001]

I just love it when my inate cynicism turns out to be so well justified...

Scientific consensus = we have to find this result or our funding dries up.

I guess you don't know any scientists. They don't deal in conspiracies. Indeed they don't accept each others findings until it can be duplicated. Furthermore there are thousands of scientists involved in oceanographic and atmospheric research. It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it.

As for the money conspiracy: follow the money. Who has the greatest interest in stopping carbon trading? Answer - the massive oil companies. Its the last thing they want and they have plenty of money to oppose it.

Who else? Politicians. What politician wants to introduce a new tax which voters don't understand? That's a one-way ticket out of power.

So.....despite all the oil money and fear of voter backlash, we have nations tentatively agreeing to carbon trading and emissions reductions. That says that the evidence produced by scientific studies has the politicians really scared and forced to do something they'd rather ignore.

[Mr Merde]

Thats dum, most c02 emmisions come from the enviroment 1.9 % come from man.
C02 levels have been 4 times higher in history with lower temperatures.

Its a con, a swindle and a load of crap that has become the new age religion for the blind and stupid

According to the samples taken from the ice in the poles, CO2 was higher 120,000 years ago than it is today.

Geologically speaking we are only just comming out of an "Ice Age" (20,000 years). Warming is part of this or we would still be in an ice age.

1000 years ago there was a mini ice age and Greenlad and Iceland got the covering of snow and ice they have today. Proior to that Greenland was known by the Vikings as "vinland" as they grew grapes there and made wine.

[Quasievil]

I guess you don't know any scientists. They don't deal in conspiracies.

yes they do in this situation they are used as political pawns and as a group history have been proved wrong many times before about many issues.
Also many have been eager to sign up to this crapola for simple funding bennifits.
the whole thing is a sham

[huff3r]

yes they do in this situation they are used as political pawns and as a group history have been proved wrong many times before about many issues.
Also many have been eager to sign up to this crapola for simple funding bennifits.
the whole thing is a sham

And any that do actually come out with the truth get squashed and ignored, because all the "big" scientists agree with climate change... only because of the $$$ it puts in their pockets!!

[mashman]

I guess you don't know any scientists. They don't deal in conspiracies. Indeed they don't accept each others findings until it can be duplicated. Furthermore there are thousands of scientists involved in oceanographic and atmospheric research. It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it.

As for the money conspiracy: follow the money. Who has the greatest interest in stopping carbon trading? Answer - the massive oil companies. Its the last thing they want and they have plenty of money to oppose it.

Who else? Politicians. What politician wants to introduce a new tax which voters don't understand? That's a one-way ticket out of power.

So.....despite all the oil money and fear of voter backlash, we have nations tentatively agreeing to carbon trading and emissions reductions. That says that the evidence produced by scientific studies has the politicians really scared and forced to do something they'd rather ignore.

Absolutely! But in order to agree to fight GHG's and pollutants, you need sign the Kyoto Protocol... then it's legal, you agree that your country will take on some of the burden for funding climate change research. The US won't sig the Koyoto Protocol! Why not? Pick a reason, any reason, it'll all come down to money!

[scissorhands]

Absolutely! But in order to agree to fight GHG's and pollutants, you need sign the Kyoto Protocol... then it's legal, you agree that your country will take on some of the burden for funding climate change research. The US won't sig the Koyoto Protocol! Why not? Pick a reason, any reason, it'll all come down to money!

Because they want to continue dividing the masses with mixed messages...and turning red necks and greenies against each other. A lot of profit in dividing.

Meanwhile everything else like privacy legislation goes through government while everyone is arguing with their backs turned.

Like now

[mashman]

Because they want to continue dividing the masses with mixed messages...and turning red necks and greenies against each other. A lot of profit in dividing.

Meanwhile everything else like privacy legislation goes through government while everyone is arguing with their backs turned.

Like now

3 days since the story broke and not a single thing in the press??? Anyone seen anything???

[avgas]

Sport and Religion.

[Pixie]

tbh if the man made climate change thing was a conspiracy i wouldnt be overly bothered, what are the results? get people to stop polluting, use what fuel we have left in a more efficient manner.

dont get me wrong, i dont think the end should justify the means but in this case its more of a white lie situation.

And allow governments to make a fuck load of money from carbon taxes and UN research grants

[MisterD]

I guess you don't know any scientists.

Not since I left university with an incredibly dim view of the people that spend their lives in those institutions...



They don't deal in conspiracies. Indeed they don't accept each others findings until it can be duplicated. Furthermore there are thousands of scientists involved in oceanographic and atmospheric research. It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it.

As for the money conspiracy: follow the money. Who has the greatest interest in stopping carbon trading? Answer - the massive oil companies. Its the last thing they want and they have plenty of money to oppose it.

I'm not subscribing any conspiracy to the scientists, but it's a basic fact that the money from governments for the pro-AGW research is an ocean to the drop that the oil companies have put in...AGW gets disproven and they're out of a job - human nature innit.

[Pixie]

This is the whole point. Maybe client change is real, maybe it's not, but the fact still remains that people are making money off us and doing nothing about it other than producing more studies, studies paid for by tax payers...



Client change is real.Every hooker knows that after a while a client will go looking for a different hooker.

[Jantar]

..... It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it. ......
And that is exactly what is happening. Scientists have been screaming for years now about false data, incorrect methods, changed final reports etc. Mike Mann has already been vilified for his hockey stick fiasco, and both NASA and CRU have been shown up in the past for changing raw data to suit their claims. Now these leaked emails have confirmed that that very scenario is endemic in the AGW camp.

Somebody is screaming about it, but many people (particularly politicians) just don't want to listen.

[Mr Merde]

....
Somebody is screaming about it, but many people (particularly politicians) just don't want to listen.


Because to listen means the possible removal of another method of taking our hard earned cash off of us, thereby diminishing their own perceived levels of self importance.

[mashman]

Client change is real.Every hooker knows that after a while a client will go looking for a different hooker.

I'm not saying climate change isn't real, moreover a natural process. I'm not saying that global warming isn't real, moreover not even the scientific community can say with their hand on heart that the global warming exists... they know there was a spike between 1992 - 2000...

Extract from emails:

From: Kevin Trenberth (Very high up, just google him)
To: The scientific community
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37

Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

From: Stephen H Schneider
To: Other scientists
Date: Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,

From: Narasimha D. Rao
To: Stephen H Schneider
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views.
[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl imate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

[mashman]

Because to listen means the possible removal of another method of taking our hard earned cash off of us, thereby diminishing their own perceived levels of self importance.

That's the tip of the iceberg... IF Global Warming has been a revenue gathering populace control mechanism, you can bet your ass that it's not the only one!!!

[Badjelly]

According to the samples taken from the ice in the poles, CO2 was higher 120,000 years ago than it is today....

I'd be interesting in seeing some info to back up that statement.

To the best of my knowledge, 120,000 years ago (the peak of the interglacial before the current one) CO2 was at around 285 ppm. Today it's at 385 ppm.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

[Ixion]

I'd have thought that CO2 would be higher a bit BEFORE the intergalcial peak. Otherwise we have a very tricky question to answer, what REVERSED the interglacial.

[Wasp27]

I just laughed so hard me tinfoil hat fell off!
Shit...was that you I could hear.... thought it was a power test at the airport:lol:

[Wasp27]

I want to see us concrete the entire fucking planet, like Coruscant in starwars :-)
They can start by burying those fucking Wire Rope Barriers in Concrete:yes:

[Jantar]

I'd have thought that CO2 would be higher a bit BEFORE the intergalcial peak. Otherwise we have a very tricky question to answer, what REVERSED the interglacial.
Right throughout all reconstructions, CO2 concentrations have lagged Global temperatures by around 800 years.

Didn't the earth experience the medievel warm period around 800 years ago?

[Badjelly]

I'd have thought that CO2 would be higher a bit BEFORE the intergalcial peak. Otherwise we have a very tricky question to answer, what REVERSED the interglacial.

Dunno. All I'm saying is that, according to the data I've seen, global CO2 120,000 years ago was not higher than it is now it was 100 ppm lower.

You're not trying to get into that whole "temperature leads CO2" thing, are you?

[Badjelly]

Right throughout all reconstructions, CO2 concentrations have lagged Global temperatures by around 800 years.

Didn't the earth experience the medievel warm period around 800 years ago?

Taking your propositions in turn: Yes (probably, determining precise timing is tricky). Yes.

And your point is?

[James Deuce]

I guess you don't know any scientists. They don't deal in conspiracies. Indeed they don't accept each others findings until it can be duplicated.


That particular model of pure scientific research is long dead in the US, the UK and Australasia and was never considered valid in most of Asia.

Scientific research is funded by corporations not Governments, and corporations are about making money. They will use and manipulate researchers with impunity.

Governments that are still paying for scientific research are either doing so under the auspices of the EU or are just looking for better ways to kill part of their population who are proving problematic.

[Badjelly]

That particular model of pure scientific research is long dead in the US, the UK and Australasia and was never considered valid in most of Asia.

Scientific research is funded by corporations not Governments, and corporations are about making money. They will use and manipulate researchers with impunity.

Governments that are still paying for scientific research are either doing so under the auspices of the EU or are just looking for better ways to kill part of their population who are proving problematic.

Have you ever talked with a scientist working on climate change?

[James Deuce]

Yes. More than one. They're either delusional and close minded or cynical and quite happy to take the cheque thanks. It doesn't help that the ones working for the deniers/sceptics are exactly the same.

[Badjelly]

Yes. More than one. They're either delusional and close midned or cynical and quite happy to take the cheque thanks. It doesn't help that the ones working for the deniers/sceptics are exactly the same.

Where "close-minded" = don't agree with you?

[mashman]

Governments that are still paying for scientific research are either doing so under the auspices of the EU or are just looking for better ways to kill part of their population who are proving problematic.

Surely not a conspiracy theory there!

[mashman]

CEI: Competitive Enterprise Institute (read funding body, constantly referred to in the emails provided by Hans)

Statement by Myron Ebell, CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy

"The posting of private data files from the Climatic Research Unit in England reveals the sleazy, unseemly side of a number of the leading scientific proponents of global warming alarmism, including CRU Director Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth. It is clear that some of the “world’s leading climate scientists,” as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position.

Anyone who assumed that these so-called scientific authorities in the debate were providing the straight scientific facts is going to have to think again. We have argued for many years that much of the scientific case for global warming alarmism was weak and some of it was phony. It now looks like a lot of it may be phony."

Oh no, who to believe it's all so confusing and yet so perfectly obvious that some scientist would try to produce their actual findings???????

[James Deuce]

Where "close-minded" = don't agree with you?

No not at all, just dismissive of anyone who doesn't think like them. You can quote other people's research until the cows come home and it's the same on both sides - "they're" wrong.

Makes for hilarious debates.

[James Deuce]

Surely not a conspiracy theory there!

No. CERN is the only organisation I can think of committed to pure research without aiming to provide a solution to the "energy crisis", "climate change", or "finding Osama bn Laden".

[Badjelly]

No not at all, just dismissive of anyone who doesn't think like them. You can quote other people's research until the cows come home and it's the same on both sides - "they're" wrong.

Makes for hilarious debates.

The problem is, it's hard to point out that a piece of nonsense that's been refuted many times over is nonsense without being dismissive.

Which is not to say that every point that's ever been raised by the sceptics is nonsense, but in my opinion, the vast majority are. Case in point: Quasi's assertion that mankind's emissions of CO2 are only 1.9% (or whatever) of natural emissions. It probably does refer to an actual piece of data, though I've given up trying to find out what. But it's thoroughly irrelevant to the question of whether the recent rise in CO2 in caused by humans. Yet it refuses to die.

[James Deuce]

The problem is, it's hard to point out that a piece of nonsense that's been refuted many times over is nonsense without being dismissive.

Which is not to say that every point that's ever been raised by the sceptics is nonsense, but in my opinion, the vast majority are. Case in point: Quasi's assertion that mankind's emissions of CO2 are only 1.9% (or whatever) of natural emissions. It probably does refer to an actual piece of data, though I've given up trying to find out what. But it's thoroughly irrelevant to the question of whether the recent rise in CO2 in caused by humans. Yet it refuses to die.
No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. There are sides, which is hilarious. A "scientist" should understand inherently that there are no absolutes, and the more they know the less they understand. Seeking understanding has been replaced with collecting knowledge and distributing "facts". The fact that sides have been allowed to develop and been encourged is very discouraging.

I think the climate change (the climate will change, there's nothing you can do about it) is bad and we must reverse it crowd are bonkers, personally. They'd be better advised to put their energy into shaping and adapting to change.

[mashman]

The problem is, it's hard to point out that a piece of nonsense that's been refuted many times over is nonsense without being dismissive.

Which is not to say that every point that's ever been raised by the sceptics is nonsense, but in my opinion, the vast majority are. Case in point: Quasi's assertion that mankind's emissions of CO2 are only 1.9% (or whatever) of natural emissions. It probably does refer to an actual piece of data, though I've given up trying to find out what. But it's thoroughly irrelevant to the question of whether the recent rise in CO2 in caused by humans. Yet it refuses to die.

That's because 20 years on, nobody has an answer!

Now the researchers are looking for more funding! so we're just about to go through another funding phase... Carbon Tax anyone?

The documents/emails released recently contain conversations between scientists at the forefront of WORLD GLOBAL CHANGE.

Many of these scientists are still trying to look at things objectively and have found that there is data missing. They are now being hung out to dry by the CEI... a serious shame, but the one thing they never factor into scientific equation is human fallability! Bugga!

[Badjelly]

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. There are sides, which is hilarious. A "scientist" should understand inherently that there are no absolutes, and the more they know the less they understand. Seeking understanding has been replaced with collecting knowledge and distributing "facts". The fact that sides have been allowed to develop and been encourged is very discouraging.

I think the climate change (the climate will change, there's nothing you can do about it) is bad and we must reverse it crowd are bonkers, personally. They'd be better advised to put their energy into shaping and adapting to change.

The fact that there are "sides" in the public "debate" on climate change is the thing that is most frustrating to actual climate scientists (which I am not, by the way). In scientific circles the debate about one thing is over: We are poking the climate system with a big stick.

You think people are proposing to reverse climate change? No-one is suggesting that that's possible or maybe even desirable (except for the gung-ho geoengineering people). Some scientists are suggesting we shouldn't poke so hard.

[Jantar]

...
Many of these scientists are still trying to look at things objectively and have found that there is data missing. They are now being hung out to dry by the CEI... a serious shame, but the one thing they never factor into scientific equation is human fallability! Bugga!
If that were true then there wouldn't be such an issue. But Mann decided to fill those blanks with data from tree rings that were known to be false, inapropriate and even from the wrong period. Then fed that data into a model that would produce a hockey stick result even if purely random data was used.

Trenberth released the results of a study on the effects of global warming on hurricane intensity and frequency before the study was even halfway through. The lead author of that study resigned from the IPCC because the results announcerde by Trenberth did not agree with the data he was seeing. Trenberth's results were included in the 4th IPCC report despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

[mashman]

From what i read in some of the emails Trenberth stipulated that his research wasn't complete because he knew something was wrong

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600
Cc: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id n9E71pl4015864

<x-flowed>
Dear all,

At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.

Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

These sums complement Kevin's energy work.

Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not
agree with this.

Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi all
> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are
> asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
> days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high
> the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also
> a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January
> weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
> and then played last night in below freezing weather)

[Badjelly]

I think this guy puts my point of view rather well

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-5/#comment-142309

[Pixie]

I'd have thought that CO2 would be higher a bit BEFORE the intergalcial peak. Otherwise we have a very tricky question to answer, what REVERSED the interglacial.

The fact is they don't know.All these climate change predictions are just models running on supercomputers and based on very limited understanding of how climate works.
In other words guess work.

[scissorhands]

Its like the old arguement about the moon is full of cheese. Who can prove it eitherway?

[Mikkel]

Considering that they apparently managed to access the contents of an entire server filled with research information I dare assume the following:

a) A ~62Mb zip file downloaded through bittorrent will constitute only a selection of that content.
b) Manipulating a body of data of that size in such a way as to discredit or undermine its origin is doable.
c) Considering that climate change is a hot subject in the political arena there is plenty of incitement to "not look for the truth".

I don't know how real it is, but I generally don't go reading other people's private letters - even if someone broke in, stole them and published them in the Press. NMFB.

As for the whole climate debate - I don't know what the answer is. Consequently I am not going to dismiss either hypothesis out of hand. Does anyone know what the scientific consensus was before the whole thing was turned into a political media circus populated almost entirely with pseudo-skeptics and doomsday-prophetising con-men? And let's not forget to mention the very vocal "common-sense" amateur scientists who apparently has figured the entire thing out while the real scientific community have a hard time actually agreeing on anything.


1000 years ago there was a mini ice age and Greenlad and Iceland got the covering of snow and ice they have today. Proior to that Greenland was known by the Vikings as "vinland" as they grew grapes there and made wine.

Ahem, not quite correct.

In regards to Greenland - they came in summer, the coastline is green and looks inviting in summer. However, they could not grow crops efficiently and their livestock died. The whole colonization attempt was abandoned fairly quickly.

In regards to grapes and Vinland - yes, but here we are talking North America, not Greenland. The Vikings went far afield, they made it all the way to Arabia as well.

[Jantar]

..... Does anyone know what the scientific consensus was before the whole thing was turned into a political media circus populated almost entirely with pseudo-skeptics and doomsday-prophetising con-men? ......
There has never been any concensus. If there is concensus, then its not science, if its science it can not have concensus. That is the difference between science and engineering or mathematics.

[Hans]

As for the whole climate debate - I don't know what the answer is. Consequently I am not going to dismiss either hypothesis out of hand. Does anyone know what the scientific consensus was before the whole thing was turned into a political media circus populated almost entirely with pseudo-skeptics and doomsday-prophetising con-men? And let's not forget to mention the very vocal "common-sense" amateur scientists who apparently has figured the entire thing out while the real scientific community have a hard time actually agreeing on anything.

[/SIZE]

As far as I am aware, there was no consensus. Just as there is no consensus now.

[Mikkel]

There has never been any concensus. If there is concensus, then its not science, if its science it can not have concensus. That is the difference between science and engineering or mathematics.

So you are saying that engineering and mathematics aren't science?

But I must disagree, there can be a scientific consensus - if there is general agreement due to the evidence being strong enough and the underlying assumptions, in regards to interpretation, are irrefutably reasonable.


As far as I am aware, there was no consensus. Just as there is no consensus now.

Well, let me then put it to you this way: before there could be an "anti-climate-change" camp there must have been a "climate-change" camp. If either of these were established before the politicking began, it would add to it's credibility.

[Hans]

So you are saying that engineering and mathematics aren't science?


This is a large part of the problem...

Consensus in engineering, mathematics and physics exists mostly in those aspects that have been established by repeatable experiment.

No-one will argue, if you say that member X will fail under N load if its thickness is < Z.

But you can't say, for example, that the Higgs boson will appear at energy E. You can at best establish an energy range within which it is likely to appear, based on well founded assumptions. BUT BASED ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, NO-ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL APPEAR, OR THAT IT EVEN EXISTS.

[mashman]

The fact is they don't know.All these climate change predictions are just models running on supercomputers and based on very limited understanding of how climate works.
In other words guess work.

It's not that difficult to understand is it? Now, of whom would you ask the question: How much does all of this cost? and why would you want to know?

[SPman]

. Proior to that Greenland was known by the Vikings as "vinland" as they grew grapes there and made wine.
Crap! - another myth of no substance!
Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of that island. The vast majority of land not under an ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. Just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?

Proxy reconstructions have shown that the Medieval Warm Period (around the time the Vikings were said to have discovered North America) was in fact not as warm or pronounced as today's warmth.

What records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century....

"There has been much argument over the location of Vinland, with scholars and local enthusiasts placing it anywhere between Labrador and Florida, and even in the Great Lakes or the Mississippi Valley. The geographical descriptions in the Norse sagas are too vague to allow certain placement on a modern map, but there is growing consensus that they best fit Newfoundland and Labrador (formerly Newfoundland). The main problem with a Newfoundland and Labrador (formerly Newfoundland) site is the absence of wild grapes. Still, there is a strong suspicion that what Leif found were only berries, and that he followed the practice of his father in "giving a land a good name so that men would want to go there".

[James Deuce]

Leif and Erik are distant relatives of mine, so no doubt they are FANTASTIC bullshitters.

[Winston001]

This is a large part of the problem...

Consensus in engineering, mathematics and physics exists mostly in those aspects that have been established by repeatable experiment.

No-one will argue, if you say that member X will fail under N load if its thickness is < Z.

But you can't say, for example, that the Higgs boson will appear at energy E. You can at best establish an energy range within which it is likely to appear, based on well founded assumptions. BUT BASED ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, NO-ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL APPEAR, OR THAT IT EVEN EXISTS.

Errr.....ummm.....you are straying into quantum physics and Uncertainty which is quite different to the findings of climate data which is at a classical level.

For example, we cannot say where an electron is situated around an atom - just a best guess. But we can say what happens when that atom meets another atom with a spare proton.

For example CO2 - the greenhouse gas - combines with seawater to produce carbonic acid H2CO3. Why does this matter? Because ocean acidification is one of the major effects of high levels of CO2. Normally the ocean is slightly basic, not acidic. Acids dissolve shellfish and coral reefs. We only have to look at the dying Great Barrier Reef to see evidence of carbon pollution.

[george formby]

Bottom line is we don't know squat, climate will change regardless as it always has done. We are scrabbling to find facts now because we are poisoning ourselves & hope we can find a plaster to put on the problem. Won't happen. Human society runs on economics, which boils down to $$$$. Problem is without growth, the house of cards falls. For decades to come nothing significant will be done to protect ourselves because it is to costly. Further on, when we really need to get our shit together we will be running out of cheap energy, arable land, clean water, raw materials etc. Hot or cold climate thats when we are really in the poo.
The guy who came up with the Gaia theory recently stated about climate change " humanity will do nothing until it watch's the first million people die on TV". That rings horribly true.

[Mikkel]

This is a large part of the problem...

Consensus in engineering, mathematics and physics exists mostly in those aspects that have been established by repeatable experiment.

No-one will argue, if you say that member X will fail under N load if its thickness is < Z.

But you can't say, for example, that the Higgs boson will appear at energy E. You can at best establish an energy range within which it is likely to appear, based on well founded assumptions. BUT BASED ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, NO-ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL APPEAR, OR THAT IT EVEN EXISTS.

You don't have to take it even that far. Something as "simple" as quantum mechanics makes it quite obvious that physics is not an "exact" science. However, solving Schrodinger's equation for pretty much any interesting system is difficult. (for the record, difficult, in this case, means beyond our current ability)

Consider climate change. We can hardly argue the truth of basic observations such as "solar irradiance adds thermal energy to the system", "water vapour has a higher absorption of infra-red radiation than air", "the albedo depends upon the terrain", etc. In comparison to quantum mechanics, it is difficult to take all of these basic observations and set up an equation that will describe the entire system at once. However, in order to get an accurate picture you have to consider the system as a whole since everything is interconnected, entangled if you will.

Then you can either choose a) to give up or b) to give it your best shot. In this case the best shot is constructing a mathematical model that can describe the system with some degree of certainty. Unlike what Pixie stated, mathematical modelling is not exactly "guesswork" - but it does require that you make some assumptions along the way. If you have a political agenda, or even just a grant application coming up, it is very easy - even unconsciously - to manipulate these assumptions ever so slightly...

Climate change is affected by man, there can be no doubt about it since we are part of the system. However, whether that effect is inconsiderable or of a scale where it can actually drive climate change is more difficult to ascertain. As with most other things, the reality is to be found somewhere between the extremes. What is important, though, is to understand the system, if we don't we'll get into trouble sooner or later. Whether caused by man or not, a 5 meter rise in sea-levels would be more than a tad inconvenient. If we understood the system we might even be able to control such variations - to an extent.

[mashman]

Bottom line is we don't know squat, climate will change regardless as it always has done. We are scrabbling to find facts now because we are poisoning ourselves & hope we can find a plaster to put on the problem. Won't happen. Human society runs on economics, which boils down to $$$$. Problem is without growth, the house of cards falls. For decades to come nothing significant will be done to protect ourselves because it is to costly. Further on, when we really need to get our shit together we will be running out of cheap energy, arable land, clean water, raw materials etc. Hot or cold climate thats when we are really in the poo.
The guy who came up with the Gaia theory recently stated about climate change " humanity will do nothing until it watch's the first million people die on TV". That rings horribly true.

Sorry, I agree, but i have to ask this question George. Can you prove it? Because that's all anyone wants to hear... We have a solution!

Tell me, if this is the case and climatologists are trying to save the planet for us, why isn't climate research free?

As a country we have the capability to print money. Well you explain to me how the US found $700 billion to bail out the economy? Down the back of the couch?

Some people think that climate change can be solved, some people don't. In the meantime, as George says, we have to keep on stumping up $$$ to "save our planet".

[mashman]

If we understood the system we might even be able to control such variations - to an extent.

You're not wrong, we're supposedly doing this to control the planets ecosystem, at what cost?

[Mikkel]

You're not wrong, we're supposedly doing this to control the planets ecosystem, at what cost?

What I was proposing there is far removed from the current debate. Currently we don't understand the system enough to even get on the same base as to whether damage control is worthwhile, or even necessary for that matter.

Limiting carbon dioxide emissions is damage control - allocating resource specifically to collect and bind carbon dioxide to remove it from the atmosphere would be an attempt at controlling the the atmosphere.

At the moment we are burning fossil fuel, releasing carbon dioxide and more, at a rate where we use 1 million years of production every year. 1,000,000:1 is a pretty significant ratio.

[Quasievil]

Well its basically proven that the scientists leading the charge and providing date to the IPCC are fraudsters.

Scientists did conspire a conspiracy theory for their own gains

Scientists can be trusted..........insert Tui comment here.

Those involved have said the emails are theirs...........case closed

The entire data used for the Emissions trading scheme has been twisted and adjusted to suit the pro argument for nothing but financial gain.

SCEPTICS WIN..........case closed on that arguement, now watch the spin doctors go into motion to keep the B.S going.

Oh...........and I told you so !!

[Hans]

Errr.....ummm.....you are straying into quantum physics and Uncertainty which is quite different to the findings of climate data which is at a classical level.

For example, we cannot say where an electron is situated around an atom - just a best guess. But we can say what happens when that atom meets another atom with a spare proton.



I do not wish to enter into a shitfight with you, I have too much respect for your persona to do that to do that.

However:

You do realise that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing? Allow me to point out some inaccuracies in your post:

I am not straying into quantum physics or uncertainty.

a) The problem of symmetry breaking (ie the Higgs Boson) belongs into particle physics and Quantum Electrodynamics. BTW quantum physics is, at it's basic level, well understood and well predictable.

b) We can tell with absolute certainty, where an electron is situated OR what it's velocity is. We cannot tell BOTH. That is, in a nutshell, the uncertainty you were referring to.

c) You may be surprised to know that while obtaining the data on past temperatures etc. is indeed a case of classical physics, the generation of predictions based on such data is, in fact, frequently not. Or at the very least, the mathematics used in generating such predictions has no use in classical physics. I'm sure you understand the fine point of this distinction.

To sum up:

While I have personal respect for you, I cannot take your opinions on science seriously, when you make basic mistakes.
I'm sure you'd have me at logic and similar disciplines, but not the natural sciences.

[Hans]

You don't have to take it even that far. Something as "simple" as quantum mechanics makes it quite obvious that physics is not an "exact" science. However, solving Schrodinger's equation for pretty much any interesting system is difficult. (for the record, difficult, in this case, means beyond our current ability)

Consider climate change. We can hardly argue the truth of basic observations such as "solar irradiance adds thermal energy to the system", "water vapour has a higher absorption of infra-red radiation than air", "the albedo depends upon the terrain", etc. In comparison to quantum mechanics, it is difficult to take all of these basic observations and set up an equation that will describe the entire system at once. However, in order to get an accurate picture you have to consider the system as a whole since everything is interconnected, entangled if you will.

Then you can either choose a) to give up or b) to give it your best shot. In this case the best shot is constructing a mathematical model that can describe the system with some degree of certainty. Unlike what Pixie stated, mathematical modelling is not exactly "guesswork" - but it does require that you make some assumptions along the way. If you have a political agenda, or even just a grant application coming up, it is very easy - even unconsciously - to manipulate these assumptions ever so slightly...

Climate change is affected by man, there can be no doubt about it since we are part of the system. However, whether that effect is inconsiderable or of a scale where it can actually drive climate change is more difficult to ascertain. As with most other things, the reality is to be found somewhere between the extremes. What is important, though, is to understand the system, if we don't we'll get into trouble sooner or later. Whether caused by man or not, a 5 meter rise in sea-levels would be more than a tad inconvenient. If we understood the system we might even be able to control such variations - to an extent.

Hey, you make a good point. I agree. The problem and the original subject of this thread is the skewing of that "best available" method for political ends/expediency.

[scissorhands]

Nothing new under the sun. The emperor has no clothes!

[george formby]

Tell me, if this is the case and climatologists are trying to save the planet for us, why isn't climate research free?

As a country we have the capability to print money. Well you explain to me how the US found $700 billion to bail out the economy? Down the back of the couch?

Some people think that climate change can be solved, some people don't. In the meantime, as George says, we have to keep on stumping up $$$ to "save our planet".

Like you say, money, we print it. America is bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars, hundreds of trillions of dollars, thats a lot! But they have one helluva good reason for other countries & companys to keep investing in their nation. They are the world police, the worlds most technically advanced nation (for now) & the worlds biggest consumers & if America is allowed to become bankrupt, decades of international investment vanishes. A few hundred billion is beer tokens.
The only thing we can do about climate change is try to assuage our guilt & look after ourselves & the planet in the future.
One dirty great big volcano erupting, which is not uncommon, makes the whole climate change argument moot.
Lovely evening for a run on the bike by the way, I might go & see if Lake Taupo is warming up.:pinch:

[mashman]

What I was proposing there is far removed from the current debate. Currently we don't understand the system enough to even get on the same base as to whether damage control is worthwhile, or even necessary for that matter.

Absolutely agree, but after 20 years we're only just finding out that we're nowhere near answering that question. They need more study time, more money for study!




Limiting carbon dioxide emissions is damage control - allocating resource specifically to collect and bind carbon dioxide to remove it from the atmosphere would be an attempt at controlling the the atmosphere.

At the moment we are burning fossil fuel, releasing carbon dioxide and more, at a rate where we use 1 million years of production every year. 1,000,000:1 is a pretty significant ratio.


Yup, that's 2 things we're doing.

[mashman]

Like you say, money, we print it. America is bankrupt to the tune of trillions of dollars, hundreds of trillions of dollars, thats a lot! But they have one helluva good reason for other countries & companys to keep investing in their nation. They are the world police, the worlds most technically advanced nation (for now) & the worlds biggest consumers & if America is allowed to become bankrupt, decades of international investment vanishes. A few hundred billion is beer tokens.
The only thing we can do about climate change is try to assuage our guilt & look after ourselves & the planet in the future.
One dirty great big volcano erupting, which is not uncommon, makes the whole climate change argument moot.
Lovely evening for a run on the bike by the way, I might go & see if Lake Taupo is warming up.:pinch:

Muchos bling factor.

[Pixie]

It's not that difficult to understand is it? Now, of whom would you ask the question: How much does all of this cost? and why would you want to know?

Climate not difficult to understand.
And the award for understatement of the millennium goes to Mr Mashman

[Pixie]

You don't have to take it even that far. Something as "simple" as quantum mechanics makes it quite obvious that physics is not an "exact" science. However, solving Schrodinger's equation for pretty much any interesting system is difficult. (for the record, difficult, in this case, means beyond our current ability)




Meh,you put a cat in a box and shoot it -how hard can it be.

[Ocean1]

The solution to the most common failure of domestic felicity, Toilet seat up? Or down?

Schrodinger's Toilet Seat...

You will need:
1 cardboard box, large enough to cover the raised toilet seat
1 piece of toast
Blu-Tack (or similar reusable adhesive)

First calibrate your toaster so that you can produce a piece of toast which, as it cools, dries and becomes more brittle, will after time T spent supporting a raised toilet seat have a 50% probability of having broken. Then (after using the toilet) prop the raised toilet seat into an almost vertical position with your toast such that when the toast fails it will fall down to the horizontal position. If the toast has difficulty propping the toilet seat because of the smooth porcelain surface, use the Blu-Tack. Cover the propped seat with the cardboard box and leave.

Then after time T, the position of the seat is indeterminate - there is coherent superposition of quantum states - the toilet seat is both up and down until the box is removed.

[Badjelly]

BTW quantum physics is, at it's basic level, well understood and well predictable.

Is there a consensus amongst the physicists that this is so?

Doubtless if the truth or otherwise of quantum physics were a matter of social importance a debate on the subject could be arranged.

[Badjelly]

Well its basically proven that the scientists leading the charge and providing date to the IPCC are fraudsters.

Scientists did conspire a conspiracy theory for their own gains

Scientists can be trusted..........insert Tui comment here.

Those involved have said the emails are theirs...........case closed

The entire data used for the Emissions trading scheme has been twisted and adjusted to suit the pro argument for nothing but financial gain.

SCEPTICS WIN..........case closed on that arguement, now watch the spin doctors go into motion to keep the B.S going.

Oh...........and I told you so !!

That's a nasty case of confirmation bias you have there Quasi. You should see a doctor about it. On second thoughts, don't bother, you'd just believe what you want to believe anyway.

[Mikkel]

Well its basically proven that the scientists leading the charge and providing date to the IPCC are fraudsters.

Scientists did conspire a conspiracy theory for their own gains

Scientists can be trusted..........insert Tui comment here.

Those involved have said the emails are theirs...........case closed

The entire data used for the Emissions trading scheme has been twisted and adjusted to suit the pro argument for nothing but financial gain.

SCEPTICS WIN..........case closed on that arguement, now watch the spin doctors go into motion to keep the B.S going.

Oh...........and I told you so !!

Ian Wishart just came in his pants... another disciple just stepped up.

We had this debate before, I'll restate my point: skeptical thinking is not about reading something and then believing that it is true - that's religion. Nor is it adequate to extend skepticism to just one side of the argument. What you are proposing is closer to septisism.

If you are truly interested in widening your horizons I'll point you to these two very good books:
The Demonhaunted World (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259015105&sr=8-1) by Carl Sagan.
A Short History of Nearly Everything (http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259015138&sr=1-1) by Bill Bryson.


Hey, you make a good point. I agree. The problem and the original subject of this thread is the skewing of that "best available" method for political ends/expediency.

Yes, and my argument is that the skewing can take place on many levels - consciously or unconsciously. Whatever political spin is being put on any research is regrettable. I can't believe that the scientists involved are exactly thrilled about it either - you don't spend the better part of 10 years at university because you would like to become a political instrument. However, if you have a family to take care off and it's either fall into line with the company policy or loose your job and get a crappy reference - things might be a bit tricky.

Personally there is no better way of making me engage my "baloney detection kit" than for authorities (commercial or political) to proclaim "there is nothing to see here, move along". Too often economic interests are quite willing to mislead society so it won't notice the shit that going on right underneath our noses:

Tetra-ethyl lead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra_ethyl_lead)?
CFC gasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon)?
Thalidamide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidamide)?
Minamata disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease)?
Radium girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls)?

...to name but a few. Makes for interesting reading won't you agree?


Absolutely agree, but after 20 years we're only just finding out that we're nowhere near answering that question. They need more study time, more money for study!

Indeed, and you could fund a scientific study for less than the cost of one state-of-the-art smart-bomb dropped at some supposedly strategic target in the middle east. ...not to mention feed an entire village for years.


Meh,you put a cat in a box and shoot it -how hard can it be.

Put the cat down!

[Skyryder]

If you gather enough material be it on any subject you can use that material in a manner that will 'prove' any result that you want. It's simply useing selective text as proof, to portray 'your' views as the only view that is correct.

Skyryder

[Mikkel]

if you gather enough material be it on any subject you can use that material in a manner that will 'prove' any result that you want. It's simply useing selective text as proof, to portray 'your' views as the only view that is correct.

Skyryder

Bullshit!!

If you had said "prove" I'd be inclined to agree... ;)

[Jantar]

If you gather enough material be it on any subject you can use that material in a manner that will 'prove' any result that you want. It's simply useing selective text as proof, to portray 'your' views as the only view that is correct.

Skyryder
Not so. For something to be true scientifically it must be demonstrable and repeatable. In the case of AGW the raw data used to make a prediction must be made available to other scientists so that they may follow the methodology and come up with the same result.

What the climate skeptics have been saying for years is that the raw data is not being made available, only carefully massaged data, and even then the methodology of massaging that data has never been open to scrutiny. The hacked emails show that the skeptics have indeed been correct all along.

[Skyryder]

Bullshit!!

If you had said "prove" I'd be inclined to agree... ;)


I don't understand your post.


Skyryder

[Quasievil]

That's a nasty case of confirmation bias you have there Quasi. You should see a doctor about it. On second thoughts, don't bother, you'd just believe what you want to believe anyway.

yes I believe the Scientists when they personally owned up to the fraudulent scamming and figure adjustments to push this shit through...............after all you believed that they where right didn't you.

Only difference is I dont have any egg on my face, you do, as does the entire scientific community, for now we know for a FACT that their science is not science, its science for sale.

Even after absolute confirmation of the scamming you still believe ??????

surely not.

Skeptics win

[Badjelly]

What the climate skeptics have been saying for years is that the raw data is not being made available, only carefully massaged data, and even then the methodology of massaging that data has never been open to scrutiny. The hacked emails show that the skeptics have indeed been correct all along.

That's one of the things they've been saying. They've also been saying that it's the sun, it's the PDO, it's El Nino, it's undersea volcanoes, the satellites show no warming, there's no global warming on Mars and much else besides. Throw enough shit and some of it will stick for a while.

[Badjelly]

Only difference is I dont have any egg on my face, you do, as does the entire scientific community, for now we know for a FACT that their science is not science, its science for sale.

No egg on my face mate.

The point is, when you say "Sceptics win", the Earth absolutely doesn't care. It doesn't care what you think and it doesn't care what I think. This isn't some sports or political contest where the winner is decided by a referee or voters. It isn't bloody NZ Idol!

The changes humans are making to the Earth will be there long after you and I are gone. I can tell you my reasons for believing that, and to some extent I have. They have nothing to do with any emails.

[James Deuce]

Bill Bryson is a small-minded cock who will make points at the expense of the "truth" (established fact is probably a better term). Bear in mind that this is gleaned from following a book tour around the UK and watching him change his presentation to demean the next closest set of inbreds to each county he visited, as well as challenging his assertions about NZ which, despite never haveing visited at athe time, he insisted was a miniature Britain. He was not happy when I pointed out that we beat rather less Sikh's to death per capita than Britain so the characterisation needed a bit of work.

I loved his work before that. I became a rabid Bryson loathing stalker after his vapid shallowness was revealed.

He's closer to Ian Wishart than Sagan in character.

[Quasievil]

No egg on my face mate.

Yes of course, I meant the scientific community, particularly those involved with this scam (who should be locked up)

the amazing thing is that this breaking 4 odd days ago, our stupid government are now rushing to put this through ........why????

The government conceeds Maori can plant trees on our (DOC) land so Maori can get carbon credits ........Why?

this isnt about science, it never was, its about money and greed........funded by us...... why ? well it has to be as the pro science is flawed...... FACT.

[James Deuce]

Yes of course, I meant the scientific community, particularly those involved with this scam (who should be locked up)

the amazing thing is that this breaking 4 odd days ago, our stupid government are now rushing to put this through ........why????

The government conceeds Maori can plant trees on our (DOC) land so Maori can get carbon credits ........Why?

this isnt about science, it never was, its about money and greed........funded by us...... why ? well it has to be as the pro science is flawed...... FACT.
Because they smell free money. For them, personally, when their terms are over. In the meantime we have to live with the half-trillion debt in fake money.

[george formby]

I have not been able to access the info you are posting about but I would bet that it is only a very small part of the research which is being conducted world wide. I doubt that all of the research is being skewed. Also bare in mind that the University is in the UK, look what has just happened to scientists undertaking drug studies for the gummint up their. Some of them have left the sandpit because their findings were inappropriate to the politicians.
This ongoing debate is a murky pool with turds & pearls popping up to the surface for our edification.

[Skyryder]

Not so. For something to be true scientifically it must be demonstrable and repeatable. In the case of AGW the raw data used to make a prediction must be made available to other scientists so that they may follow the methodology and come up with the same result.

What the climate skeptics have been saying for years is that the raw data is not being made available, only carefully massaged data, and even then the methodology of massaging that data has never been open to scrutiny. The hacked emails show that the skeptics have indeed been correct all along.

I can no more prove that these emails are not what the skeptics say they are any more than the skeptics can prove they constitute a conspiracy.

The bottomline on all of this is that there is so much information from these emails that the skeptics have interpreted this as a conspiracy against Anthropogenic Global Warming. And this based on some passages taken out of context. For anyone to suggest that the ‘majority’ of those scientists who are engaged in climate research have decided to conspire en masse defies logic. If this was true then it surely would have come out into the open long before now. Human nature is incapable of keeping secrets for so long by so many.




Skyryder

[carbonhed]

This interview sets out some of the charges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

[Mikkel]

Bill Bryson is a small-minded cock who will make points at the expense of the "truth" (established fact is probably a better term). Bear in mind that this is gleaned from following a book tour around the UK and watching him change his presentation to demean the next closest set of inbreds to each county he visited, as well as challenging his assertions about NZ which, despite never haveing visited at athe time, he insisted was a miniature Britain. He was not happy when I pointed out that we beat rather less Sikh's to death per capita than Britain so the characterisation needed a bit of work.

I wouldn't know. There tend to be a trend that people who gain influence and fame turn into arrogant cocks given enough of either.

Bryson's success as an author relies to some extent on making astute observations about (sub-)cultures and then communicating these findings with wry humour - even sarcasm at times. It's what he does.

However, in regards to "A Short History of Nearly Everything" I read it and didn't find any significant bias. The only "digs" he takes are against oddball scientists over the ages (some of which died in bizarre ways) and greedy corporations - the former are subject to warm irony while the latter receives well deserved criticism.


I have not been able to access the info you are posting about but I would bet that it is only a very small part of the research which is being conducted world wide. I doubt that all of the research is being skewed. Also bare in mind that the University is in the UK, look what has just happened to scientists undertaking drug studies for the gummint up their. Some of them have left the sandpit because their findings were inappropriate to the politicians.
This ongoing debate is a murky pool with turds & pearls popping up to the surface for our edification.

The government is still alive and well in the worlds most successful neo-fascistic state.

[Quasievil]

I can no more prove that these emails are not what the skeptics say they are any more than the skeptics can prove they constitute a conspiracy.

The bottomline on all of this is that there is so much information from these emails that the skeptics have interpreted this as a conspiracy against Anthropogenic Global Warming. And this based on some passages taken out of context. For anyone to suggest that the ‘majority’ of those scientists who are engaged in climate research have decided to conspire en masse defies logic. If this was true then it surely would have come out into the open long before now. Human nature is incapable of keeping secrets for so long by so many.

Skyryder

Sadly they did conspire on mass to the point where they even pair reviewed their own work.
there has never been a consensus on the science, the ones exposed are the scientists who directly advise the IPCC or the UN, now without question AT ALL their must be doubt about the science, their simply has to be as its not correct by their own admission

nothing has been taken out of context their is a mass of info available to read.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/

[Skyryder]

This interview sets out some of the charges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Sadly they did conspire on mass to the point where they even pair reviewed their own work.
there has never been a consensus on the science, the ones exposed are the scientists who directly advise the IPCC or the UN, now without question AT ALL their must be doubt about the science, their simply has to be as its not correct by their own admission

nothing has been taken out of context their is a mass of info available to read.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/


But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the emails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on realclimate.org, the emails contain "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords


Basically what I have stated


From

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change


Skyryder

[Mikkel]

Sadly they did conspire on mass to the point where they even pair reviewed their own work.

Peer review - GD!

And that is indeed the scariest bit of it. The peer review mechanism is the error-correcting machine that keeps science trustworthy. Remove that and you all of a sudden have to rely on personal integrity - which means we'll end up with an authority based system...

[Swoop]

The peer review mechanism is the error-correcting machine that keeps science trustworthy.
That system is easily manipulated though. Simply inviting the "correct" people onto the review committee is very easily done.

[carbonhed]

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die


Skyryder

Did you read any of the replies to that article?

Can you address any of Dr Ball's criticisms?

[Quasievil]

unbelievable, okay so the email leaks didnt happen? and the scientists involved didnt own up to it? and the whole exposure of this scam didnt happen.

Sorry guys, this is real this has happened and this is fact, get over it

fucks sake you guys are sucked in big time.

Read the New york times, try and bash your way out of your shell and smell reality for once in your life.
:msn-wink:

Skeptics take the win !!

[Hans]

That system is easily manipulated though. Simply inviting the "correct" people onto the review committee is very easily done.

one of the emails is proof they did exactly that.

[Mikkel]

That system is easily manipulated though. Simply inviting the "correct" people onto the review committee is very easily done.

Although each individual submission is not likely to be reviewed by more than 2-5 reviewers, the entire body of reviewers is much larger than that. It takes only one reviewer, dedicated to the truth, to cry fault and cause a journal to loose face, credibility and impact. Most, if indeed not all, of the scientists I have had the privilege of interacting with, are honest good people who favour the pursuit of true knowledge no matter whether it's what they had hoped for or not.

What is unfortunate is that the competition for funding is so competitive - mainly due to lacking resource allocation by the governments. Competition can make some people cut corners. At other times personal ambition - or mental problems - may cause people to go astray.
Take the unfortunate examples of Hwang Woo-Suk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk) and Jan Hendrik Schon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n) - but a few examples of scientific misconduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct).
Believe me when I say that no one is more interested in seeing such episodes exposed and condemned than the scientific community itself. I can assure you that if the CRU researchers are found to be even suspected of actual scientific misconduct - then their careers are over and even their political puppeteers will have no use for them since their credibility has been destroyed. And you can rest assured that there will be plenty of their peers who will have a vested interest in following these proceedings very closely indeed. There is a hall of shame for "naughty scientists" and if you get in it you'll most likely never ever work in your field again.

[Mikkel]

unbelievable, okay so the email leaks didnt happen? and the scientists involved didnt own up to it? and the whole exposure of this scam didnt happen.

Sorry guys, this is real this has happened and this is fact, get over it

fucks sake you guys are sucked in big time.

Read the New york times, try and bash your way out of your shell and smell reality for once in your life.
:msn-wink:

Skeptics take the win !!

Polly want some sugar?

[Quasievil]

Polly want some sugar?

BWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

nope had some.

Im over it anyway, the world will continue to be fucked over by those that want our money, if not with this scam, it will be the next one or a combination of them.
End of the day we as individual citizens of this planet will progressively be fucked over by powers to be with cronies in their pockets.

If it wasnt for money and the ability to generate it, this whole saga would not even exist:niceone:

[Badjelly]

Bill Bryson is a small-minded cock who will make points at the expense of the "truth" (established fact is probably a better term)....

Maybe, but in my opinion A Short Of History of Nearly Everything is a great book, in the way it gives an impression of the variety and scope of natural science and the way the different threads are tied together. I don't recall the section on anthropogenic climate change particularly. It wasn't a big part of the book.

[mashman]

Facts that we know:

We know that the models that have been built are flawed. Building any system is trickly, even a website, let alone trying to model a living breathing planet! Can't remember who said it on here, but one HUGE fuckin volcano eruption makes the whole argument moot!

It's just another money grabbing scheme. Why don't we print more money and just get on with it... The US printed $700 billion to bail out businesses etc... and got shafted, because large business is all about ROI, no need to give it to those that need it, just keep the money and pay the board their billions of dollars of bonus!!! Crisis over!!!

[SPman]

Do you get the feeling, that the whole climate change thing is heading down the Evolution/creation road........................and big business is prepping societies for the next big fleecing, regardless of the rights, wrongs, truths or lies!

A bit like ACC really....get everyone arguing over who caused it, strike fear into the hearts and minds of the population at large, ignore adapting to the changes that are happening, and devise (particularly in NZs case) money making strategies for the big business arseholes that are screwing over the planet, at the expense of the greater populace in the first place........

[Badjelly]

Facts that we know:

We know that the models that have been built are flawed. Building any system is trickly, even a website, let alone trying to model a living breathing planet! Can't remember who said it on here, but one HUGE fuckin volcano eruption makes the whole argument moot!

You're long on assertion and short on detail or (I am guessing) understanding of WTF you're talking about.

There were several large volcanic eruptions in the last century. The global climate models did a good job of reproducing their effect on global temperature. Still, that's obviously impossible, so it must be just a conspiracy, eh?

I suspect a really HUGE volcanic eruption would be enough to cool the planet down for a couple of decades. (How much and how long? I dunno. I'll have to look up the scientific literature. Or perhaps Ian Wishart has all the answers. But I'm a teensy bit sceptical about him.) Come to that, if a really BIG asteroid hits us it could wipe out all life on Earth. But until then, let's just try to do the best we can, shall we?

[mashman]

You're long on assertion and short on detail or (I am guessing) understanding of WTF you're talking about.


Definitely both, the detail causing the assertion... does it mean i am wrong?



There were several large volcanic eruptions in the last century. The global climate models did a good job of reproducing their effect on global temperature. Still, that's obviously impossible, so it must be just a conspiracy, eh?


Why would i say such a thing, as you've pointed out it's one hell of an assertion! My reason: Plenty of high level climatologists are questioning the base data. How can you successfully model any system if your base data is wrong. YOU CAN'T as the ACC!!!!!!!



I suspect a really HUGE volcanic eruption would be enough to cool the planet down for a couple of decades. (How much and how long? I dunno. I'll have to look up the scientific literature. Or perhaps Ian Wishart has all the answers. But I'm a teensy bit sceptical about him.) Come to that, if a really BIG asteroid hits us it could wipe out all life on Earth. But until then, let's just try to do the best we can, shall we?

Aye, toooooooootally fooked :niceone:

I AM WILLING TO BE PROVEN WRONG, until then i have to stick with my position don't i, or is there any space left in the sand for me to bury my head (not levelled at you BadJelly)

[Swoop]

It takes only one reviewer, dedicated to the truth, to cry fault and cause a journal to loose face, credibility and impact.

I can assure you that if the CRU researchers are found to be even suspected of actual scientific misconduct - then their careers are over and even their political puppeteers will have no use for them since their credibility has been destroyed.
Unfortunately the simple truth remains. Money.

Also, if anyone is found to be "out of synch" with a group of reviewers, that person is regarded as a "voice in the wilderness" and their opinions dismissed/overruled.

As Dr Frankenfurter stated, you can "remove the cause, but not the symptom". The individual may cop some flack and be disregarded, but the system remains unharmed and will continue to pollute the academic gene pool for further generations to exploit...



BTW. "Loose" is a nut that hasn't been tightened up.
"Lose", is different.

[carbonhed]

Even George "moonbat" Monbiot is honest enough to acknowledge the damage :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

[Badjelly]

Here's hoping i've got the quoting right...


You're long on assertion and short on detail or (I am guessing) understanding of WTF you're talking about.


Definitely both, the detail causing the assertion... does it mean i am wrong?

If I understand your response, no the fact that you're long on assertion and short on detail does not mean you're wrong, but it means that when you make a statement like "the models are fucked" or whatever it was, it's second-hand. You don't really understand how the models are being used or what reasons there are for believing they're right or wrong. And it's not surprising you wouldn't know that, as it's a complicated business. But, if you take any halfway reasonable model of the atmosphere-ocean system and run it for the last century (the 20th, I mean) with the best estimates of various forcings (sun, greenhouse gases, aerosols, including volcanic aerosols) you can reproduce the observed trajectory of global temperature. So that gives you some confidence. Furthermore you just can't construct a model that describes the climate in a realistic way (eg correct annual cycle) that isn't sensitive to CO2.


There were several large volcanic eruptions in the last century. The global climate models did a good job of reproducing their effect on global temperature. Still, that's obviously impossible, so it must be just a conspiracy, eh?


Why would i say such a thing, as you've pointed out it's one hell of an assertion! My reason: Plenty of high level climatologists are questioning the base data. How can you successfully model any system if your base data is wrong.

There's been a lot of questioning of the surface temperature record, but it's stood up to the scrutiny. Even if you decide the HadCRU record is tainted because the people who maintain it are reluctant to release their base data, there's also the GISS record which is pretty open, I believe. And when occasionally they discover a minor error they fix it (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/), tell everyone about it and estimate its effects.


YOU CAN'T as the ACC!!!!!!!

Actually, though doubtless the ACC has been a bit loose with the figures, I suspect their basic assertion is correct: that motorcycle accidents are expensive out of proportion to the number of registered vehicles. But I haven't been brave enough to say this on this site.

[avgas]

There is a hall of shame for "naughty scientists" and if you get in it you'll most likely never ever work in your field again.

Sad but true.
Why sad you say? Well fact of the matter is that some people will never be let off the tight leash. Poor old Lorentz is still ignored in teaching, among all those that followed him. Even though he was found to be correct.
Yet we quite happily accept his results if they come from a black box and don't involve so called 'fringe' science (No I'm not talking ghost etc).

I would also be curious what HP and IBM invest into science these days, as I almost never see them do anything with science these days - doesn't fit with the profits so I'm told. Yet they were one of the drivers in the 70's.

[James Deuce]

Maybe, but in my opinion A Short Of History of Nearly Everything is a great book, in the way it gives an impression of the variety and scope of natural science and the way the different threads are tied together. I don't recall the section on anthropogenic climate change particularly. It wasn't a big part of the book.

Blimey, I'm not allowed an opinion after actually meeting the chap more than once, am I? I enjoy his writing tremendously. I think you'd be a bit shocked at how little regard he has for his audience.

[Hans]

The one thing I find really interesting:

Climate change science is a predominantly Anglo-saxon domain.
From experience most scientific communities in non-english speaking countries generally don't believe in AGW or couldn't give a rodent's rectum about the whole thing. The populations also generally don't believe it.

Anyone have any idea why?

My personal take on this is, that the propaganda in these countries hasn't been so heavy, but I'd genuinely like to hear your opinions on this. Assuming your are willing to believe the assertion I make. I think the assertion is just as valid as when I say that the majority of kiwis believe in AGW, even though they might not be clear on why they believe it.

[Quasievil]

You don't really understand how the models are being used or what reasons there are for believing they're right or wrong. And it's not surprising you wouldn't know that, as it's a complicated business.

It hasn't been complicated for the scientists reporting to the IPCC, simply get data, leave the information out that doesnt work in your argument and your done.

Hockey stick graph for example.

Now with serious evidence pointing to the fact that most data has been "toyed" with shows that the ETS scam has been embraced by some scientists
in particular those scientists who advise the IPCC and the UN.

All the rest of the scientific arguments that you pro guys a spewing out is kinda redundant as your arguments are based on the same research which has been toyed with by the above mentioned.

What you should be concerned with is now what mandate has the government got to push this ETS LIE through (as we speak) thats all that matters to me.

History shows us Science often works for the evil and again this seems to be the case.

[avgas]

I think the assertion is just as valid as when I say that the majority of kiwis believe in AGW, even though they might not be clear on why they believe it.

Someone was foolish enough to tell us we were the greenest place on earth.
Probably came from a big city like Shanghai or New York

[mashman]

Here's hoping i've got the quoting right...
If I understand your response, no the fact that you're long on assertion and short on detail does not mean you're wrong, but it means that when you make a statement like "the models are fucked" or whatever it was, it's second-hand. You don't really understand how the models are being used or what reasons there are for believing they're right or wrong. And it's not surprising you wouldn't know that, as it's a complicated business. But, if you take any halfway reasonable model of the atmosphere-ocean system and run it for the last century (the 20th, I mean) with the best estimates of various forcings (sun, greenhouse gases, aerosols, including volcanic aerosols) you can reproduce the observed trajectory of global temperature. So that gives you some confidence. Furthermore you just can't construct a model that describes the climate in a realistic way (eg correct annual cycle) that isn't sensitive to CO2.


I don't understand how the models work, but 15 years of coding against databases give me an understanding of how the models are generated . I write code for a living, lots and lots of code that interfaces to data in a database. If one of my parameters is wrong, then all of my data is wrong. That can put a company out of business when the report comes out.

I'm not questioning their findings (not directly anyway), long on assertion and lack of detail really doesn't go far... i'm questioning the fact that some of the scientific community seem to think that missing out 1 thing effects the whole system (I understand why). Some of the scientists in the emails are saying this. Some of the scientists don't want to hear it because that would make them wrong, have their credentials called into question blah blah blah!



There's been a lot of questioning of the surface temperature record, but it's stood up to the scrutiny. Even if you decide the HadCRU record is tainted because the people who maintain it are reluctant to release their base data, there's also the GISS record which is pretty open, I believe. And when occasionally they discover a minor error they fix it (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/), tell everyone about it and estimate its effects.


I don't doubt it, but a minor error that has been there for how long? Many of the theories stated for various parts of the system rely on wha's gone before them!

We can agree to disagree, i have no problem with that. I just know from bitter experience that when you change anything that is a parameter or data related, it breaks everything that is derived from the initial data. And i hate it when that happens as it can add days/weeks/months on to my workload, all depending on the size of the project. But that's just from my experiences with DB's, it's either the code or the data... most business just buy in a new software package and blame the old one for not holding the data in the way they would like.

[Jantar]

....There's been a lot of questioning of the surface temperature record, but it's stood up to the scrutiny. Even if you decide the HadCRU record is tainted because the people who maintain it are reluctant to release their base data, there's also the GISS record which is pretty open, I believe. And when occasionally they discover a minor error they fix it (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/), tell everyone about it and estimate its effects......

Actually the GISS record has at times been shown to be even further away from the MSU record, and there are many occassions where Hansen (GISS) has had to admit that data had been changed. Note also that many of these emails are either to or from Hansen, so that record is not as clean as you may believe either.

The only temperature record that is believeable is the MSU record, and even that was adjusted a few years ago after pressure from Jim Hansen.

[carbonhed]

It hasn't been complicated for the scientists reporting to the IPCC, simply get data, leave the information out that doesnt work in your argument and your done.

Hockey stick graph for example.

Now with serious evidence pointing to the fact that most data has been "toyed" with shows that the ETS scam has been embraced by some scientists
in particular those scientists who advise the IPCC and the UN.

All the rest of the scientific arguments that you pro guys a spewing out is kinda redundant as your arguments are based on the same research which has been toyed with by the above mentioned.

What you should be concerned with is now what mandate has the government got to push this ETS LIE through (as we speak) thats all that matters to me.

History shows us Science often works for the evil and again this seems to be the case.

Spot on mate!

Every number these people have worked on anywhere is now back up for real scrutiny. Something they would never allow before.

Doesn't necessarily disprove AGW but shatters "the science is settled" bullshit.

[kwaka_crasher]

The global climate models did a good job of reproducing their effect on global temperature.

It's been shown that the models can't even replicate actual recorded changes in climate based on real observations and recordings as a start point, nor can they work back to prior conditions. There is so much that is not accounted for at all or is filled with proxy data it's laughable anyone thinks they're accurate.

[jonbuoy]

You'd be surprised, how many people from countries that are not as left-leaning as New Zealand actually think Climate Change is complete bullshit.

Meanwhile back in the real world... Which ones exactly? Its an accepted fact Europe-wide.

[MisterD]

Meanwhile back in the real world... Which ones exactly? Its an accepted fact Europe-wide.

Who told you that? Don't believe anything you hear from an offical EU mouthpiece - they're part of most problems and not part of any solution to anything...

[jonbuoy]

Who told you that? Don't believe anything you hear from an offical EU mouthpiece - they're part of most problems and not part of any solution to anything...

Who told me what? I've been aware of the global warming debate since the early days when the scientist discovering it were in the minority. Its a little like the hole in the ozone layer - initially many people couldn't understand how their deodorant or McDonald's burger container possibly cause so much damage. Or is this a conspiracy to sell more sunscreen perpetuated by the government too??

[Skyryder]

unbelievable, okay so the email leaks didnt happen? and the scientists involved didnt own up to it? and the whole exposure of this scam didnt happen.

Sorry guys, this is real this has happened and this is fact, get over it

fucks sake you guys are sucked in big time.

Read the New york times, try and bash your way out of your shell and smell reality for once in your life.
:msn-wink:

Skeptics take the win !!


Ok I'll play ya silly game. The industrial revolution never happened, the development of steam, fossil fuel, and carbon technology never happened.

Aircraft filling the skies from the time of the Wright brothers with polutants etc never happened. Hydrocarbons destroying the ozone hole never happened. Not too sure what planet you live on but it is not the same as mine.

Man has been polluting the planet with carbon ever since the the 1700's. And the sceptics deny that this has not had an effect on global warming because now someone finds some emails that have been interpreted as a conspiracy by the majority of the worlds leading scientists on climate change.

This is as silly as those that deny evolution on the basis that the bible says the world was made in seven days.

Skyyrder

[Winston001]

Climate change science is a predominantly Anglo-saxon domain.
From experience most scientific communities in non-english speaking countries generally don't believe in AGW or couldn't give a rodent's rectum about the whole thing. The populations also generally don't believe it.

Anyone have any idea why?


I don't have any links but have often read news items over the past year about how seriously China takes pollution and climate change. As a nation they have huge problems and can't change their industrial economy quickly but they certainly aren't ignoring these issues.

Beyond that, third world economies can't afford to grasp the anti-pollution nettle - it would kill their improving standards of living. Furthermore they quite reasonably say that the West has an affluent lifestyle because of 150 years of resource use - and dumping of the rubbish. Now its everyone elses turn to improve while we (the West) bear the burden of the cleanup.

[McJim]

I don't have any links but have often read news items over the past year about how seriously China takes pollution and climate change. As a nation they have huge problems and can't change their industrial economy quickly but they certainly aren't ignoring these issues.

Beyond that, third world economies can't afford to grasp the anti-pollution nettle - it would kill their improving standards of living. Furthermore they quite reasonably say that the West has an affluent lifestyle because of 150 years of resource use - and dumping of the rubbish. Now its everyone elses turn to improve while we (the West) bear the burden of the cleanup.

I disagree. I think not in geographic terms but in age terms. It's the baby boomers and older that have left us in this pickle with low salaries and high housing prices having retired on the fat of falsely inflated property prices.

We are the ones inheriting the broken economy and the (possibly) decaying atmosphere and ecosystem. We have to deal with it because we are here.

[Skyryder]

I disagree. I think not in geographic terms but in age terms. It's the baby boomers and older that have left us in this pickle with low salaries and high housing prices having retired on the fat of falsely inflated property prices.

We are the ones inheriting the broken economy and the (possibly) decaying atmosphere and ecosystem. We have to deal with it because we are here.

This post is a watermark in my life. It's the first time that I have encounterd a comment that my generation (baby boomers) are the cause of all the ills today.


I'm not entirely in disagreement with you on this it's just a sobering thought that my generation will be leaving the planet in a worse condition than the one they inherited.


Skyryder

[Hans]

I don't have any links but have often read news items over the past year about how seriously China takes pollution and climate change. As a nation they have huge problems and can't change their industrial economy quickly but they certainly aren't ignoring these issues.

Beyond that, third world economies can't afford to grasp the anti-pollution nettle - it would kill their improving standards of living. Furthermore they quite reasonably say that the West has an affluent lifestyle because of 150 years of resource use - and dumping of the rubbish. Now its everyone elses turn to improve while we (the West) bear the burden of the cleanup.

I wasn't really talking about the third world (although that's kind of the reaction I expected, when I wrote "non-English speaking". I meant most of the European Union, for example. Bear in mind I am actually talking about personal experience, not hard data. My whole extended family is involved in scientific research or is university educated in "hard science" fields, and as far as I'm aware, no-one we know takes AGW seriously.

As for China... I have read the same things in New Zealand an UK media, but I have about as much faith in those as I have in the Chinese Communist Party.

[Quasievil]

Ok I'll play ya silly game. The industrial revolution never happened, the development of steam, fossil fuel, and carbon technology never happened.

Aircraft filling the skies from the time of the Wright brothers with polutants etc never happened. Hydrocarbons destroying the ozone hole never happened. Not too sure what planet you live on but it is not the same as mine.

Man has been polluting the planet with carbon ever since the the 1700's. And the sceptics deny that this has not had an effect on global warming because now someone finds some emails that have been interpreted as a conspiracy by the majority of the worlds leading scientists on climate change.

This is as silly as those that deny evolution on the basis that the bible says the world was made in seven days.

Skyyrder

Oh, so you havent done any research then, okay no probs.
There are lots of books you can read.
Co2 doesnt equate to increases in global temperatures rising, thats a fact, and that my friend is all the ETS is about.

[Skyryder]

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/


Sorta puts paid to the conspiracy theory. How many days for that too have happened? One....... two........ three................I dunno not many though.



Skyryder

[sinfull]

It's just a big conspirisy so Algee could make billions trading in something that dosent exist !

[SPman]

I wasn't really talking about the third world (although that's kind of the reaction I expected, when I wrote "non-English speaking". I meant most of the European Union, for example. Bear in mind I am actually talking about personal experience, not hard data. My whole extended family is involved in scientific research or is university educated in "hard science" fields, and as far as I'm aware, no-one we know takes AGW seriously.

As for China... I have read the same things in New Zealand an UK media, but I have about as much faith in those as I have in the Chinese Communist Party.
Talking to people in Beijing a couple of months ago, a lot of them are very aware of the importance of cutting back pollution and going to sustainable energy. China are the world leaders on solar water heating and are really getting into PV and wind power as well. Makes NZ and Australia's puny efforts look pitiful! Pity there are so many of them........

[Hans]

Talking to people in Beijing a couple of months ago, a lot of them are very aware of the importance of cutting back pollution and going to sustainable energy. China are the world leaders on solar water heating and are really getting into PV and wind power as well. Makes NZ and Australias puny efforts look pitiful!

They are also "getting into" coal fired power plants at the rate of about 2/week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm

From the same article:

"We should export clean energy technology to China to increase low carbon and renewable energy take-up so the products we import have a smaller carbon footprint."

Does that sentence tell you anything?

I am also of a mind to ask people to start posting their sources, because this has degenerated into a shitfight, and I would have originally preferred a reasonable debate.

[Quasievil]

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/


Sorta puts paid to the conspiracy theory. How many days for that too have happened? One....... two........ three................I dunno not many though.


Skyryder

A blog? Oh yeah that did it, you win get ready to open your wallet:2thumbsup congrats sucker:2thumbsup

[Skyryder]

A blog? Oh yeah that did it, you win get ready to open your wallet:2thumbsup congrats sucker:2thumbsup

It's not the blog but what's in it. That you have ignored. Still can't blame you for that. It fills in the missing gaps

As for opening up my wallet that's due to Key but then I need not inform you of my opinion of him.

I see from the poll of ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE CHANGE OF POWER you voted yes. No point in telling you where my vote went. So who is the sucker here??

Skyryder

[Mikkel]

Blimey, I'm not allowed an opinion after actually meeting the chap more than once, am I? I enjoy his writing tremendously. I think you'd be a bit shocked at how little regard he has for his audience.

Easy now Jim, he's not proclaiming Bryson christ-reborn - he just said he liked the book. ...as did I, and so do you. No one is denying you your right to your opinion.


My personal take on this is, that the propaganda in these countries hasn't been so heavy, but I'd genuinely like to hear your opinions on this. Assuming your are willing to believe the assertion I make. I think the assertion is just as valid as when I say that the majority of kiwis believe in AGW, even though they might not be clear on why they believe it.

Indeed, I'd have to agree - emerging economies, like China, very rarely try to indoctrinate their populations.

And let's get the concept of belief removed from this subject. Despite the contentions of a few stubborn people this is actually not a matter of religious belief - and neither is evolution for that matter.


Who told me what? I've been aware of the global warming debate since the early days when the scientist discovering it were in the minority. Its a little like the hole in the ozone layer - initially many people couldn't understand how their deodorant or McDonald's burger container possibly cause so much damage. Or is this a conspiracy to sell more sunscreen perpetuated by the government too??

The impact of CFC gasses upon the Ozone layer has never been quantified. There are natural effects that could go a long way to explain the depletion of the ozone layer. Try and look up "magnetic pole reversal".

That is of course not to say that CFC gasses are harmless and won't harm the ozone layer. Just make sure to investigate all possible causes.

[Skyryder]

The impact of CFC gasses upon the Ozone layer has never been quantified. There are natural effects that could go a long way to explain the depletion of the ozone layer. Try and look up "magnetic pole reversal".


Years back I came across the magnetic pole reversal. At that time it was suggested that the reveresal may have contributed to the evolution or extinction of animals due to the Van Allan belts losing their sheilding of the solar wind. As I remember the earths magnetic field dissipates when the North and South magnetic poles are in the equatorial region. It was thought that the solar wind (radiation) may have caused mutations in the gentic code that led to variations of species. There were some experiments done on house flies with radiation but all the mutations produce an inferior inscect and the conclusion that solar radiation while mutating the genetic code did so in a manner that produced an inferior offspring to the parent.

How quickly do the poles 'flip'?
We have no complete record of the history of any reversal, so any claims we can make are mostly on the basis of mathematical models of the field behaviour and partly on limited evidence from rocks that retain an imprint of the ancient magnetic field present when they were formed. For example, the mathematical simulations seem to suggest that a full reversal may take about one to several thousand years to complete. This is fast by geological standards but slow on a human time scale.



Skyryder

[Quasievil]

It's not the blog but what's in it. That you have ignored. Still can't blame you for that. It fills in the missing gaps

As for opening up my wallet that's due to Key but then I need not inform you of my opinion of him.

I see from the poll of ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE CHANGE OF POWER you voted yes. No point in telling you where my vote went. So who is the sucker here??

Skyryder

Not entirely its due to national (I expected better) labour, the greens, maori, ACT well all of the money hungry fuckers...........who is the sucker, me for sure as wellas the rest of my fellow New Zealanders......truly.

but it dont matter, the ETS has passed its second reading and will be law in no time, so we can expect there soon will be lower Carbon emissions in NZ soon and the temperatures of the planet and we will be saved......and if you and the other Pro plonkers believe that then you are naive and delusional.

but note this comment and dairy it for a year from now and tell me the advantage we have paid our money for, and again in two years....three and ten, I guarantee you the change will be ZERO, why of all the C02 emmisions only 1.9% of them come from man.

What you have embraced is the biggest scam of the modern world, congrats on that, and there is no I repeat no consensus on the science nor has their ever been so warm up your check books as you write away your hard earned cash to save the planet, cause we all know well that cash will change the climate.............or is the reality that the cash will be skimmed off by government sticky fingers and redistributed to other international agencies like the UN (we all know they are a winner of effectiveness)

so Diary note this and tell us of the changes in the atmosphere I think with you being so directly plugged into the stratosphere you will possibly be the first to know.:whistle:

[jonbuoy]

The one thing I find really interesting:

Climate change science is a predominantly Anglo-saxon domain.
From experience most scientific communities in non-english speaking countries generally don't believe in AGW or couldn't give a rodent's rectum about the whole thing. The populations also generally don't believe it.

Anyone have any idea why?

My personal take on this is, that the propaganda in these countries hasn't been so heavy, but I'd genuinely like to hear your opinions on this. Assuming your are willing to believe the assertion I make. I think the assertion is just as valid as when I say that the majority of kiwis believe in AGW, even though they might not be clear on why they believe it.


Really?? Which countries exactly? My kids get taught it in school in Spain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/11/travelnews.spain

http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Environment-France-and-the-fight.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2207416,00.html

[Hans]

Really?? Which countries exactly? My kids get taught it in school in Spain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/11/travelnews.spain

http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Environment-France-and-the-fight.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2207416,00.html

I'm sorry, but what your kids get taught at school is of no consequence at all. I was, for example, taught about communism being the only way forward and the leading role of the Comintern in advancing mankind etc. etc. ANYONE WHO DOESN'T EQUIP THEIR CHILDREN WITH CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS TO INTERPRET ANY INFORMATION THEY GET AT SCHOOL IS A PISS-POOR PARENT. The world is full of people who will believe anything 'authorities' tell them. This can often lead to problems. Ask the Russians or the Germans, they'll tell you how far blind belief gets you.

[mashman]

cause we all know well that cash will change the climate.............or is the reality that the cash will be skimmed off by government sticky fingers and redistributed to other international agencies like the UN (we all know they are a winner of effectiveness)

Agreed!!!

Well we are a Global Economy, not a local economy, not a national economy, not a continental economy, not an international economy, but a GLOBAL ECONOMY... someones needs more money for something and we're about to foot the bill...

[mashman]

ANYONE WHO DOESN'T EQUIP THEIR CHILDREN WITH CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS TO INTERPRET ANY INFORMATION THEY GET AT SCHOOL IS A PISS-POOR PARENT.

hey, but that's ok, why would you strive for more knowledge when it can be given to you in the form of a Grade C!!! no failure! no need to work for it or understand it as it's worthless in the real world???

[MisterD]

Who told me what? I've been aware of the global warming debate since the early days when the scientist discovering it were in the minority. Its a little like the hole in the ozone layer - initially many people couldn't understand how their deodorant or McDonald's burger container possibly cause so much damage. Or is this a conspiracy to sell more sunscreen perpetuated by the government too??

That AGW is "an accepted fact Europe-wide"...just because TPTB in Brussels accept it and are happy to use it as another excuse to diminish the democratic rights of the citizens of European countries, does not mean that your statement is true...oh, and quoting lefty-leaning examples of the dead tree press doesn't make it so either.

[jonbuoy]

I'm sorry, but what your kids get taught at school is of no consequence at all. I was, for example, taught about communism being the only way forward and the leading role of the Comintern in advancing mankind etc. etc. ANYONE WHO DOESN'T EQUIP THEIR CHILDREN WITH CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS TO INTERPRET ANY INFORMATION THEY GET AT SCHOOL IS A PISS-POOR PARENT. The world is full of people who will believe anything 'authorities' tell them. This can often lead to problems. Ask the Russians or the Germans, they'll tell you how far blind belief gets you.

You said it was only English speaking nations being suckered into the global warming issue? My point was it clearly isn´t limited to english speaking nations. Never mind point lost. So your comparing communism & Nazism to recycling and environmental awareness being taught at school?
I hope you are all right and it turns out to be a natural cycle, sadly I don´t think its going to be the case.

[Hans]

You said it was only English speaking nations being suckered into the global warming issue? My point was it clearly isn´t limited to english speaking nations. Never mind point lost. So your comparing communism & Nazism to recycling and environmental awareness being taught at school?
I hope you are all right and it turns out to be a natural cycle, sadly I don´t think its going to be the case.

Sorry, I haven't been back to Europe for at least five years, so I actually have a very limited idea of what's been going on since I left.
I'm not comparing recycling and environmental awareness to nazism ad communism. I am, however comparing the methods of the AGW lobby to nazism and communism. The fiddling of data, the fearmongering, the suppression of dissent, the indoctrination in schools - it's all there.

On a slightly different note. You know why I think this whole scam is coming to an end? The people are no longer believing this BS as much as they used to. Not because of their education in science and discerning critical minds.
The reason is much more prosaic. They should have waited another 10 years, before they called it "Global Warming". The weather has been shit, I actually think people are noticing the weather isn't doing what the puppet masters said it would over a number of years.

[Badjelly]

Bill Bryson is a small-minded cock...


Maybe, but in my opinion A Short Of History of Nearly Everything is a great book...


Blimey, I'm not allowed an opinion after actually meeting the chap more than once, am I?...

Of course you're allowed an opinion even though it's usually wrong. But maybe this is an exception. I'm quite prepared to concede Bill Bryson is a small-minded cock, I just liked that book.

[Badjelly]

It's been shown that the models can't even replicate actual recorded changes in climate based on real observations and recordings as a start point, nor can they work back to prior conditions...

Please elaborate.

Until recently, the global climate models haven't been run with an actual snapshot of atmosphere and ocean conditions as a starting point. A few attempts have been made at this recently (though it's difficult, as in numerical weather forecasting, to avoid "initialisation shock") but it's too early to say how well their predictions have turned out.

[Skyryder]

Not entirely its due to national (I expected better) labour, the greens, maori, ACT well all of the money hungry fuckers...........who is the sucker, me for sure as wellas the rest of my fellow New Zealanders......truly.

but it dont matter, the ETS has passed its second reading and will be law in no time, so we can expect there soon will be lower Carbon emissions in NZ soon and the temperatures of the planet and we will be saved......and if you and the other Pro plonkers believe that then you are naive and delusional.

but note this comment and dairy it for a year from now and tell me the advantage we have paid our money for, and again in two years....three and ten, I guarantee you the change will be ZERO, why of all the C02 emmisions only 1.9% of them come from man.

What you have embraced is the biggest scam of the modern world, congrats on that, and there is no I repeat no consensus on the science nor has their ever been so warm up your check books as you write away your hard earned cash to save the planet, cause we all know well that cash will change the climate.............or is the reality that the cash will be skimmed off by government sticky fingers and redistributed to other international agencies like the UN (we all know they are a winner of effectiveness)

so Diary note this and tell us of the changes in the atmosphere I think with you being so directly plugged into the stratosphere you will possibly be the first to know.:whistle:


I think you are getting the ETS/Carbon trading etc. mixed up with AGW. While one 'is' linked to the other, politically, it does not necessarily equate that the belief in AGW requires the acceptance of Carbon trading.

I don't want to get into Key's ETS scheme as that is another issue but it's suffice to say that Key has never sucked me into believing in him. There is nothing silent about this man contrary to what many say. I heard his footsteps way way back. Some on here are beginning to hear him too.


Skyryder

[Quasievil]

I think you are getting the ETS/Carbon trading etc. mixed up with AGW. While one 'is' linked to the other, politically, it does not necessarily equate that the belief in AGW requires the acceptance of Carbon trading.

I don't want to get into Key's ETS scheme as that is another issue but it's suffice to say that Key has never sucked me into believing in him. There is nothing silent about this man contrary to what many say. I heard his footsteps way way back. Some on here are beginning to hear him too.


Skyryder


the ETS was built on the back of the AGW, AGW bullshit was manipulated to enable ETS.
ETS = tax
AGW = Scientific fraud

together they = us getting screwed

[vtec]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx3q2arm_ek&feature=popular

A breakdown/explanation of some of the information.

[mashman]

More fuel for the fire?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8376009.stm

[Winston001]

....but it dont matter, the ETS has passed its second reading and will be law in no time, so we can expect there soon will be lower Carbon emissions in NZ soon and the temperatures of the planet and we will be saved......and if you and the other Pro plonkers believe that then you are naive and delusional.



So you don't accept that global pollution is a problem Quasi?? That's what the ETS etc is all about - an attempt to restrict the poisons we release into the environment.

In NZ we aren't really aware of the extent of global pollution. Have a google about Plumes, and the plastics accumulated in a vast section of the Pacific Ocean. Check out ocean acidification which is a direct chemical result of CO2 being absorbed by seawater.

Climate change is old news - all we can do is adjust, but we can at least stop poisoning the place.

[mashman]

all we can do is adjust, but we can at least stop poisoning the place.

Or ban money from the planet and evolve (like we have over millions of years)

[Skyryder]

Galileo could prove the earth 'revolved' around the sun but there were some who when faced with the truth still denied it. They simply did not understand what they saw.


History will place those that deny AGW in the same catorgory.


Skyryder

[Hans]

Galileo could prove the earth 'revolved' around the sun but there were some who when faced with the truth still denied it. They simply did not understand what they saw.


History will place those that deny AGW in the same catorgory.


Skyryder

Should I print this off and remind you in ten years' time?

[george formby]

Please elaborate.

Until recently, the global climate models haven't been run with an actual snapshot of atmosphere and ocean conditions as a starting point. A few attempts have been made at this recently (though it's difficult, as in numerical weather forecasting, to avoid "initialisation shock") but it's too early to say how well their predictions have turned out.

Science is still struggling to model weather patterns a few weeks ahead & on a scale less than 100km square on the day, climate change is a bit more complicated.
The Chinese gummint made it snow recently & shut a major city down.
The Kalahari desert has just been opened up to uranium prospectors, including the national parks. Massive open cast mines, huge processing factorys, rail lines to the ocean etc. All powered by a series of really big coal fired power stations:blink: Uranium for all the nice, environmentally aware people in Europe & America so they can have cheap, clean power for plug in cars. Hmmmm, methinks we are on a hiding to nothing.
First smell of summer today, on the bike, melting tar!

[Jantar]

So you don't accept that global pollution is a problem Quasi?? That's what the ETS etc is all about - an attempt to restrict the poisons we release into the environment.

In NZ we aren't really aware of the extent of global pollution. Have a google about Plumes, and the plastics accumulated in a vast section of the Pacific Ocean. Check out ocean acidification which is a direct chemical result of CO2 being absorbed by seawater.

Climate change is old news - all we can do is adjust, but we can at least stop poisoning the place.
The ETS has nothing at all to do with pollution. It is a tax on CO2 (or CO2 equivilent) only. There is no tax on any heavy metals, or chlorides or florides or nitrates etc. CO2 is a fertiliser, not a pollutant, so its a tax on growth. The ETS does not tax any pollutants at all.

If there was a pollution tax to help prevent some of the nastys (not you Nasty) from getting into the environment I would be a supporter. This is not it.

[Skyryder]

Should I print this off and remind you in ten years' time?


If ya want. But ten years is the past history is much longer..........like a generation.


Skyryder

[Winston001]

The ETS has nothing at all to do with pollution. It is a tax on CO2 (or CO2 equivilent) only. There is no tax on any heavy metals, or chlorides or florides or nitrates etc. CO2 is a fertiliser, not a pollutant, so its a tax on growth. The ETS does not tax any pollutants at all.


Not quite. Here are the gases covered by New Zealand's ETS:

* carbon dioxide (CO2 )
* methane (CH4 )
* nitrous oxide (N2O)
* hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
* perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
* sulphur hexafluoride (SF6 )

The purpose of taxing the output of these gases is to encourage alternative industrial processes which are less harmful to the environment.

In an ideal world we would also tax heavy metals and complex hydrocarbons to force the same substitution efforts. However our ability to measure this stuff is limited so the greenhouse gas approach is a simple catch-all to deal with pollution.

[Ixion]

Sulphur hexafluoride ?

That be NASTY shit? We got that ?

[Winston001]

Sulphur hexafluoride ?

That be NASTY shit? We got that ?

Hmmm now you mention it, that's a bit of a surprise. Can't imagine where it fits in - ACC staff toothpaste.....??

[SPman]

On a slightly different note. You know why I think this whole scam is coming to an end? The people are no longer believing this BS as much as they used to. Not because of their education in science and discerning critical minds.
The reason is much more prosaic. They should have waited another 10 years, before they called it "Global Warming". The weather has been shit, I actually think people are noticing the weather isn't doing what the puppet masters said it would over a number of years.
So if you don't believe something - it'll just "go away" As far as Australia is concerned, the weather is doing exactly what the "puppet masters" said it would do.
The ETS as being enacted IS a scam - no 2 ways about it! Climate change and excess pollution effects on the environment - it's happening, whether you believe it, or not. Burying heads in the sand and saying "bullshit, bullshit, bullshit", won't make it magically disappear. Natural and or helped by human pollution - who cares - I don't. If people use it as an excuse to clean up our act, then good - but - I don't see it happening. All its doing is making big time capitalists figure out more ways of making more money and screwing over the population to do it.
If the sea levels rise 2 m and the temp jumps 6C, then fucking good - it might clean most of the human pops. off the face of the planet!

[XRVrider]

Ask my 100 yr old gran. She says its all crap, cos in the 50's there were several hot years in a row, drought, skinny cows etc... they thought the sky would fall next...

[Quasievil]

Not quite. Here are the gases covered by New Zealand's ETS:

* carbon dioxide (CO2 )
* methane (CH4 )
* nitrous oxide (N2O)
* hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
* perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
* sulphur hexafluoride (SF6 )

The purpose of taxing the output of these gases is to encourage alternative industrial processes which are less harmful to the environment.

In an ideal world we would also tax heavy metals and complex hydrocarbons to force the same substitution efforts. However our ability to measure this stuff is limited so the greenhouse gas approach is a simple catch-all to deal with pollution.

BULLSHIT, its about money period.

[Quasievil]

Anyway the battle is over, the ETS has been passed, congrats to all of the fucking lefty green freaks who have ensured NZ will be dredged further into recession with the looming taxes we all will now have to pay.

You can rejoice now knowing the the planet environmental problems have been solved and NZ has saved us from certain extinction, island nations wont drown after all.................thanks to NZ, meantime the rest of the world will again get the chance to laugh at us for jumping into this B.S while they retreat from it.

Congrats you won


Now go and get your cheque books out and ready for your punishments


fucking, PC ,lefty, greeny, bludgin, elite Minority class, A holes rule and because of it this country I can truly honestly say is now fucked.

[Hans]

Anyway the battle is over, the ETS has been passed, congrats to all of the fucking lefty green freaks who have ensured NZ will be dredged further into recession with the looming taxes we all will now have to pay.

You can rejoice now knowing the the planet environmental problems have been solved and NZ has saved us from certain extinction, island nations wont drown after all.................thanks to NZ, meantime the rest of the world will again get the chance to laugh at us for jumping into this B.S while they retreat from it.

Congrats you won


Now go and get your cheque books out and ready for your punishments


fucking, PC ,lefty, greeny, bludgin, elite Minority class, A holes rule and because of it this country I can truly honestly say is now fucked.

I don't think I could have said this any better.

[Indiana_Jones]

Anyway the battle is over, the ETS has been passed, congrats to all of the fucking lefty green freaks who have ensured NZ will be dredged further into recession with the looming taxes we all will now have to pay.

You can rejoice now knowing the the planet environmental problems have been solved and NZ has saved us from certain extinction, island nations wont drown after all.................thanks to NZ, meantime the rest of the world will again get the chance to laugh at us for jumping into this B.S while they retreat from it.

Congrats you won


Now go and get your cheque books out and ready for your punishments


fucking, PC ,lefty, greeny, bludgin, elite Minority class, A holes rule and because of it this country I can truly honestly say is now fucked.


I don't think I could have said this any better.

Agreed.

Notice how it's always the fucking celebrities that share those views. Guess it's a good PR stunt and since they can afford it....

-Indy

[XRVrider]

Anyway the battle is over, the ETS has been passed, congrats to all of the fucking lefty green freaks who have ensured NZ will be dredged further into recession with the looming taxes we all will now have to pay.

You can rejoice now knowing the the planet environmental problems have been solved and NZ has saved us from certain extinction, island nations wont drown after all.................thanks to NZ, meantime the rest of the world will again get the chance to laugh at us for jumping into this B.S while they retreat from it.

Congrats you won


Now go and get your cheque books out and ready for your punishments


fucking, PC ,lefty, greeny, bludgin, elite Minority class, A holes rule and because of it this country I can truly honestly say is now fucked.

Im in on this too.
+3

[Mikkel]

Sulphur hexafluoride ?

That be NASTY shit? We got that ?

We've got it in our lab. No biggie.... in NZ.

[Jantar]

Sulphur hexafluoride ?

That be NASTY shit? We got that ?
I hadn't picked up on that one, so there is one floride included.
The strange part is that SF6 isn't manufactured or emitted here in New Zealand. It is used in high voltage circuit breakers, but the SF6 gas itself is inert and harmless. The powder residue that is formed when it is exposed to extreme electrical arcing is a different matter. That powder is Florine which when it gets wet forms hydrofloric acid, and that IS nasty.

[Mikkel]

I hadn't picked up on that one, so there is one floride included.
The strange part is that SF6 isn't manufactured or emitted here in New Zealand. It is used in high voltage circuit breakers, but the SF6 gas itself is inert and harmless. The powder residue that is formed when it is exposed to extreme electrical arcing is a different matter. That powder is Florine which when it gets wet forms hydrofloric acid, and that IS nasty.

We got HF in the lab as well... and indeed, that is the nastiest shit one could imagine working with.

[Hans]

We got HF in the lab as well... and indeed, that is the nastiest shit one could imagine working with.

Yup. Like a fucking horror movie. Fancy losing any body part it touches?

[peasea]

BULLSHIT, its about money period.

Is that when you pay her to bleed?

[peasea]

Yup. Like a fucking horror movie. Fancy losing any body part it touches?

Best you don't play with yourself after touching the stuff, eh?

[peasea]

I hadn't picked up on that one.

No surprises there.

[Hans]

Sulphur hexafluoride ?

That be NASTY shit? We got that ?

Useful if you make nuclear weapons though :-)

[Mikkel]

Yup. Like a fucking horror movie. Fancy losing any body part it touches?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroflouric_acid#Safety :)

[Hans]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroflouric_acid#Safety :)

Not 100% accurate. It's not that it absorbs, it's the fact that the products of the chemical reaction with tissues are seriously toxic.

My my, are we OT or what?

[Forest]

Useful if you make nuclear weapons though :-)

You're thinking of Uranium Hexafluoride.

It isn't the same thing.

[Hans]

You're thinking of Uranium Hexafluoride.

It isn't the same thing.
Nope, I'm actually thinking of the switching gear for the firing circuits. But I can see how the post you're quoting makes me look like a muppet. I wrote it late at night...

[Badjelly]

Science is still struggling to model weather patterns a few weeks ahead & on a scale less than 100km square on the day, climate change is a bit more complicated.

Different problem. One is concerned with the details, the other is concerned with averages and statistical measures of variability.

[Badjelly]

Sulphur hexafluoride ?

That be NASTY shit? We got that ?

It's completely inert and non-toxic. I believe it is a greenhouse gas though.

In a former life I used to pump 25 kg of the stuff into the atmosphere at a time (but it tends to freeze in the measuring equipment). Different times, eh?

[avgas]

Sulphur hexafluoride ?

That be NASTY shit? We got that ?
Its the good stuff that stops substations blowing up when they open breakers. I will place a bet that the power co.'s wont admit to using it though - fucked if they want to pay an extra tax for keeping the country safe from substation fires.

[avgas]

Not quite. Here are the gases covered by New Zealand's ETS:

* carbon dioxide (CO2 )
* methane (CH4 )
* nitrous oxide (N2O)
* hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
* perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
* sulphur hexafluoride (SF6 )

The purpose of taxing the output of these gases is to encourage alternative industrial processes which are less harmful to the environment.

In an ideal world we would also tax heavy metals and complex hydrocarbons to force the same substitution efforts. However our ability to measure this stuff is limited so the greenhouse gas approach is a simple catch-all to deal with pollution.
Where is Carbon Monoxide - considering that stuff kills life you have to wonder.
NOX? WTF how is more air (Oxy) bad - or are you referring to its true for AIR (2 parts Nitrogen, 1 part Oxy).
Where are the particulates which clog Shanghai, London even Christchurch skies? This is not an ETS - this is bullshit.
Now I realise how deep the ETS hole goes I'm going to rip the shit out of it.

[Swoop]

Anyway the battle is over, the ETS has been passed, congrats to all of the fucking lefty green freaks who have ensured NZ will be dredged further into recession with the looming taxes we all will now have to pay.

You can rejoice now knowing the the planet environmental problems have been solved and NZ has saved us from certain extinction, island nations wont drown after all.................thanks to NZ, meantime the rest of the world will again get the chance to laugh at us for jumping into this B.S while they retreat from it.

Congrats you won


Now go and get your cheque books out and ready for your punishments


fucking, PC ,lefty, greeny, bludgin, elite Minority class, A holes rule and because of it this country I can truly honestly say is now fucked.

Quite true. You left out "sandal-wearing tofu-munchers" though!

[Winston001]

We got HF in the lab as well... and indeed, that is the nastiest shit one could imagine working with.

Yeah. There is usually a scientist dies from it every year somewhere. Once it touches you, no remedy.

[Quasievil]

Yeah. There is usually a scientist dies from it every year somewhere. Once it touches you, no remedy.

Thank god for the ETS as surely it wont be around anymore:oi-grr:

[Skyryder]

Quite true. You left out "sandal-wearing tofu-munchers" though!


And here's me thinking it's the Nat's and Maori Party.


Skyryder

[Quasievil]

oooooo newsflash, DONT EAT MEAT !!!

Just on the news there is a push for British consumers to become vegetarian to help reduce Global warming

So common people lets do it here to , and legislate it quickly !!
:whistle:

[SPman]

Anyway the battle is over, the ETS has been passed, congrats to all of the fucking lefty green freaks who have ensured NZ will be dredged further into recession with the looming taxes we all will now have to pay.
.
The ETS as passed by this government is nothing like that wanted by the fucking lefty green freaks! It's a total sham - a rort engineered by Key and co to totally root NZ for the biggest polluters in the land!. Under this scheme - the more you pollute, the more subsidies you get - from the NZ taxpayer! It'll do absolutely nothing to enduce the big polluters to clean up their act.
Cunts!

[MisterD]

The ETS as passed by this government is nothing like that wanted by the fucking lefty green freaks! It's a total sham - a rort engineered by Key and co to totally root NZ for the biggest polluters in the land!. Under this scheme - the more you pollute, the more subsidies you get - from the NZ taxpayer! It'll do absolutely nothing to enduce the big polluters to clean up their act.
Cunts!

So what do you think would happen if farming got lumbered with the costs that Labour signed us up to a Kyoto? Bearing in mind that they're currently operating on pretty bloody slim margins and they've got to find room in there for the extra that the ETS is going to add to their fuel bills...

Best case, the prices to us consumers go up and we end up paying anyway...worst case, the bedrock of our economy is utterly destroyed due to it being unable to compete internationally. What's that going to cost the NZ taxpayer?

[mashman]

What's that going to cost the NZ taxpayer?

I'm glad someone else thinks that there will be some left!

[James Deuce]

What's that going to cost the NZ taxpayer?
Fuck. Off. Farmers have been pissing nitrates and phosphates into NZ's waterways for decades and they just got handed a get out of jail free card.

Far from tax reduction our frigging tax is about to go up massively.

[Quasievil]

The ETS as passed by this government is nothing like that wanted by the fucking lefty green freaks! It's a total sham - a rort engineered by Key and co to totally root NZ for the biggest polluters in the land!. Under this scheme - the more you pollute, the more subsidies you get - from the NZ taxpayer! It'll do absolutely nothing to enduce the big polluters to clean up their act.
Cunts!

Yeah...........and...........I knew this before they passed it.

[SPman]

From the Greeny bleeding left

Never in the history of New Zealand politics has so much taxpayers’ money been hurled into the chasm with such contempt for the poor citizens who will pay billions out of their own dwindling pockets forever while rich polluters wreck the earth with impunity and bask in the profits.
Never in the history of NZ has the importance of our, and the world’s, environment, been casually dismissed with such astonishing alacrity, corporate selfishness and pure f*cking bullsh*t.
Never has the critical advice of the very experts who should guide such economically crucial environmental matters – Treasury and the Commissioner for the Environent – been suppressed so desperately due to political inconvenience.
Never has the world consensus about the crisis of climate change had its face spat in so ferociously by New Zealand.
Never before has New Zealand laid waste to its rich environmental, tourist and economic reputation with such casual and uninformed recklessness.
Never – EVER - has a minority party betrayed its base like the Maori party has betrayed its voters.
And, of course, never have so many blatant and provable lies been told by one government in pursuit of such a despicably transparent plot that that was supported by so few and understood by even fewer.

[Quasievil]

From the Greeny bleeding left

Where did you get that from ?

[Skyryder]

Fuck. Off. Farmers have been pissing nitrates and phosphates into NZ's waterways for decades and they just got handed a get out of jail free card.

Far from tax reduction our frigging tax is about to go up massively.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3097609/Kiwis-still-have-water-thats-not-fit-to-drink


http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3097651/Manawatu-River-among-worst-in-the-West



What can one say?? And they still go on about how concerned they are about the land. Bollicks


Skyyrder

[SPman]

Where did you get that from ?
The Standard.

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/shame-on-you/

[MisterD]

Never in the history of New Zealand politics has so much taxpayers’ money been hurled into the chasm with such contempt for the poor citizens

At least since Toll did Cullen up like a kipper over KiwiRail....never mind the millions of our money Clark threw at the UN to buy her new job.

[Badjelly]

Breaking news: climate sceptics have been caught lying:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

Who would of thunk it?

[Quasievil]

Breaking news: climate sceptics have been caught lying:

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

Who would of thunk it?


He Said She Said blah blah blah, fact is your taxes are going up ...........alot............ next year.

[Badjelly]

He Said She Said blah blah blah, fact is your taxes are going up ...........alot............ next year.

Isn't this thread about "He said, she said"? (Well "He said, he said" mostly.) Tittle tattle.

Richard Treadgold has plotted, and the NZ Climate Science has published, a report with a line purporting to represent a continuous series of Wellington temperatures and forgotten to mention that the station moved 120-odd metres up the hill from Thorndon to Wellington in the late 1920s. This introduced a cooling jump of about 0.7 degrees, which is about what you'd expect from the elevation change. See the graphs in the Hot Topic post I linked to or the graph at the top of p 6 in the CSC report PDF (http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf). This jump (and some smaller ones between 1910 and 1920) stick out like a dog's balls in the khaki-green coloured difference line.

Incompetence or fraud?

[mashman]

Incompetence or fraud?

Option 3 for me: An Oversight... Apologise, move on, because i forsee (Quasi said it) that taxes will rise for the next 2/3 years at an exponential rate, that can only be described as a growing of the cashless!

[Quasievil]

Isn't this thread about "He said, she said"? (Well "He said, he said" mostly.) Tittle tattle.



Incompetence or fraud?

yeah prolly, Im over it, I need to focus on how to pay the $5000 extra taxes next year

$500 for Acc bike levies
$1500 per person in the whanau (estimated per person ETS costs if accurate who fucking knows but its within their power now aint it)

[nudedaytona]

Saying climate change isn't happening or is not man-made is the same as the ostriches who said that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, or that the world is flat.

I am sick of all these nutters hellbent on promoting the illusion that there is still a "debate" about climate change. Because the deniers know that as long as the public thinks that the scientists aren't sure about it, the public won't be concerned about it and nobody will be arsed doing anything.

[James Deuce]

Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact.

Always has been. There've been much bigger swings in climate over short periods of time in the past and their will be in the future.

The only certainty about the current perceived climate change is that people still suffer from the hubris that people matter. Organisms have changed the climate before and they'll do it again. Once a cycle of change is started your best bet is to adapt, whihc may well involve changing how we live.

But. No one alive today will give up clothing made with artificial fibres, convenient transport (public transport isn't green), or figure out a way of significantly reducing the distance food travels from production to plate, or change the packaging it comes in. Until people actively start living within the space they can walk in a day things won't change.

The other thing that irks me particularly is the attempt to present climate change as a black and white cause and effect scenario. Mt Pinatubo did massive climate damage and interupted the La Nina, El Nino pattern which had a flow on effect of accelerating imbalances in phyto and zooplankton causing algal blooms and damaging the sustainability of over-fished fishing grounds. Not that any country or corporate body manages fish stocks in the first instance.

No one gives a crap though, because that was obviously not a Volcanao that caused the problem because it didn't squirt enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause the problem in the first instance. Because only CO2 is bad, right? You get huge changes in albedo if you squirt, for instance aerosol Sulphiric acid into the sky. Something Mt Pinatubo eruptions are very good at.

[Badjelly]

Incompetence or fraud?


Option 3 for me: An Oversight...

Doubtless the CSC will correct its error now it's been pointed out. :rofl:

I've got an idea, why don't all the people who take these clowns seriously hold their breath until they do?


yeah prolly, Im over it..

Priceless, mate.

And if anything comes up that challenges your armour of denial, you can always say "only 1.9% of CO2 is emitted by man" like a medieval peasant holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. That should keep you safe.

[Badjelly]

Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact.

Always has been. There've been much bigger swings in climate over short periods of time in the past and their will be in the future.

The only certainty about the current perceived climate change is that people still suffer from the hubris that people matter. Organisms have changed the climate before and they'll do it again. Once a cycle of change is started your best bet is to adapt, whihc may well involve changing how we live.

But. No one alive today will give clothing made with artificial fibres, convenient transport (public transport isn't green), or figure out a way of significantly reducing the distance food travels from production to plate, or change the packaging it comes in. Until people actively start living within the space they can walk in a day things won't change.

The other thing that irks me particularly is the attempt to present climate change as a black and white cause and effect scenario. Mt Pinatubo did massive climate damage and interupted the La Nina, El Nino pattern which had a flow on effect of accelerating imbalances in phyto and zooplankton causing algal blooms and damaging the sustainability of over-fished fishing grounds. Not that any country or corporate body manages fish stocks in the first instance.

No one gives a crap though, because that was obviously not a Volcanao that caused the problem because it didn't squirt enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause the problem in the first instance. Because only CO2 is bad, right? You get huge changes in albedo if you squirt, for instance aerosol Sulphiric acid into the sky. Something Mt Pinatubo eruptions are very good at.


James, James, sometimes I despair, I really do. :shifty:

CO2 is not the only thing that matters. No one said it was. Really.

The role of volcanoes in cooling the planet for a few years by emitting SO2 has been known for a few decades. When Pinatubo erupted the climate modellers saw it as a marvellous opportunity to test their models with regard to the size of the effect. The models got it right.

Maybe Pinatubo in the early 1990s did set off the monster El Nino in 1998. I've heard this suggested before.

Why are you so sure people don't matter? We have, in the last 150 years, caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise to levels not seen for the last several million. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't, but why is it hubris to think it might?

[vtec]

Saying climate change isn't happening or is not man-made is the same as the ostriches who said that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, or that the world is flat.

I am sick of all these nutters hellbent on promoting the illusion that there is still a "debate" about climate change. Because the deniers know that as long as the public thinks that the scientists aren't sure about it, the public won't be concerned about it and nobody will be arsed doing anything.

Hmmm, you my dear friend are one of the religious zealots of AGW. Belief and faith belong only in religion. In science fact is much harder to facilitate and I'm afraid that it does actually include a component of debate. In your own argument you bring up the world is flat, people were executed for providing evidence against a flat earth because of similar zealotry.

Just because the media has been pushing AGW, (now changed to climate change) doesn't mean it's true. I'm still waiting for conclusive evidence. I've done a lot of research. There's evidence for and against, a fair portion of both tarnished with an agenda and a statistical goal similar to that which ACC have provided to forge their case against motorcyclists.

[James Deuce]

James, James, sometimes I despair, I really do. :shifty:

CO2 is not the only thing that matters. No one said it was. Really.

The role of volcanoes in cooling the planet for a few years by emitting SO2 has been known for a few decades. When Pinatubo erupted the climate modellers saw it as a marvellous opportunity to test their models with regard to the size of the effect. The models got it right.

Maybe Pinatubo in the early 1990s did set off the monster El Nino in 1998. I've heard this suggested before.

Why are you so sure people don't matter? We have, in the last 150 years, caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise to levels not seen for the last several million. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't, but why is it hubris to think it might?

No need to despair. The only reason you are is because you're not reading the correct level of sarcasm into my post. Read it again.

[Quasievil]

Priceless, mate.

And if anything comes up that challenges your armour of denial, you can always say "only 1.9% of CO2 is emitted by man" like a medieval peasant holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. That should keep you safe.

I've spouted endless facts and figures about the whole subject and frankly speaking its a waste of my time, clearly there are two sides to the debate and both sides are strong in their views which is fair enough.

But

1/ the day you can tell me how it is that increasing the taxes the Mum and Dads pay under this ETS scam is going to save the planet is the day I will convert.........this is my main issue with it.

2/ The Day you can tell me how it is that Taxes like this can become legislated while the science is NOT proven will again have me converted

3/ If in ten or even 20 years time you can tell me that the Climate change (which is natural) has been rectified due to this ETS scam and Taxes is the day I will buy you a new Ducati:shit:

I know full well that you and others treat this like a religion, that's why Im over it and cant be bothered preaching to the hardened nutter's

you simply cannot see whats going on can you.........its not about global warming bro ...................hello !!

[Badjelly]

Forgot to respond this...


But. No one alive today will give up clothing made with artificial fibres, convenient transport (public transport isn't green), or figure out a way of significantly reducing the distance food travels from production to plate, or change the packaging it comes in. Until people actively start living within the space they can walk in a day things won't change.

Could be. I think there's scope for much more change at much less cost than you think, but, hey, what do I know?

[vtec]

James, James, sometimes I despair, I really do. :shifty:

CO2 is not the only thing that matters. No one said it was. Really.

The role of volcanoes in cooling the planet for a few years by emitting SO2 has been known for a few decades. When Pinatubo erupted the climate modellers saw it as a marvellous opportunity to test their models with regard to the size of the effect. The models got it right.

Maybe Pinatubo in the early 1990s did set off the monster El Nino in 1998. I've heard this suggested before.

Why are you so sure people don't matter? We have, in the last 150 years, caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise to levels not seen for the last several million. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't, but why is it hubris to think it might?

There's a lot of evidence showing that CO2 in the atmosphere increases following an increase in the temperature of the earth. The earth also begins to cool before the peaks in CO2 in history. The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is far weaker than most people realise.

Methane is 20x more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

It's only hubris to say conclusive that CO2 is the devil, and that debate will not be entered into.

[Badjelly]

There's a lot of evidence showing that CO2 in the atmosphere increases following an increase in the temperature of the earth. The earth also begins to cool before the peaks in CO2 in history...

I don't want to spin this debate/discussion out forever (and you don't get points on Kiwibiker for having the last word) but ... the observation that CO2 lags temperature in the past (by 800 years, plus or minus):

suggests that temperature affects CO2 but doesn't show that CO2 doesn't affect temperature
doesn't imply that the recent rise in CO2 is natural

[Winston001]

Saying climate change isn't happening or is not man-made is the same as the ostriches who said that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, or that the world is flat.


Ostriches get AIDS?? Dang. Whodda thought. :blink:




The only certainty about the current perceived climate change is that people still suffer from the hubris that people matter. Organisms have changed the climate before and they'll do it again. Once a cycle of change is started your best bet is to adapt, whihc may well involve changing how we live.

But. No one alive today will give up clothing made with artificial fibres, convenient transport (public transport isn't green), or figure out a way of significantly reducing the distance food travels from production to plate, or change the packaging it comes in. Until people actively start living within the space they can walk in a day things won't change.



Yes the climate change debate has derailed the real issue which is stopping pollution. Having said that, from what I read man's contribution to greenhouse gases is about 4%. Doesn't sound much but cumulatively year on year it has an effect.

I also think its getting all too hard. The wealthy nations won't give up their lifestyle when it comes to the nitty gritty. There are some astonishing new technologies being discovered but its a long way from the lab to our house......

[mashman]

And if anything comes up that challenges your armour of denial, you can always say "only 1.9% of CO2 is emitted by man" like a medieval peasant holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. That should keep you safe.

Removed and sent as PM to the Science Bully hiding behind his Science

[Indiana_Jones]

Saying climate change isn't happening or is not man-made is the same as the ostriches who said that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, or that the world is flat.

I am sick of all these nutters hellbent on promoting the illusion that there is still a "debate" about climate change. Because the deniers know that as long as the public thinks that the scientists aren't sure about it, the public won't be concerned about it and nobody will be arsed doing anything.

How dare someone have a different opinion then your own one!

-Indy