Climategate Clear Up

EagleGreen · December 11, 2009

Factcheck.org analyzed climategate and produced the following report; showing it's not really that big of a deal. This thing should pass over like a fart in church; afterwhich, we can all return to "normal".

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

UNTflyer · December 11, 2009

Factcheck.org analyzed climategate and produced the following report; showing it's not really that big of a deal. This thing should pass over like a fart in church; afterwhich, we can all return to "normal".
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

"And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth in getting warmer."

Not really.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

But sure... this one little article from "Fact Check" will probably clear Climategate all up.

yyz28 · December 11, 2009

Factcheck.org analyzed climategate and produced the following report; showing it's not really that big of a deal. This thing should pass over like a fart in church; afterwhich, we can all return to "normal".

...right, that's why the head of the CRU resigned amid the controversy... ...because there was nothing to it.

Many of the statements made in this article by factcheck.org (which itself has been missing the mark a lot lately) is full of scientific mis-information.

EagleGreen · December 11, 2009

"And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth in getting warmer."
Not really.
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
This article is based on a 1 year drop in temps in 2008, a short term trend. 2009 has already overcome that drop and added to the increase. Look at the graph on the page; an increasing trend.
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
This article is a biased conglomeration from the Republicans, which happens from both parties. The scientists are mainly economists that do not believe taking action on global warming is worth the money; not climate scientists (just a few are and we know not all climate scientists believe man is causing global warming). This method of scaring the public by saying "scientists are on our side" is a method used by both parties to sway public opinion but is not a random sample of scientists for sure.
But sure... this one little article from "Fact Check" will probably clear Climategate all up.

Well, the articles you posted had nothing to do with Climategate; only opinions trying to disprove climate warming. You see, any articles, e-mails, opinions (including mine and yours) do not "prove" that global warming is not happening. It's happening. The long-term temperature trend may reverse, like some thought it was in Jan 2008, but for now, it is not. The biggest question in politics and science is why it is happening. I'm not sure why, I think many scientists believe it is because of the added CO2 from man (some do not believe it so), it's hard to tell. The best thing to do is try and understand why its happening, what implications it will have, how we can correct it, if we should try and correct it, etc. These questions are what we should be focusing on; however, the general public mainly wants to debate why it is happening without knowledge of the scientific process (Hey, it's Amercia, they are free to do so). I think the big stink lately is regarding "Cap and Trade", not global warming. Republicans are scaring people into thinking they will be taxed for breathing, and that taxes will sky-rocket because of taxes on companies. Democrats are scaring people into thinking their kids will be fried like an egg if they don't act know. Somewhere in the middle is the best answer for most people but lately the country is really partisan. It's good to see so many countries wanting to address the issue in Copenhagen. Even India and China are trying to curb emmissions. BTW, I think the factcheck.org article was non-biased and fairly complete in its assesment of the stolen e-mails.

yyz28 · December 11, 2009

I respectfully disagree with you, Eagle...

UNTFan23 · December 11, 2009

Well, the articles you posted had nothing to do with Climategate; only opinions trying to disprove climate warming. You see, any articles, e-mails, opinions (including mine and yours) do not "prove" that global warming is not happening. It's happening. The long-term temperature trend may reverse, like some thought it was in Jan 2008, but for now, it is not. The biggest question in politics and science is why it is happening. I'm not sure why, I think many scientists believe it is because of the added CO2 from man (some do not believe it so), it's hard to tell. The best thing to do is try and understand why its happening, what implications it will have, how we can correct it, if we should try and correct it, etc. These questions are what we should be focusing on; however, the general public mainly wants to debate why it is happening without knowledge of the scientific process (Hey, it's Amercia, they are free to do so). I think the big stink lately is regarding "Cap and Trade", not global warming. Republicans are scaring people into thinking they will be taxed for breathing, and that taxes will sky-rocket because of taxes on companies. Democrats are scaring people into thinking their kids will be fried like an egg if they don't act know. Somewhere in the middle is the best answer for most people but lately the country is really partisan. It's good to see so many countries wanting to address the issue in Copenhagen. Even India and China are trying to curb emmissions. BTW, I think the factcheck.org article was non-biased and fairly complete in its assesment of the stolen e-mails.

The uncertainty of the cause of global warming is why there is such a stink about Cap and Trade. If reducing our carbon emissions doesn't fix global warming, we just spent decades of time and countless billions of dollars and will have not moved the needle. Not a good return on investment given what we are trying to accomplish, don't you think?

Edited December 11, 2009 by UNTFan23

hickoryhouse · December 11, 2009

Well, the articles you posted had nothing to do with Climategate; only opinions trying to disprove climate warming. You see, any articles, e-mails, opinions (including mine and yours) do not "prove" that global warming is not happening. It's happening. The long-term temperature trend may reverse, like some thought it was in Jan 2008, but for now, it is not. The biggest question in politics and science is why it is happening. I'm not sure why, I think many scientists believe it is because of the added CO2 from man (some do not believe it so), it's hard to tell. The best thing to do is try and understand why its happening, what implications it will have, how we can correct it, if we should try and correct it, etc. These questions are what we should be focusing on; however, the general public mainly wants to debate why it is happening without knowledge of the scientific process (Hey, it's Amercia, they are free to do so). I think the big stink lately is regarding "Cap and Trade", not global warming. Republicans are scaring people into thinking they will be taxed for breathing, and that taxes will sky-rocket because of taxes on companies. Democrats are scaring people into thinking their kids will be fried like an egg if they don't act know. Somewhere in the middle is the best answer for most people but lately the country is really partisan. It's good to see so many countries wanting to address the issue in Copenhagen. Even India and China are trying to curb emmissions. BTW, I think the factcheck.org article was non-biased and fairly complete in its assesment of the stolen e-mails.

I think you are right about the main point of contention being about Cap and Trade, not so much Global Warming. C&T is a bad idea that is aimed at increasing government revenues, not curbing harmful gas production. The truth is that no one knows why the earth is doing anything in relation to global temperature and that is really the only fact out there in the debate. Global warming is a theory, a hypothesis a guess, not proven fact. It is a politically expedient method of increasing tax revenue and controlling a population through fear for the government however. In my opinion creating massive changes to the tax structure, creating sweeping new regulations on industry and forcing unwanted change on people is the wrong thing to do to this economy and will serve no point but to drive the already dwindling manufacturing sector in our country to other country's shores in order to avoid those regulations and taxes. There are many many places on the planet that will not have these ridiculous regulations and will not tax a company to death to produce their products.

C&T will do nothing but hurt the economy with a tax on energy production etc. that will not be paid by the company, it will get paid by the consumers. Ridiculous ideas at the wrong time, especially when there is no true consensus on Global Warming at this point.

Just a thought, but if we really wanted to stop CO2 emissions then instead of hurting a bad economy, lets create jobs by building the alternative we already have!!!

CMJ · December 11, 2009

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

The big trend is definitely warming since the 1970's. If you wanna doubt NASA that's fine, but they're pretty reputable.

We just don't know why the Earth is warming. I also somewhat doubt our effect on the environment, but there's no doubt in my mind that SOMETHING is happening. If it's just a natural cycle(where I tend to be on the whole debate), it's still rather worrisome if this trend continues.

Cerebus · December 11, 2009

Interesting.

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

EagleGreen · December 11, 2009

I respectfully disagree with you, Eagle...

No worries. Go Mean Green.

UNTflyer · December 11, 2009

Well, the articles you posted had nothing to do with Climategate; only opinions trying to disprove climate warming. You see, any articles, e-mails, opinions (including mine and yours) do not "prove" that global warming is not happening. It's happening. The long-term temperature trend may reverse, like some thought it was in Jan 2008, but for now, it is not. The biggest question in politics and science is why it is happening. I'm not sure why, I think many scientists believe it is because of the added CO2 from man (some do not believe it so), it's hard to tell. The best thing to do is try and understand why its happening, what implications it will have, how we can correct it, if we should try and correct it, etc. These questions are what we should be focusing on; however, the general public mainly wants to debate why it is happening without knowledge of the scientific process (Hey, it's Amercia, they are free to do so). I think the big stink lately is regarding "Cap and Trade", not global warming. Republicans are scaring people into thinking they will be taxed for breathing, and that taxes will sky-rocket because of taxes on companies. Democrats are scaring people into thinking their kids will be fried like an egg if they don't act know. Somewhere in the middle is the best answer for most people but lately the country is really partisan. It's good to see so many countries wanting to address the issue in Copenhagen. Even India and China are trying to curb emmissions. BTW, I think the factcheck.org article was non-biased and fairly complete in its assesment of the stolen e-mails.

First, the articles referred to scientific studies conducted, including one from NASA, that clearly state the earth is actually COOLING - not warming.

Second, the first question to be addressed is not "Why?" but "If". Our observations are not even remotely consistent among the scientific community, but the politicians and some agenda-driven scientists want to toss out the scientific method, skip right over "if" and "why" and go straight to "how" to deal with the "problem" - with most of the recommendations being to handcuff the American economy.

If global warming is happening, and if humans are causing it, then something should be done. But so many have completely skipped over critical preliminary steps because they have an agenda - like Al Gore and his carbon credit business. He makes money off of the global warming scare.

And as I have pointed out before - how do we know a warmer climate is not beneficial? Last time we had a spike in earth's temperatures (if observations are accurate) was the Medieval Optimum, which happened to increase crop production, rebuilding of communities after the Dark Ages, and likely helped contribute to the Renaissance.

But this insistence, this blind acceptance of the global warming theory when it is now clear that scientists intentionally manipulated data to reach a predetermined conclusion is a real problem.

KingDL1 · December 11, 2009

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699
The big trend is definitely warming since the 1970's. If you wanna doubt NASA that's fine, but they're pretty reputable.
We just don't know why the Earth is warming. I also somewhat doubt our effect on the environment, but there's no doubt in my mind that SOMETHING is happening. If it's just a natural cycle(where I tend to be on the whole debate), it's still rather worrisome if this trend continues.

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

This is the new trend in climate alarmism. Previously the measure of global warming has always been air temperatures. But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002. The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then.

EagleGreen · December 11, 2009

Interesting.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Yep. This goes along with what Hickory and UNTFan are saying. Why invest if we don't know. Good question. I personally do not know if global warming is anthropogenic or not. The deal is if we invest in reducing emmissions and our kids see a return (we won't live that long), then we did good. If we invest and our kids don't see a return, we possibly put them in debt more than we already put them with the blasted bail-out money (I'm not a fan of the bail-out money). The hard thing to do is to convince people to spend their money and never expect to see a return because they will be dead before they find out if it is working. America wants quick return.

I want people to know that global warming is occurring. I'm not saying it is human induced (I have not idea if it is or not), I just want people to know that the long-term temperatures are increasing on average. If the long-term trend steadies or declines, I will want the general public to know too. I can't imagine that we will ever know for sure that global warming is caused by humans (it's just to complex to determine with certainty), so I think the investment in and debate on human induced global warming will continue to be an issue as long as I live, unless the temperatures take a long-term dip.

EagleGreen · December 11, 2009

...the first question to be addressed is not "Why?" but "If". Our observations are not even remotely consistent among the scientific community, but the politicians and some agenda-driven scientists want to toss out the scientific method, skip right over "if" and "why" and go straight to "how" to deal with the "problem" - with most of the recommendations being to handcuff the American economy.
I think we have the "if". Global warming is happening. We don't have the "why" and probably won't during our life time. So the "how" is like cancer treatment. We don't know why but we have data that suggests (not proves) why. So some go with it, some don't. The only problem is to see a response from the earth is not as quick as a cancer patient. It may work, it may not work. I know one thing for sure. No one knows for sure if Cap and Trade will work. No one knows if doing nothing is the best thing to do. No one knows for sure if global warming is human-induced.
Acting or not acting on what we don't know for sure is a choice that we all have.
If global warming is happening, and if humans are causing it, then something should be done. But so many have completely skipped over critical preliminary steps because they have an agenda - like Al Gore and his carbon credit business. He makes money off of the global warming scare.
I don't like Al Gore. I do know that we are all trying to make money doing what we do and he seems to be no different. He's a whackaloon that for some reason other whackaloons like. Sure he's a hypocrite; it doesn't have anything to do with me. I don't pay any attention to him. He has little to do with the science behind global warming. He is more of a bad messenger and glory hog.
And as I have pointed out before - how do we know a warmer climate is not beneficial? Last time we had a spike in earth's temperatures (if observations are accurate) was the Medieval Optimum, which happened to increase crop production, rebuilding of communities after the Dark Ages, and likely helped contribute to the Renaissance.
We know that predicted temperatures are not beneficial. Oviparous embryos are extremely sensitive to temperatures outside of optimum, for example. The biological response to predicted temperatures has been studied for a while and the outlook is not good. Economically, I think predicted temperatures could cause some Sh!t too. Also, increasing water levels could really piss in some folks cheerios. But, those are predicted temperatures. No one knows how accurate those are, so we don't know the future, but based on predictions, it's not good. Which is why people want to react without knowing "why".
But this insistence, this blind acceptance of the global warming theory when it is now clear that scientists intentionally manipulated data to reach a predetermined conclusion is a real problem.
It's not a blind acceptance. To date, we see an increasing trend in temperatures. The scientists you mention are from the e-mail I assume. They are one ship among many. As the factcheck.org deal described, the data you refer to is referring to tree ring sampling. THere is not one set of data. There is hundreds (if not thousands) of sets of data. Those few scientists manipulating a set does not really make a difference.

hickoryhouse · December 11, 2009

4 billion year old planet

10 - 15,000 years of human history

30 years of a warming trend and we think we know the answer to why and how to fix it... wow aren't we an arrogant bunch.

TheTastyGreek · December 11, 2009

If you wanna doubt NASA that's fine, but they're pretty reputable.

Capricorn One, man... Capricorn One. :ph34r:

Cerebus · December 11, 2009

Yep. This goes along with what Hickory and UNTFan are saying. Why invest if we don't know. Good question. I personally do not know if global warming is anthropogenic or not. The deal is if we invest in reducing emmissions and our kids see a return (we won't live that long), then we did good. If we invest and our kids don't see a return, we possibly put them in debt more than we already put them with the blasted bail-out money (I'm not a fan of the bail-out money). The hard thing to do is to convince people to spend their money and never expect to see a return because they will be dead before they find out if it is working. America wants quick return.

Except, of course, some of these drastic changes people are calling for would condemn millions of other kids:

Since we are bringing up health. Let's lay aside there are many scientist who doubt the amount of mans impact on climate change. Lets talk about the fact the leading causes of death in the third world are preventable. People drink contaminated food or water, they get an infection that could be treatable with antibiotics, they die of a disease which has a (by western standards) a cheap and readily available inoculation or treatment, they suffer an accident which would be easily survivable with proper medical care.
So why do they have to die? Mainly because of their society's poverty and lack of infrastructure. The MAJORITY of the earths population has a negligible "carbon footprint" and the only way they can improve their lot in life is by drastically increasing thier societies carbon footprint. This is why China, India, the countries of Africa and Central/South America will never agree to significant carbon restrictions, to do so would be to condemn millions, if not billions to early deaths.
People need to understand that for most of the planet, carbon restrictions wouldn't mean they would have to get a smaller SUV, it would mean the inability to drastically improve their life. It means early death. It means their children will be in similar situations.
So if we are never going to be able to reduce carbon emissions (China increases its carbon output every year by more than most of the EU's total), why handicap our industry, and impose incredible taxes on Americans?
And, there are probably good, cheap ways, to counteract to any temperature rises, check out SuperFreakanomics for what I mean.

Censored by Laurie · December 11, 2009

Except, of course, some of these drastic changes people are calling for would condemn millions of other kids:

Dude, you just sourced yourself. How vain are you?

Cerebus · December 11, 2009

Dude, you just sourced yourself. How vain are you?

Vain enough. Didn't you here I once had a beer with Darell Dickey?

UNTFan23 · December 11, 2009

Vain enough. Didn't you here I once had a beer with Darell Dickey?

Is it because you moonlight as the interesting man in the world?

p2SSZA0CjdQ

Edited December 11, 2009 by UNTFan23

EagleGreen · December 11, 2009

Except, of course, some of these drastic changes people are calling for would condemn millions of other kids:

I agree. I think that the international climate agreement will have to account for growing nations, which I think it is trying to do, and allow them some growth room. THen it gets into a cap and trade kinda deal. What a complex situation to tackle.

hickoryhouse · December 11, 2009

I agree. I think that the international climate agreement will have to account for growing nations, which I think it is trying to do, and allow them some growth room. THen it gets into a cap and trade kinda deal. What a complex situation to tackle.

What a great way to excite a country's population to succeed. "You can reach for the stars, go for your dreams, yada yada yada.... But don't get to much success or to big of an economy because then you get punished... (Dum dum dum....)

FirefightnRick · December 12, 2009

When Progessives don't like your questions they call the police.

aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded

Rick

Edited December 12, 2009 by FirefightnRick

UNTflyer · December 12, 2009

I agree. I think that the international climate agreement will have to account for growing nations, which I think it is trying to do, and allow them some growth room. THen it gets into a cap and trade kinda deal.

Well, wouldn't it be nice of the rich nations to "allow" the poor nations to grow?

What a complex situation to tackle.

How are we going to deal with Man Bear Pig? It's a real problem.

HoustonEagle · December 12, 2009

I have been to Europe several times over the last few years for both vacation and business. My wife and I were very close to accepting trading jobs in the Netherlands. I still hold some regret about that decision but I digress. My point is this. To listen to many of you speak you would think that cap and trade must be crushing the European economy. I personally have seen no anecdotal evidence to support this. Life is as vibrant there as it is here. They have suffered from the financial crisis much like we have but the supposed extra weight of the Cap and Trade system did not send unemployment spiraling up-wards. I believe the aggregate EU unemployment rate is slightly lower than ours. (yes I understand it can be difficult to lay off workers in some member nations) On top of this the EU is on target to meet and possibly surpass** the 2012 standards set forth by the Kyoto Protocol with the current existing and planned reductions. To this point the European Union has been a good guinea pig to determine the effects reducing greenhouse gases will have on our economy. Please take a look at this report out of MIT that discusses the European experience and the lessons learned.

MIT Energy Initiative

For me the risk/reward basis tells us that we are better off passing a cap and trade system now than to wait for deliberation to end on the unknowns of Climate Change. To this point our EU example tells us that the economic consequences are close to nil. Let's say that changes and world economies sag as we go forward with greater reductions. Would it not be easier to turn back some restrictions on emissions than it would be to deal with the possible consequences of dragging our feet?

I personally am in the camp that suggests tackling the Climate Change problem will be a growth engine for our economy and not a weight on top of it.

**EEA 2009 Executive Summary

And of course,

Go Mean Green

Edited December 12, 2009 by HoustonEagle